|
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| 1DSoon - 2016-07-27 3:40 PM lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 4:33 PM cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan. We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it. HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease. SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson: n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors. +/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring. SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense? The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review. ETA- spelling
You seem like you're wound to tight
And like I have stated many times above, I am not scienc-y or in this for money or personal gain, I am here to advocate for the horses and share what I know. Literally all you have to do is google PSSM Type 2 and you can read all the outdated data and diets they thought would help. So far a majority of us on the FB page are doing the high protein diet that Dr. Vallberg had an emerging hypothesis on and it's working great for most, including myself! They do know there will never be a treatment for it though. I will go through and pick some of these questions and ask Paul for his responses. Like I have also repeated, GO TALK TO HIM! If you want to talk all scienc-y and proteins and yada yada go message him or post on the page, they love it, that's why he chose it as his career!
And what I was getting at about the inherited diseases and how some will not show symptoms and how they are carriers is that these animals shouldn't be bred. The people testing for this are people who are struggling with their horses or want to know what’s wrong, not people just genetic testing for fun right now at this point in the research. I'm not trying to get people to shell out $99 for fun. No one is saying shell out the money for a what-if.
From what I know/have learned, P2/P2 horses don't live long and have never made riding horses. This is also a semi dominant disorder and they already know that a n/P2 horse bred to a N/N horse still has a 50% chance of carrying it on so trying to eradicate it would be awesome. Again, another reason why the word needs to get out.
I'll get back to you on what Paul says. I am ALWAYS open to learning but I know on the other PSSM thread and from different ones people wanted to know when the test would be made public-this was posted to let them know. The forum on FB has a files section with hores that are positive, scholarly articles, vet reports ect as well. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| Last reply was to the second to last message BTW, somehow quoted the last one | |
| | |
  Champ
Posts: 19623
  
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM
I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.
We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses
OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.
HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.
SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:
n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease
n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.
+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.
SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?
The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.
ETA- spelling
Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.
In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| OregonBR - 2016-07-27 4:52 PM
lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM
I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.
We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses
OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.
HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.
SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:
n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease
n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.
+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.
SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?
The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.
ETA- spelling
Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.
In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH.
Yes exactly  PSSM2 horses have a 50% chance of giving it to offspring if bred with an N/N horse. 100% if bred to another N/P2 | |
| | |
Who Wants to Trade?
Posts: 4692
| cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 5:13 PM
OregonBR - 2016-07-27 4:52 PM
lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM
I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.
We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses
OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.
HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.
SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:
n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease
n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.
+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.
SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?
The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.
ETA- spelling
Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.
In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH.
Yes exactly PSSM2 horses have a 50% chance of giving it to offspring if bred with an N/N horse. 100% if bred to another N/P2
Is PSSM2 isolated to a gene (and dominant gene) for sure at this point?
Also, no, you don't get a 100% chance of passing on a gene when bred to another heterozygous horse. You still have a 50% chance. If both parents are heterozygous you have a 25% chance of homozygous recessive, 25% chance of homozygous dominant, and 50% chance of heterozygous offspring (assuming the gene isn't sex linked or tied to other genes skewing probabilities). | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 5:34 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 5:13 PM
OregonBR - 2016-07-27 4:52 PM
lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM
I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.
We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses
OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.
HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.
SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:
n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease
n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.
+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.
SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?
The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.
ETA- spelling
Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.
In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH.
Yes exactly PSSM2 horses have a 50% chance of giving it to offspring if bred with an N/N horse. 100% if bred to another N/P2
Is PSSM2 isolated to a gene (and dominant gene ) for sure at this point?
Also, no, you don't get a 100% chance of passing on a gene when bred to another heterozygous horse. You still have a 50% chance. If both parents are heterozygous you have a 25% chance of homozygous recessive, 25% chance of homozygous dominant, and 50% chance of heterozygous offspring (assuming the gene isn't sex linked or tied to other genes skewing probabilities ).
Paul just answered-yes it is semi dominant and if a P2/P2 horse is bred to a N/N horse the resulting offspring will be n/P2 100% of the time. http://equiseq.com/learning_center/health/polysaccharide-storage-my... | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| My questions are in italics and Paul Szauters answers are under. This should help clear up some questions!
Is a muscle biopsy accurate or more accurate then this test or is there room for error on the biopsy as well? People are wondering why they shouldn't still muscle biopsy instead of an experimental test.
"Muscle biopsy looks for a disease state. The P2 test looks for the predisposition to that disease state. The P2 test could detect the risk of developing PSSM2 from a single cell from an embryo chosen for embryo transfer to a surrogate. There are genetically distinct conditions that can lead to comparable muscle biopsy results when the disease state manifests, for example, P2 and P3, which are mutations in different genes."
Why is the research not published in a peer reviewed journal and what is left in making this test accurate like the other tests in say a normal 5 panel test? Along with this they are wondering why they should trust the test. I know some legal (for lack of a better word?) constraints prevent you from sharing everything including the name of the gene but any information is helpful!
"When we began this work, we had several paths that we might have taken. The typical research project recruits volunteers who give samples from themselves (for human studies) or from their horses (for horse studies). The researchers give back nothing, sometimes for years. They publish papers and advance their careers, but withhold valuable information from the community in the interests of maintaining that white-coat-and-clipboard culture. We didn't want to do that. An alternative is to look at the community as collaborators. We give back some information, volunteers discuss it publicly, and we learn from their discussions. We iterate the research plan to learn more. At the same time, we stop short of full disclosure, which would prevent publication in a scientific journal. We could also just run our mouths, disclosing everything as we discover it. No patents, no publications, ultimately this is just an internet rumor that dies, sooner or later a company that didn't waste any money on R & D picks it up. There are no more discoveries. So why should someone trust the test if it's not published? The simple answer is that they don't have to. Early adopters will have the advantage of time. If a breeding operation thinks that there might be something to this, and cleans up their program through testing, they might end up two or three years ahead of other operations, and gain an advantage. For us, we offer the test based on what we could disclose, and we save some horses and people a lot of pain. Anyone who holds out for the peer-reviewed standard has inflicted harm, even though as far as EquiSeq is concerned, we offered them the option of avoiding it, even if they chose not to accept that offer. EquiSeq then has the ability to continue to discover new variants in an environment where there is woefully inadequate funding for equine genetic research, while protecting ourselves from commodity providers with an R&D budget of zero." | |
| | |
Who Wants to Trade?
Posts: 4692
| cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 7:44 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 5:34 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 5:13 PM
OregonBR - 2016-07-27 4:52 PM
lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM
cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM
kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM
I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.
There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.
They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.
Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.
We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predis positioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! : ) I'm just here advocating for the horses
OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.
HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.
SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:
n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease
n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity ) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.
+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.
SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?
The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there ) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.
ETA- spelling
Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.
In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH.
Yes exactly PSSM2 horses have a 50% chance of giving it to offspring if bred with an N/N horse. 100% if bred to another N/P2
Is PSSM2 isolated to a gene (and dominant gene ) for sure at this point?
Also, no, you don't get a 100% chance of passing on a gene when bred to another heterozygous horse. You still have a 50% chance. If both parents are heterozygous you have a 25% chance of homozygous recessive, 25% chance of homozygous dominant, and 50% chance of heterozygous offspring (assuming the gene isn't sex linked or tied to other genes skewing probabilities ).
Paul just answered-yes it is semi dominant and if a P2/P2 horse is bred to a N/N horse the resulting offspring will be n/P2 100% of the time. http://equiseq.com/learning_center/health/polysaccharide-storage-my...
heterozygous is 1 of each, homozygous is two of the same. Yes, a homozygous dominant on a homozygous recessive will always have heterozygous offspring.
That said, breeding a heterozygous to a heterozygous does not mean the gene is going be passed on.
If in fact it is, scientifically proven (peer reviewed)that, that this is a dominant gene I'd love to read about it. | |
| | |
Who Wants to Trade?
Posts: 4692
| cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 7:53 PM
My questions are in italics and Paul Szauters answers are under. This should help clear up some questions!
Is a muscle biopsy accurate or more accurate then this test or is there room for error on the biopsy as well? People are wondering why they shouldn't still muscle biopsy instead of an experimental test.
"Muscle biopsy looks for a disease state. The P2 test looks for the predisposition to that disease state. The P2 test could detect the risk of developing PSSM2 from a single cell from an embryo chosen for embryo transfer to a surrogate. There are genetically distinct conditions that can lead to comparable muscle biopsy results when the disease state manifests, for example, P2 and P3, which are mutations in different genes."
Why is the research not published in a peer reviewed journal and what is left in making this test accurate like the other tests in say a normal 5 panel test? Along with this they are wondering why they should trust the test. I know some legal (for lack of a better word?) constraints prevent you from sharing everything including the name of the gene but any information is helpful!
"When we began this work, we had several paths that we might have taken. The typical research project recruits volunteers who give samples from themselves (for human studies) or from their horses (for horse studies). The researchers give back nothing, sometimes for years. They publish papers and advance their careers, but withhold valuable information from the community in the interests of maintaining that white-coat-and-clipboard culture. We didn't want to do that. An alternative is to look at the community as collaborators. We give back some information, volunteers discuss it publicly, and we learn from their discussions. We iterate the research plan to learn more. At the same time, we stop short of full disclosure, which would prevent publication in a scientific journal. We could also just run our mouths, disclosing everything as we discover it. No patents, no publications, ultimately this is just an internet rumor that dies, sooner or later a company that didn't waste any money on R & D picks it up. There are no more discoveries. So why should someone trust the test if it's not published? The simple answer is that they don't have to. Early adopters will have the advantage of time. If a breeding operation thinks that there might be something to this, and cleans up their program through testing, they might end up two or three years ahead of other operations, and gain an advantage. For us, we offer the test based on what we could disclose, and we save some horses and people a lot of pain. Anyone who holds out for the peer-reviewed standard has inflicted harm, even though as far as EquiSeq is concerned, we offered them the option of avoiding it, even if they chose not to accept that offer. EquiSeq then has the ability to continue to discover new variants in an environment where there is woefully inadequate funding for equine genetic research, while protecting ourselves from commodity providers with an R&D budget of zero."
Wow. I find it amazing that he is accusing horse owners who don't buy in to his unpublished, unproven THEORY of DOING HARM. Incredible.
Peer review is there for a reason. Taking money to prove a theory is fine if you're upfront about what you're doing. I don't think it's ok if you claim that by not giving you money people are harming horses. | |
| | |
 Owner of a ratting catting machine
Posts: 2258
| Thanks for emailing him. So basically, muscle biopsy IS accurate.
Also, so they're wanting to have the customer pay for the test, which assembles their data for them, pays them, which can later be used for patents, which can be used to make money all over again. I have to completely admire the free market attitude. I don't see it as helping horses or improving the species though, I see it as profiteering like any drug company. Plus, you also don't get any disclosure or proof that their findings are at all accurate.
It's seems like it's aimed at breeders more than anything, and until it has actual published evidence like PSSM1, I can't see it changing anything.
I'd also be pleased to send them my sample and anecdotes for a small fee of $99 to add to their data pool for later publishing.
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 8:46 PM cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 7:53 PM My questions are in italics and Paul Szauters answers are under. This should help clear up some questions!
Is a muscle biopsy accurate or more accurate then this test or is there room for error on the biopsy as well? People are wondering why they shouldn't still muscle biopsy instead of an experimental test.
"Muscle biopsy looks for a disease state. The P2 test looks for the predisposition to that disease state. The P2 test could detect the risk of developing PSSM2 from a single cell from an embryo chosen for embryo transfer to a surrogate. There are genetically distinct conditions that can lead to comparable muscle biopsy results when the disease state manifests, for example, P2 and P3, which are mutations in different genes."
Why is the research not published in a peer reviewed journal and what is left in making this test accurate like the other tests in say a normal 5 panel test? Along with this they are wondering why they should trust the test. I know some legal (for lack of a better word?) constraints prevent you from sharing everything including the name of the gene but any information is helpful!
"When we began this work, we had several paths that we might have taken. The typical research project recruits volunteers who give samples from themselves (for human studies) or from their horses (for horse studies). The researchers give back nothing, sometimes for years. They publish papers and advance their careers, but withhold valuable information from the community in the interests of maintaining that white-coat-and-clipboard culture. We didn't want to do that. An alternative is to look at the community as collaborators. We give back some information, volunteers discuss it publicly, and we learn from their discussions. We iterate the research plan to learn more. At the same time, we stop short of full disclosure, which would prevent publication in a scientific journal. We could also just run our mouths, disclosing everything as we discover it. No patents, no publications, ultimately this is just an internet rumor that dies, sooner or later a company that didn't waste any money on R & D picks it up. There are no more discoveries. So why should someone trust the test if it's not published? The simple answer is that they don't have to. Early adopters will have the advantage of time. If a breeding operation thinks that there might be something to this, and cleans up their program through testing, they might end up two or three years ahead of other operations, and gain an advantage. For us, we offer the test based on what we could disclose, and we save some horses and people a lot of pain. Anyone who holds out for the peer-reviewed standard has inflicted harm, even though as far as EquiSeq is concerned, we offered them the option of avoiding it, even if they chose not to accept that offer. EquiSeq then has the ability to continue to discover new variants in an environment where there is woefully inadequate funding for equine genetic research, while protecting ourselves from commodity providers with an R&D budget of zero." Wow. I find it amazing that he is accusing horse owners who don't buy in to his unpublished, unproven THEORY of DOING HARM. Incredible.
Peer review is there for a reason. Taking money to prove a theory is fine if you're upfront about what you're doing. I don't think it's ok if you claim that by not giving you money people are harming horses.
I'm sorry but I don't think you're as good at genes/science as you're spouting off about if you can't understand how it would be passed along to offspring? He is not asking for money or funding From you, but because they are confident enough in their test, they're offering it to the public. They didn't have to do this. Of course if they're offering it and doing it they're going to ask for money?? They went through the testing and did a study where everyone got a free test. When he says you are inflicting harm by not testing, it is because for months they offered a FREE test. Here is his final response because it's clear you are against it for some reason and I really have nothing left to say to you.  From Paul to those still asking why to trust the test/why it's necessary ect-
"I have nothing to say to these people. For those willing to listen, I am not speaking on behalf of EquiSeq (the other eight people) right now, but on my own. Write a note to yourself that you will open when we publish. Explain why you have chosen to wait for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Explain that for some reason or another you have chosen to ignore a message from someone who has devoted his life to science. Make sure that you are comfortable with what you have written. Write a PS to that note that says that a crazy scientist at EquiSeq is making unsubstantiated claims that you have chosen to ignore. Then put that note somewhere safe and open it when you learn what P2 and P3 actually are. Then you can answer to the people and the horses that you have harmed through your actions. Do not write to me and tell me that I was at fault for not warning you. I have done everything that I can."
"I don't know any working scientist who use the word "facts." We are all just evaluating rival hypotheses; the ones that have the best explanatory and predictive power displace the other ones. I understand that a lot of people don't like science, because it often gives you the answer that you don't want to hear. But adopting an inferior model that has less explanatory and predictive power because it makes you feel better or requires less change in your life is cowardice."
whatever you choose to believe, just know these next coming years will see a big change in the breeding world. Check out the FB page and BRIDGE database and look at the horses already diagnosed. If you want to see my mares pedigree PM me. I'm open and am here to help the horses. Think of how many people use PHT/magnets, Flair Strips, Patches, ect and the science is lacking there too yet they believe in that and that's more than $99.....I could care less about breeders losing money on expensive horses if it means keeping horses healthy. | |
| | |
Who Wants to Trade?
Posts: 4692
| 1. I don't have any horses I suspect of having any genetic issues.
2. When genetic research is published, I'll read it because it will actually tell me something about the genes and how they are carried and expressed. Right now all I could do is pay for a test that may or may not tell me if my horse is predisposed to a disease (even with the results I don't really know because I don't know what the gene does) which makes zero sense to me from any perspective.
3. I don't do scare tactics. My horses perform and I select genetics that perform. I'm not even a little worried about producing something with issues. At the point that I do, I hope someone has released research that actually aids in eliminating a defect from my gene pool.
4. A fact is a hypothesis that has stood up under peer review. Until then, it is merely a hypothesis. Facts have been known to change, for example, the world is not flat.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 127
Location: Nebraska | Just a PSA-
I have a friend who owns a mare with PSSM. A few years ago she was started on Purina's Amino Acid Supplement and hasn't had a tying up incident since. Her owner and the mare's trainer both swear by it for horses with PSSM.
Of course the extra care and precautions are taken, but that supplement really seems to work | |
| | |
 Just a Yankee
Posts: 1237
Location: Some where I haven't left yet | A Few people are debating Phenotype vs. Genotype
Genotype versus phenotype. An organism's genotype is the set of genes that it carries. An organism's phenotype is all of its observable characteristics — which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment
Eitherway - I'm very glad they they have discovered the gene and that it's now a Hair test, and I think that is Very good news. | |
| | |
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | Cheeka I'm sorry your news got the reception it did from some people here. I for one think it's fantastic news. | |
| | |
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| OregonBR - 2016-07-28 10:34 AM
Cheeka I'm sorry your news got the reception it did from some people here. I for one think it's fantastic news.
I think its great, too. For some of us who have not been able to find answers, this may help us. Thank you! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 415
| Thank you Oregon and GLP, people who have dealt with true type 2 horses and not being able to fix them understand why this is such good news. Breeders like a few above trying to argue are just pushing back because they don't want their stock tested but it only helps push the researchers! The early release of the test is because so many people were asking that they wanted to do what's right and release it! I looked and a few that commented weren't part of the FB group so they haven't been able to ask questions or read updated info ;) But again, just here for the horses and I'm so glad people understand where I'm coming from!
Paul- "There is going to be a lot of data, and a big story, when we publish. Based on what we have seen so far, we thought that it was irresponsible not to offer the test. Plenty of people asked us about it and wanted to buy it."
Also, for the reply above yes I want to try the SuperSport badly! I have her on the Triple Crown 30 because that's what I can get but I've heard great things about SS for high protein and AA's! Thanks :) | |
| | |
The Advice Guru
Posts: 6419
| Watch yourself
As you could be sued for slander, and defmanation of character for both the stallion owner, no you haven't said the name, but someone with AQHA money could easily find it out. Also the muscle biopsy the researcher behind it, as you are saying on a public forum her method is inaccurate. | |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | Cur-ost would probably take care if this situaion and you wouldn't have to test for it.
| |
| | |
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | 
Here's the deal:
Dominant disorder:
1. One copy in one parent; statistics for 4 breedings = 2 N/Positive, 2 N/N foals. 50% positive
2. One copy in each parent; statistics for 4 breedings = 2 N/Positive, 1 Positive/positive, 1 N/N foal. 75% positive
3. Two copies of positive gene in one parent or both. = 100% Positive foals no matter how many breedings. It depends on how many copies the parents had, whether the foals will be heterozygous or homozygous for the positive of that disorder.
All of the positive outcomes above will have the disorder and ALL will be able to pass it on depending on how many copies of the gene they have. At this time, they don't really know why some horses may be symptomatic and some aren't. Maybe it's environment or another set of modifying genes. However, just because a horse is not symptomatic, doesn't mean they can't become symptomatic at any time. OR they are symptomatic but the owner doesn't recognize the symptoms as being present.
The main difference between PSSM1 and PSSM2 is there are many horses with PSSM2 that are successful performance horses. High protein diets seem to be the 'cure'. As long as the conditions are ideal for them to function, they can and many do. That doesn't change the fact that they have the disorder.
I don't get the hostility toward the OP or the news she's delivering. It's all a learning process.
Edited by OregonBR 2016-07-29 10:59 AM
| |
| |
| |
Folks on-line