The VGL test results are basically the alleles in the panel that *your* dog has, so you can choose breeding partners or puppies to keep for breeding with the most diversity, including diversity in the region associated with immunity--all other factors like health, temperament, etc, being considered of course. The test is now $50 until 200 dogs have been tested and still free for Akitas of any type with autoimmune disease. Over 200 kits have been ordered, but the price will be $50 probably for another month. After that the test will be $100. This is the same price as the Optimal Selection Wisdom Panel, where MARS has paired with My Dog DNA in Finland; but the VGL test gives a "look under the hood," which Optimal Selection doesn't. There is more material on the test in the FB group Akita Genetic Diversity Test (by VGL/DAVIS).
As you can see from the VGL test page for Akitas and other material, the dogs have been compared in three groups: JAs, AAs, and Blends/Unregistered. This matters only for the listing of rare and common alleles in a type: it doesn't matter at all for the individual alleles--these are tested with the same panel for all breeds.
Quoting from someone above: "The study is for a breed of dog, to learn something about that breed. Including dogs of another breed muddies the data and makes the study useless. You wouldn't include a Husky in the AKK study (same root stock - and only ~25 years apart instead of 60). Including non-AAs in a study about AAs is exactly the same."
I asked Shayne at VGL to comment on the misunderstanding:
"If the comment is in regards to including JAs in the study, it's not true, and actually, I would say that the comment about Husky and AKK is not true either. It depends upon what you're doing and how you do it, of course. We are looking at allele frequency based statistics that, yes, could be muddied by inclusion of JAs in an AA study. However, these dogs have all been classified as JA or AA and we have looked at how they cluster based on genetic distance. It is clear that they form two quite separate clusters, and so on our data page of allele frequencies, you will see that we break them out, JA, AA, blend. As well, the results that are being sent out are tuned specifically for JA, AA, and blend. We really are handling this like three separate breeds.
"Additionally, testing dogs of other breeds or varieties adds context to the data. If we had only studied one small population, we would have no basis for saying that diversity is limited or just how limited it is. Behind all of this work is our study of the village dogs which have the most diversity, but also the ability to compare breeds is useful to get a sense of where they stand. For example, we are just about to put data out on Havanese. They have quite a bit of diversity, comparable to Mini Poodles.
"That said, the point of doing this work is to improve the health of the dogs. Limited diversity from inbreeding will lead to increased genetic disease. This test provides a tool to manage the diversity that remains and to evaluate potential outcrossing. To some extent this can be done using just the marker report which is the same test for all breeds. The statistics and DLA haplotypes make it more powerful and able to identify rare types that could be lost otherwise."
So far, Akitas are the most inbred of the breeds studied and have the most AI problems, and JAs are more inbred than AAs.
Quoting from vulpesvulpes89: "They found that the JA has alleles (genetic information that lead to real life physical traits) that the AA does not have and that the AA has alleles the JA does not have. This means that they each have unique genetic information the other does not have. Blends in this study shared more genetic similarities with AAs than JAs."
The alleles in the panel are not connected to any physical traits in any of the breeds. The blends will reflect whatever their makeup is; I know there are at least 3 blends in the study, belonging to friends, who are 7/8 JA and 1/8 AA. As/if more blends are tested, the genetic similarities may change.
A number of certificates are shared on the FB Group; people can post them there if they want.
It's been awhile since I have been over here! I just got this test done on my Akita because he was just diagnosed with VKH. :-( I got the results but have no idea what they mean! It doesn't matter because his parents are both retired anyway. I just did it to help.
Comments
Quoting from someone above:
"The study is for a breed of dog, to learn something about that breed. Including dogs of another breed muddies the data and makes the study useless. You wouldn't include a Husky in the AKK study (same root stock - and only ~25 years apart instead of 60). Including non-AAs in a study about AAs is exactly the same."
I asked Shayne at VGL to comment on the misunderstanding:
"If the comment is in regards to including JAs in the study, it's not true, and actually, I would say that the comment about Husky and AKK is not true either. It depends upon what you're doing and how you do it, of course. We are looking at allele frequency based statistics that, yes, could be muddied by inclusion of JAs in an AA study. However, these dogs have all been classified as JA or AA and we have looked at how they cluster based on genetic distance. It is clear that they form two quite separate clusters, and so on our data page of allele frequencies, you will see that we break them out, JA, AA, blend. As well, the results that are being sent out are tuned specifically for JA, AA, and blend. We really are handling this like three separate breeds.
"Additionally, testing dogs of other breeds or varieties adds context to the data. If we had only studied one small population, we would have no basis for saying that diversity is limited or just how limited it is. Behind all of this work is our study of the village dogs which have the most diversity, but also the ability to compare breeds is useful to get a sense of where they stand. For example, we are just about to put data out on Havanese. They have quite a bit of diversity, comparable to Mini Poodles.
"That said, the point of doing this work is to improve the health of the dogs. Limited diversity from inbreeding will lead to increased genetic disease. This test provides a tool to manage the diversity that remains and to evaluate potential outcrossing. To some extent this can be done using just the marker report which is the same test for all breeds. The statistics and DLA haplotypes make it more powerful and able to identify rare types that could be lost otherwise."
So far, Akitas are the most inbred of the breeds studied and have the most AI problems, and JAs are more inbred than AAs.
"They found that the JA has alleles (genetic information that lead to real life physical traits) that the AA does not have and that the AA has alleles the JA does not have. This means that they each have unique genetic information the other does not have. Blends in this study shared more genetic similarities with AAs than JAs."
The alleles in the panel are not connected to any physical traits in any of the breeds. The blends will reflect whatever their makeup is; I know there are at least 3 blends in the study, belonging to friends, who are 7/8 JA and 1/8 AA. As/if more blends are tested, the genetic similarities may change.
A number of certificates are shared on the FB Group; people can post them there if they want.