KC DOG BLOG

A New Study discussing the reliability of visual breed identification

In a new study that was just released, researcher Victoria Voith once again exposes the challenges of identifying dominant breeds of mixed breed dogs, even by "experts" in the field.  I think the research is important for a lot of reasons (some different from what others have surmised), and worth reviewing as the world of DNA genetics testing continues to challenge what we think we know about canine genetics, and rapidly adding knowledge to the field.

The Study

In the study, more than 900 people who had professions in the field of animal welfare were asked to watch a 1 minute video of 20 dogs that showed the full view of the front and side of the dog, along with the weights, age, and sex of the dogs. All participants noted that they're breed identification was sometimes used for record keeping purposes and were largely made up of kennel staff, Veterinary Assistants, Animal control Field officers, dog trainers, or other animal control or veterinary/behavior triaining staff.

The survey participants then had to answer the following questions:

Do you think the dog is purebred?  yes/no

If yes, what breed to you think it is?

If No, what do you think is the most predominant breed?

What do you think is the second most predominant breed? If you are unsure, write "mix".

The answers were then compared to the DNA results for the dogs.

The Dogs

Before I get into the results for this, I want to discuss the dogs used, and DNA as a whole. It's very important to note that at this point no one is saying that DNA tests are 100% reliable. Even the researchers who are creating the tests note this. Currently, the Mars Wisdom Panel test (which was used for this analysis) says it has a 90% accuracy rate across all first generation crosses. As dogs get further removed from pure heritage, the results get less and less accurate.

It's very important to note in this study that only ONE of the 20 dogs used came back with 50% or more of any one breed -- so only ONE fell within the 90% accuracy range. So, essentially,we cannot have a lot of certainly of the actual DNA results of almost any of the dogs in the study.  However, with the other 19, we can be 90% certain that the really are very mixed breed dogs and not predominently any one breed.  I think this is very important in how the results are analyzed.

The Results

While this study is far from conclusive because of the very small sample set of dogs, I do believe the initial results are very interesting.

Based on the study results, for 7 of the 20 dogs, more than 10% of the responents thought that the dog was "probably" a purebred dog. For three of the 20, 19% or more of the respondents thought the dog was probably a purebred dog (one of these three was the only dog in the study with a mix of 50% of any one breed - Miniature Pincher - and the majority of respondents incorrectly ID'd the dog as predominently Carin Terrier). 

Also of note, there was agreement among 50% or more of the respondents in the predominent breed in only 7 of the dogs -- and in 3 of them, the visual ID did not match ANY of the DNA identification. In the other 13 dogs (65%) there was no majority guess among the panel.

In 14 of the 20 dogs used, less than half of the guesses included a breed that was even detected by the DNA results. And for one of the dogs, exactly zero of the 859 respondents correctly identified a breed of dog in the mix (and this was the dog with highest breed concentration). 

Discussion

It's important to note why this data is important. In the United States, more than 40% of the canine population is mixed breed. 

For decades, the only possible way to identify mixed breed dogs was through visual identification, and many city juristictions have used such identification to influence their animal control policies.

However, we are now getting a lot of science-based data on the efficacy of such ideals, and the results don't support visual breed ID as a basis for policy:

- Visual ID of dogs is highly inaccurate when compared to DNA results

- The Visual ID of mixed breed dogs is highly subjective, as most 'experts' don't agree on the breeds based on looks

- Even those well-educated in the field are susceptible to judgment biases

Thus, statistical data that has often used to promote breed-specific policies is, and has been, based on visual breed identification that is proving itself to be highly subjective and inaccurate. And if public policy-makers want to rely on scientific and accurate information for their decisions, then the best solution will be to focus solely on behavior-based ordinances that target how dogs (and owenrs) BEHAVE, not how they look. 

Here's a link to the entire Voith Study (very detailed)

Here's a link to the National Canine Research Council's overview of the study.

Here's a link to a very nice visual chart that shows the dogs and the study results for the dogs.

Links to what I'm reading today

Doing a little catching up, and here are some links to some of the articles I'm finding interesting this morning:

A new report from the Koret Shelter Medicine Program shows that the average adopter coming intoa  shelter to interact with cats is NOT a large risk factor for transmitting disease between animals. Meanwhile, the ability to interact with cats is a major factor in getting people to adopt. So in other words, the potential benefit of potential adopters interacting with cats greatly outweighs the risks that are posed.

 

Fox Files: Area Shelter Euthanasia Rates

This story is done just down the road, in St. Louis, and it is done by Chris Hayes, who has been doing a lot of VERY good animal reporting lately including breaking the news about the Sikeston Pit Bull Roundup back in December., this article about how many shelters hide behind the word "adoptable" at shelters, this story about how a family pet was threatened to be killed due to how it looks, among others.

If only all reporters were as well-informed on these topics as Hayes seems to be.

This article shows how Stray Rescue in St. Louis is helping save lives at the city shelter, how the county shelter is improving even though they are still killing 1/2 the animals in their care, and how the Humane Society of Missouri, probably the wealthiest organization in the state with a budget of around $18 million a year, is one of the shelters killing the most animals in the community.

Naming Shelter Dogs: The Framing Effect

Animal Farm Foundation has an interesting article about the framing effect that comes with how shelters name animals. Positive associations are good. Negative ones can harm an animal's ability to be adopted.

Analyzing the Analysis: Wisdom Panel DNA Tests and Mixed Breed Dogs

Patricia McConnell takes a look at DNA tests, and concludes that after a fair amount of research, she has more confidence in the results than she did previously. The test makers note that the test is about 90% accurate at this point (which means, it's 10% wrong, which is still signicant, and mostly likely why some very rare breeds seem to crop up in distant histories of the test -- advice, take these with a grain of salt). I also think it's interesting that dogs with a heritage of being bred for looks have more reliable markers than breeds with a closer history to function -- such as Jack Russell Terriers and Catahoula's.

Are dog rescue groups too picky?

An interesting read from Vet Street. While there is obviously a huge variance from group to group, there certainly seem to be a lot that side with being overly particular. 

 

The Silent Killer

An interesting read from "Balanced Trainers". You may or may not agree with this, but it's an article calling out 'aversive free" dog trainers for sometimes not using all the tools available that might help rehabilitate shelter dogs -- leading to their deaths in shelters. I think it's important to note that the author here claims to be very pro-positive training (as am I), but also willing to use aversives if that is the only way the dog responds (and sometimes it is).

I think it's also interesting to note that they note there is even a difference in philosophy when dealing with shelter dogs vs owned dogs. As they note: "Even in situations where an aversive free only approach can work, it often takes a very long time, and time is something that many shelter dogs just don't have".

I'm certainly not going to defend everything in the article (and I think the article is a bit too hasty to group all positive trainers into their term 'aversive free', and there is a differenc), but I think it's worth a read and would love to hear your thoughts.

A little more info on DNA Testing

So, earlier this week I posted some results from a Maddies Fund/University of Florida study that compared the breed ID (based on photographic  questions) compared to what DNA matched with the dogs pictured.

The results caused several, both here and on Facebook, to question the validity of the DNA tests.

So, let's go back and look at at least one view of the validity of the DNA tests.

This summer, the Veterinary Information Network did a small study to test the validity of DNA tests with dogs of known (and unknown) heritage. Their research has a very small sample size, with 4 dogs of known ancestory and 2 of unknown. They also tested various DNA tests. From their results:

"What we found: Wisdom Panel was the superior competitor. Though not flawless, the test tended to give reasonable and ususally consistent, if not necessarily enlightening, results. Veterinary geneticists we consulted also pointed to the Wisdom Panel as the most scientifically reputable."

Most of the other tests provided some pretty ridiculous results, so I'm just going to focus on the results from the Wisdom Panel test (which is the only one I'd ever claim, at this point, to have validity).

Dog #1: Actual: Purebred Standard Poodle -- Wisdom Panel Results -- Purebred Standard Poodle

Dog #2: Actual: 68% Beagle, 14% German Shepherd, 9% Giant Schnauzer and 8% Bassett. Wisdom Panel results: Primary: Beagle. Secondary German Shepherd and also a trace of Ibizan Hound.

Dog #3: Actual: Golden Retriever and English Springer Spaniel mix (the spaniel is from Australia).  Wisdom Panel noted Golden Retriever and English Springer Spaniel, with a minority blend of other breeds.

Dog #4: Actual: Australian Shepherd/Jack Russell Terrier mix.  Wisdom Panel results: 50% Rat Terrier (very similar genetically to Jack Russells), 1/2 Border Collie (the closed match to the Australian Shepherd) and 1/2 potpourri.

According to a spokesman for the Mars Wisdom Panel tests, the test has an accuracy rate above 90% in a sample of more than 200 mixed-breed dogs of known ancestory -- but that dogs that are mixes of many different breeds are sometimes more challenging and thus, less precise. 

These results (although, with a very small sample size) would tend to show a little less prcision than this, a slight tendency to mix up closely related breeds and the less of the mix the dog is, the less precise the breed profile. But the results don't appear to be "junk science" either as some would attest.

There's a lot of good info on how breeds are determined by the DNA tests in the article, so be sure to check out the whole thing. If you have tested your dog with the Wisdom Panel test within the past 2 years ( and it is of known heritage), I'd love to hear how your results turned out.

 

What kind of doggie is that in the window?

A couple of weeks ago, the University of Florida, along with Maddie's Fund, announced the results of a study that they have been working on all summer.

More that 5,000 dog experts -- including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, and rescuers completed a survey in which they were asked to identify the primary breed of dog of 20 of 119 dogs in the database.

The results were then matched with DNA tests. Here are the 100 dogs, with their DNA results, and the top responses from the experts.

I realize that there is a lot of skepticism about the accuracy of DNA testing. I will note that my experience has been pretty good with the Mars Wisdom Panel test -- at least within the past couple of years. I do think it has issues at times with uncommon breeds that are less likely to have deep DNA pools for which to pull genetic markers. But otherwise I think the results are fairly reliable.

I also think it's then interesting to see the variety of different breeds that were assigned (based solely on picture identification) to different types of dogs by the panel of experts -- with many of the responses varying pretty widely.

Specifically, I think a lot of "lab mixes" end up having no Lab in them at all and a lot of "American Staffordshire Terrier mixes" have 25% or less AST DNA in them. The testing group also did pretty well on identifying purebred dogs, or ones that were 75% of more of a certain breed, but often had some pretty far-off results for ones that were 50% or less of a certain breed. This means that even people with a fairly good understanding of dog breed charactersistics did fairly poorly at identifying mixed breed dogs of which were just 1 generation away from being purebred. They were awful at identifying ones that were 2 generations or more away from being purebred.

The study is yet another in the growing list of data that suggests that looks-based breed identification for mixed breed dogs is very unreliable -- even if "experts" are doing the identification. This means that any dog bite data based on visual identification, and newspaper reports indicating breed,  is going to be VERY unreliable with the exception of truly purebred dogs.

Thus, pretty much every dog bite study in existence is inaccurate, and pretty much any law targeting dogs based on how they look is completely unenforceable. And once DNA gets diluted into mixed breed dogs, a dog can easily look very different than what you'd expect based on its genetic makeup.

 

 

 

How to Build a Dog - Report from National Geographic

I didn't used to subscribe to National Geographic. But they cancelled another magazine I used to read and just started sending Nat Geo in its place -- and I'm kind of glad they did. There has been some interesting stuff lately in Nat Geo.

In the February issue, there is an interesting story about DNA differences in breeds of dogs. It's a pretty short article, so I recommend that you read it in its entirety.

The nuts and bolts of the article is essentially how cut and dried dog DNA is.

There are some 400 dog breeds in the world.  When scientists began studying canine DNA, they expected all of the huge size/coat/shape differences to be caused by a crazy mix and match of different gene mutations (as was often the case in other species).

However, dogs didn't evolve naturally. They were purposefully bred for specifc traits and thus, essentially sped up the pace of evolution. And what has resulted is that the variety of dogs shapes, colors and sizes is largely determined by only about 50 different genes.  Because of the artificial selection, breeders chose to highlight genes that had a significant impact in physical traits.

For example, the difference between a Dachshund and it's small, body and short legs, and the massive size of the Rottweiler is determined by the sequence of a single gene.  The difference between the dachshund and a greyhound rests solely on the sequence of a different gene.

To put this into comparison, something a simple as human height is determined by the interactions of more than 200 gene regions.

All of this gives us a pretty good feel for how certain things like DNA testing for dogs may end up being much more reliable than previously thought.

Also of note, is that researchers have been using dogs to help study diseases in humans. There are some types of dogs that are much more prone to certain types of diseases and cancers -- and because the difference in dogs rests on a couple of gene strains, it gives researches a much smaller window of places to look when they then look for the same gene strains in humans.

That's pretty cool.

It's an interesting piece -- and worth the time to read to get a chance to know our dogs a little better.

Picture credit: National Geographic

Cloning and Genetics, what can we learn from things we shouldn't do

Meet Toppy.  All five of them. "Toppy", which is a combination of the words "Tomorrow" and "Puppy" is the name of seven dogs that are the first dogs genetically cloned to be drug and bomb-sniffing dogs. 

Because of the high cost of training dogs to be drug or bomb-sniffing dogs, and because a huge number of the dogs do not have the ability to succeed at these tasks, scientists in  South Korea cloned a succesfful drug sniffing animal in hopes of more inexpensively creating more, genetically identical drug/bomb sniffing dogs.  In February, all seven dogs passed a behavior test aimed at finding whether they were genetically qualified to work as sniffing dogs.  only about 10-15% of naturally born dogs pass this test.

The dogs still need to be tested for physical strength, concentration and sniffing ability and after a year of training, will potentially go to work throughout South Korea.

I'm not going to go into a rant about how unethical I feel like this is, especially as I live in a country where we kill over 5 million dogs.  I'm also not the biggest fan of "playing God" here.  That said, I am fascinated by what can be learned from the process about how much of an aninmal's character/skills is completely genetic, and how much still needs to be taught. Based solely on this article, it looks like the puppies only have the skills and temperaments necessary to be good bomb/drug-sniffing dogs, but still have to go through the necessary training to make those skills useful.

This would help prove a lot in the nature vs nurture arguments in other types of dogs.

You can read more about the story here. 

Hat Tip to PSFK.