Results are in (DNA test)

[bubbatd]

Would love to do Ollie !!! Pretty pricey though !

[Gempress]

Originally Posted by Kim M

NOPE no picture at all. That is why I don't get it when ppl say they don't put much stock in them. I could have sent my Poodle or Chihuahua's blood. How could they be this close?

Ever seen Buddy'sParents dog Buddy? He's weighs about 90 pounds, is black and white, and shorthaired. His DNA test came back and said he was predominately maltese and westie (West Highland White Terrier). A host on the Today show had her 20 lb dog DNA tested on the show. She got the from a pet store, where it was sold as a minipoodle/sheltie or minipoodle/schnauzer (and it obviously looked it). But according to the test, her dog was predominately borzoi. *snicker*

I have to admit though, I agree with the test in terms of the akita. You can definitely see an akita look in your dog. It could be that your test is more accurate than the others.

[Maxy24]

They are not able to identify all breeds though are they? I'm still waiting for someone to send in their purebred's DNA test.

[MafiaPrincess]

No they can't identify breeds through yet. Companies only claim they can id a small number of breeds so far at all. Dekka has some good posts on it. In your case maybe they happened to pick randomly and be correct. Usually they aren't. Usually picking a breed out of a hat would be more accurate. People have sent off champion AKC and CKC purebreds to be DNAd and they all come back as something pretty weird.

Dekka is a forensic biotechnologist these days. She's on chaz, but she's busy and I doubt she's seen this thread. This is a previous post of hers as it applies here too.

I have been meaning to make a thread about this for a while now. And acutally I am glad I waited. We are now doing population genetics right now, so I actually have a better handle on why these are a waste of money.

Ok so first things first. One must always look at the source of the information. The companies performing these tests make incredible claims, but.. An example of one of the companies doing these.. Mars 'Wisdom Pannel' is one that taken by your vet and sent off to the company. This is the same company that brings us M&Ms pedigree dog food and Uncle Ben's instant rice. Intersting no?

Ok anyway off to the science...

When they take a sample of a dog, or a human, in order to run a profile, they only look at a small number of alleles (locations on genes) They look at non coding regions of the DNA. So the alleles they use as markers do not code for blue eyes, long hair, brown spots, etc etc.
CODIS for example uses 13 loci to profile people. In lab this year we are profiling ourselves (and I get to profile my son as I got a great DNA sample from a tooth the dentist extracted...) So once you have mapped your alleles at these 13 loci, then you compare them to a database.

This is where the problem arises. Your results are only as good as your database. This is also where it gets tricky with humans in the court system too.

How you 'determine' if your suspect/dog is from a subgroup/breed is to calculate the frequency of those alleles in different databases. So if your alleles are more common in African Americans, then they assume you are African American. (and that can be wrong too) But lets say you only have a good data base of Caucasians, African Americans, native Americans, and Hispanics. You get your allele frequencies back and you compare them and you have most in common with Hispanics...what if you are Polynesian? You can't show up as that, as there is no database (this is all fictional, I am sure there is a Polynesian database somewhere)

Now this issues with the dog DNA tests is that they are only comparing a small number of breeds and the DNA is almost all from US databases. So if your dog has any foreign ancestry that can mess up the results. If your dog has a breed that is not represented in the database then it will mess up the results. Also many breeds share common ancestry, this too can skew results.

When I was researching this on the net there was a news show that covered this. All the news anchors had their dog's DNA tested. It was interesting how the one anchor with a beautiful pure bred golden retrieve was told his dog's DNA showed he was a mix (forget what the mix was, but it was pretty funny) he was obviously upset.

The other main issue I have is that the general public puts so much 'faith' in DNA results (thanx CSI) but DNA results are not that cut and dry. Esp when we are talking DNA + statistics. I get very leery when people start acting like the DNA tests are accurate (this is not to bad on this board) As soon as this gets wide public acceptance, BSL will take on a whole new meaning. That is a scary scary thought.

One of many youtube videos on a purebred, papered dog who ends up being labeled as a mix by a dna testing company YouTube - Canine DNA test results

[Kim M]

[QUOTE=MafiaPrincess;1441540]In your case maybe they happened to pick randomly and be correct.

I don't know, I'm not trying to argue or anything but I don't see how they could be this accurate. Everyone who ever guessed his breed said Akita (well 90% of everyone I should say) and I had one lady tell me her mixed breed from childhood looked like Reno and the Mom was a Doberman (this was before I got the results).

I have seen and heard of those crazy results you are talking about but everyone I know or have talked to who used this one got really close results. You can also look at their picture gallery. Some don't seem right to me but others are dead on. You do not send a picture till after you get your results.

Also, like I said in an earlier post, if you get a result back that says it was hard to tell but these are the breeds that it might be (then they list some breeds) those are not as accurate. Like on mine it said at least 50% Akita, 25% Doberman and 12% Bulldog (but this part might not be as accurate because we don't have the breed it really is or because it is back more then 3 generations.. something like that).

If anyone wants me to email them an attachment with my results I'd be happy to. I understand what you are saying but I can't believe there is anyway mine could be this close and just be a good guess with no picture. My friend's dog looks like a full black Lab but she found her so isn't sure. The results said "Lab" but we found some small traces of other breeds that we could not identify. It says that they cannot detect full bred dogs and if your dog is full bred that breed with show up but then you can get that other part (other breeds we could not identify).

Someone told me AKC has done genetic testing for $40 on any AKC dog for years to be sure they are full bred. I never looked into that so couldn't tell you if that is true or not.

[Kim M]

The test I used can identify 157 breeds. I think the thing for everyone to keep in mind is, like the quote above in MafiaPrincess post said, if your dog has some foreign breeds or really rare breeds or has a lot of mix to him/her you will not get as accurate results. I knew this when I did the test and was actually surprised I didn't get one of those that said "they couldn't totally determine but this is some of the breeds that may be present". I really thought Reno had a lot of mixes to him!

I guess with Reno one of his parents was a full Akita and the other had some Doberman and some other breeds. I would not be surprised if the "bulldog" part was actually Pittbull because I've had some say they see that in him but I don't. It could be a certain way he looks or something. It isn't often I hear that.

I don't see how it could be a bad thing to have your dog DNA tested though. If you get the wrong results you just know your dog is more mixed or has some breeds on on the test. I was happy mine was pretty accurate and they could find the breeds without the disclaimer I mentioned but I was prepared it could be off too, if he was more mixed.

[MafiaPrincess]

AKC's DNA testing is for parents to offspring. Has nothing to do with breeds.