Bile Acid Testing
 

Are breeders on here doing bile acid testing on their dogs? If not, why not? I know the test is not 100% but I believe the problem is more with false negatives.

They do not have a test yet to determine if your dog carries the recessive gene or combo of genes that would be at fault. Until they are able to isolate the genetic marker you can only make sure that you do not repeat breedings that produce liver shunt. Of course you must never breed a dog or bitch with liver shunt.

I understand what you are saying but with the bile acid test available, isn't that a good tool to screen breeding animals that might not show any symptoms of liver shunt but which still may have MVD?

A good blood panel will show if ALT levels are elevated and a BAT is called for. It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to put my dogs through the fasting, etc. for the test if there is no indication of a need for it.

I understand the fasting is only for 2 hours.

I agree, particularly if you have knowledge of the dog's lines, etc. To me, it is not so much the fasting, but here we live 45 minutes from the vet. So it is either keep the dogs in the waiting room (with sick animals coming and going) for hours, or leave and drive around for hours....I would only do this if there is a need for it.

I won't subject my dogs to a test where there is no indication that it is needed. If the ALT levels came back elevated, there was a history of it in my line, or one of my dogs threw a pup that was diagnosed with LS than there would be a need. I would guess that most responcible breeders do a blood panel and than would proceed from there if there is any indication that more testing is needed.

I totally agree. I would not buy from a breeder who doesn't do it because there is a major problem with this and Yorkies right now. LS can skip 10 generations, so it is safer to test.

The ALT doesn't necessary go up until the liver is 70% damaged from a shunt or MVD, so you can't rely on a blood panel alone. I can understand not testing puppies but adults need to be.

I agree...I would not buy from a breeder that does not BAT all their dogs before breeding. I really think it is necessary. It's not at all a difficult test and no longer requires fasting. Blood is drawn, the dogs eat, and then another blood draw is done. There is no reason NOT TO BAT in my opinion.

According to further study that I've been involved in today ( I really love to study) a BAT really will bring no conclusive proof because of the following taken from Dr. Tobias's work on liver shunts: "A Liver shunt cannot be difinitely diagnosed by bloodwork; shunting can only be found by advanced techniques such as scintigraphy, ultrasound, portography, cat scan, MRI, or exploratory surgery." More interesting reading to be done.

True, but one would definately not start with those advanced techniques. I understand that a dog could be asymptomatic for many years yet still have LS or MVD. A BAT over 25 would surely signal if further testing needs to be done and other things would be askew in a CBC as well and this is relatively simple testing. It's not perfect but if it is all that is available at this time as a minimally invasive screening, why not do it?

:thumbup: A BAT would alert you to a problem so that you could pursue further testing if needed. I still don't see a reason not to BAT.

To me, the scenario kind of seems like this:

I am a 30 year old female, with no family history of heart disease, no risk factors, no signs, symptoms, etc. It's time for my yearly exam. Do I go in and have a complete heart work-up or do I just do bloodwork and other basic tests?

It's not irresponsible if I don't have the whole work-up, because the factors and information I have available to me don't indicate it's necessary. However, at the same time, it wouldn't be wrong for me to have it done either.

Just my 2 cents.....of course, everyone has the right to decide if it's important to them. I just don't think it's irresponsible not to do it.

Um, of course you know we're talking about Yorkies here where liver shunt is a major problem, not a 30 year old female with no remarkable history.

I'm not even suggesting that it is irresponsible for breeders not to have BAT done. However, I want to be convinced why we should not have it done to every single Yorkie.

[QUOTE=blitz;184150I'm not even suggesting that it is irresponsible for breeders not to have BAT done. However, I want to be convinced why we should not have it done to every single Yorkie.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why every Yorkie shouldn't have one either. I mean, less than a year ago I didn't know what a BAT was but now I had one done on Ellie and since hers are way too high, it is best to treat. That means she has to have Denosyl everyday ($225 a year), she should be fed more often (3 or more times a day), she should have fish oil and vitamin e (and not just because it makes her coat look better), her vaccines have to be done carefully and she can't have many and meds have to be liver friendly which isn't easy and Ellie's liver isn't that bad. I'm glad she doesn't have to be on anything else. So, going through this I don't think there is any reason not to test breeding dogs because it is just one more precaution to make sure the buyer doesn't have to deal with this.


Of course Ellie is worth this but why not at least test to try and prevent the continuation of liver issues in the Yorkie?

That's exactly my question and I'm wondering why there is so little interest in this topic but many more replies to the poor breeder who was scammed.

I always think its interesting that most breeders on this forum won't share what they do so far as health screening... I did start a thread about health screening and did get quite a few responses but not nearly as many as there are breeders on here.

Exactly...the fact is that yorkies are 36 times more likely to have liver shunt than all other breeds combined. And it has been known to skip 10 generations. It's not worth taking that risk to NOT BAT

As a future breeder, and long time pet owner, I do see the need and responsibility for tests to ensure the dogs being bred are the healthiest possible. We went through almost 13 years of medical intervention with our first Yorkie, he had good days and bad, it was expensive and who knows what would have happened to him if we had not bought him. If his breeder would have done the proper tests on his parents maybe the breeding would never have taken place, granted, we wouldn't have had our Boog dog but it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering on both sides. Boog came from a litter of 5 but who knows how many other litters there were...where did those puppies end up and what did they have to go through in their lives? Were they given the advantage and benefit of a good and loving home that could afford their medical care or were those needs ignored? Don't get me wrong, I never complained about the cost of his care in all of those years but I sure did wish things were different for him.

As a future breeder I do plan to do whatever testing I need to do to ensure that my dogs are healthy enough for breeding, and it will give me and my future puppy owners peace of mind. I could not, in good conscience, blindly breed because I 'thought' everything was o.k...I need proof.

Yes, of course I realize this. The breeder who doesn't have it done was talking about dogs with no history in their lines. (at least that is what I gathered, I might have misunderstood) That is what I was comparing to no 'family history.'

I'm not disagreeing that the test is a good idea. I certainly feel that breeders are not doing enough testing. I'm just pointing out that the mere fact that it is prevelant doesn't necessarily necessitate the testing of every dog. In the US, diabetes is much more prevelant in Mexican Americans, blacks, and American Indians. But it is not reasonable or necessary for every single person in those groups to automatically do a fasting test. They are tested when they show some sign or symptom, or when a routine test indicates otherwise.

I agree that there is no compelling reason NOT to BAT every Yorkie. But I also feel there is no compelling reason TO BAT every Yorkie, in the absence of any indication there might be a problem.....Assuming there is great familiarity with the bloodline(s), and the other precautions already mentioned in this thread. (Please note I am not referring to breeding two dogs you know nothing about, without testing.) Since BAT won't tell you if you have two dogs with recessive genes, you could still produce offspring with liver shunt anyway. I would venture to say that the risks of either would be comparable.

Again, just my opinion.

I just re-read your original question.....I guess upon reflection, I should not even have commented. You were asking a question of breeders; since I am not a breeder my opinion is not really what you wanted anyway. (I'm not saying this like I took offense, just apologizing for giving my opinion when it's not really the purpose of this thread.) :)

I do find it interesting that most of the comments have been from those with no experience breeding.

I'd say the lack of breeder's responses to this thread would indicate they do not feel a need to test their dogs. Perhaps I'm wrong....

LOL....I need to go to bed, my thoughts are getting rambly....one last thing I wanted to say is that if I were breeding, which I plan to be someday, I probably would have the BAT done. But I feel it is only for my peace of mind, not because of a compelling, logical medical reason. Just as someone in one of those high-risk groups might have a diabetes test, without any symptoms or other indications. There's no particularly compelling, logical medical reason to do it....it just makes them feel better.

I guess really the only truly responsible thing to do is to only breed dogs of whose lines you have personal knowledge of for at least 10 generations back. Even that could not ensure 100%.

LS has been known to skip 10 generations. Not too many breeders will know the complete history of EVERY dog in a pedigree up to 10 generations back..that is a LOT of dogs. And what if there was an unethical breeder that owned one of those dogs that didn't fully disclose all info? There may be a LS dog in the pedigree that no one knows about...

And what if the dog is asymptomatic? It happens... The asymptomatic LS dog might be bred and pass on the defect.

A BAT is so easy and pretty inexpensive. It causes no adverse affects on the dog. There are no negatives to BAT a dog...well, unless it turns out that a dog does have a shunt and a breeder is forced to spay/neuter a dog they have a lot of time/money invested in. But an ethical breeder would want to know that so that they wouldn't go on to produce more with the defect. I see only positives by doing a BAT.

Seriously...why NOT do it? The only reasons I can see not to do it is because a breeder is afraid it is there and doesn't want to stop breeding the dogs, the breeder doesn't want to take the time or spend the money to do it, or because they don't know any better. Everyone here KNOWS how common LS is and how serious it can be. So again...why not do it?

I'm inclined to agree. Obviously I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, depending on their breeding program and other factors. But I don't blame them for not jumping in, no doubt this thread could go on and on.

I have a strong feeling you are right. Honestly, there are very few breeders that are members of YT I'd look into buying a dog from. There are usually only a very few breeders here that will actually share what they do to health screen.. and I feel like if they were doing it, they wouldn't hesitate to say they do and why they do it. But I can see many reasons why they would want to avoid admitting to not doing it..

I agree 100%. Hopefully Dr. Center will have her grant proposal approved by the AKC and there will be a definitive genetic test for liver shunts soon. She should get an answer from the AKC this month. Even if she doesn't get the grant, she will still continue her genotyping project. One of the breeders on the Maltese forum I belong to is providing samples for her study now.

Until a genetic marker is discovered, the best tool is BAT testing the parents before breeding and BAT testing all Yorkie puppies before they even go to their new homes as Dr. Center recommends.

Since the test no longer requires fasting, is only about $40-80, I don't see a compelling argument not to get it done.

I wonder just how many times it has skipped 10 generations. (I won't even get into the impossibility of proving it is genetic in that case) And the asymptomatic cases are MUCH lower in number. It is common in the Yorkie breed as a whole, of which a majority have been bred by breeders doing NO testing of any kind, breeding any two dogs they find. Unfortunately there are no stats for incidence in breeders such as the one who posted here, who do blood panel, etc. I do not feel it would be a stretch to say that the incidence would be MUCH lower.

I would like to make it very clear that I am not against this testing, in fact I stated I would do it if I were a breeder. Again, I do not disagree that there is not a compelling reason not to do it. However, I do not see a compelling, LOGICAL, MEDICAL reason to definitely test every dog, ASSUMING breeders with programs and testing like the one posting earlier here.

I thought the point of this thread was simply to get breeder's opinions? I don't blame them a bit for not posting.

It would be wonderful if there were a definitive test. Hopefully will be soon.

I am retiring for the night. I feel that I am for some reason not making my point clear; I'm not trying to say that the BAT shouldn't be done. I think I'm just saying that I do not automatically discredit a breeder who doesn't do it, assuming their other basic testing and breeding program are good. Yep, I think that's it. :) Sorry, I am so not a night person, my brain shuts down by 11:00. Unfortunately, tonight my eyes and hands didn't shut down at the same time. lol