Health Testing - Laboratory Reliability

[Rothievale]

I do know the facts as I know the owner of both dogs and no, these dogs are not owned by the same person.

[kennel maiden]

I didn't say they were OWNED by the same person, but linked to that person, who took the samples for nth digs, and others. I know you know them, and will have heard the story from them, but until we have established what has really happened and led to inaccuracies of the tests I think it is wrong to lay all blame with the lab at the stage.

[Rothievale]

I think the fact that there are other people totally unconnected to this case with different breeds that have had wrong results from this lab and that they have given the wrong results for coat colour on more than one or two occasions gives me cause for concern! And the fact Optigen have been chasing them for several years as they have the patent for PRA and yet this lab still tests for PRA and the fact they have changed address on many occasions.

[vicky payne]

Like anything....use someone you trust. This may or may not be a cheap option!

I have expressed my concern on other sites about owners cheek swabbing with no body to second the dogs id. It is not that I suspect people of underhandedness, rather that in the case of an error somewhere in the chain the owner will not have a leg to stand on if they took their own sample, unwitnessed in the front room! If a vet or VN (bascially someone who is regulated and can be disciplined for misconduct) checks the id and countersigns the onus is surely on the lab to 'prove' it wasn't them rather than blaming the owners for incorrect sampling.

Laboklin use loopholes to continue to offer prcd PRA as they set up in places where Optigen doesn't hold the patent! Other labs (such as Idexx) offer prcd PRA through Optigen but get a discount and pass this on to their clients (the vets, who pass it on to their clients!).

[Rothievale]

That's another famous handler who has suffered at the hands of this laboratory, because of what has happened with these two FTChs, he retested his own trial dogs with a different laboratory and one that was clear for CNM has now come back a carrier. When will people start to realise that it isn't human error.......

[vicky payne]

That's another famous handler who has suffered at the hands of this laboratory, because of what has happened with these two FTChs, he retested his own trial dogs with a different laboratory and one that was clear for CNM has now come back a carrier. When will people start to realise that it isn't human error.......

Then what is it? A conspiracy?
There are many stages in the DNA testing process at which a human error could occur starting with swabbing the wrong dog, through contamination of the sample before or after sending to the lab, on plating out, muliplying up, labelling at any point. Some labs will have much tighter controls over the critical points where errors can occur than others. Imagine if at one lab each sample is dealt with one by one in a well ordered set up with two people overseeing each step and in another samples are rolling about together on a desk, falling on the floor etc (I'm sure no-where is that bad but you get the drift). If there are major concerns over the error rate at a certain lab then this needs flagging up....perhaps to the KC? Meanwhile if you don't trust the hereditary clear status of your dogs, retest them.

[Rothievale]

That's another famous handler who has suffered at the hands of this laboratory, because of what has happened with these two FTChs, he retested his own trial dogs with a different laboratory and one that was clear for CNM has now come back a carrier. When will people start to realise that it isn't human error.......

Then what is it? A conspiracy?
There are many stages in the DNA testing process at which a human error could occur starting with swabbing the wrong dog, through contamination of the sample before or after sending to the lab, on plating out, muliplying up, labelling at any point. Some labs will have much tighter controls over the critical points where errors can occur than others. Imagine if at one lab each sample is dealt with one by one in a well ordered set up with two people overseeing each step and in another samples are rolling about together on a desk, falling on the floor etc (I'm sure no-where is that bad but you get the drift). If there are major concerns over the error rate at a certain lab then this needs flagging up....perhaps to the KC? Meanwhile if you don't trust the hereditary clear status of your dogs, retest them.

The mind boggles, there has been mistakes made by this lab with other tests. One of the PO Box addresses in previous years that you were to send the sample to has turned out to be a sunbed parlour and has been for several years! The kennel club are not interested......and yet they publish the results of their tests for CNM (not PRA) on their website.......

[vicky payne]

"One of the PO Box addresses in previous years that you were to send the sample to has turned out to be a sunbed parlour and has been for several years"

O......K..... I think perhaps I'll stay using Idexx

[kennel maiden]

OMG is that the litter brother that has now tested carrier too? If so, that is awful, but again all linked to the one person taking those swabs and samples in perhaps?

[Rothievale]

OMG is that the litter brother that has now tested carrier too? If so, that is awful, but again all linked to the one person taking those swabs and samples in perhaps?

No and no. Completely different person took the swabs and it is another bitch that has been tested a carrier from different lines. The dogs are both retested clear, very responsible thing to do when you've got a FTCh that is being used by everybody Needless to say I'm getting a pup from him in a few weeks and I'm going to be using Idexx for my testing.....