Dog DNA test

[Deleted]

Has anyone done one of these dog DNA tests? Did you find it to be helpful or accurate? 

I would be doing it more for curiosity sake than anything else. 

www.amazon.co.uk/Wisdom-Panel%C2%AE-Insights-Mixed-Breed/dp/B004GFN2ZA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top 

[G22]

I have not, but we really want to someday for pups. Same reason as you.

If you do it, let me know how accurate you think it is!

[momof2boys]

I work at a vets office and we have had three clients do the test. The first one was ridiculous...the results were something like "there is boxer in the dogs lines somewhere." I called the company and made them refund the owners money b/c I could tell them that by looking at the dog across the room. So while it was accurate in a way, it was not full boxer and they listed nothing else.

The other two clients came out with a large variety of mixes. Some of the breeds I can see a little, some I can't. That said I have joked with my DH about testing our dog for fun, but would never pay the money to do it.

[purrbox]

From what I've heard, the more breeds a company has in their system, the more accurate the results.

I've thought about getting DNA testing on our dog, and I checked out the one your considering. From what little I know about this stuff it looked like a pretty good product. If we end up doing it we'll probably use that one.

[Deleted]

I just bought the test. I'll update again once we get the results.

[redheadbaker]

Back on the old Pets board, someone wrote a really good explanation of why they are not accurate.

sites.google.com/site/petsboardfaqs/home/getting-a-new-pet/doggie-dna-tests

Here is why DNA testing on dogs is a waste of money, courtesy of Romsoser (whose job is in forensic DNA):

DNA testing uses genetic markers that are in a non-coding region that has nothing to do with phenotypical results (ie hair/eye/skin color, etc). These markers can't tell you ancestry nor can they tell you likelihood for disease/cancer.

When it comes to DNA testing for dogs it is approved by the AKC to tell parentage, not breed type. The thing with DNA profiles is you always need something to compare it to as a reference...if there is no reference the profile is basically useless.

The way human DNA testing works (which is more advanced than canine testing) is you have a sample from your crime scene and you run your profile. What you get is a series of numbers, similar to a bar code. The numbers are meaningless until you get a reference sample from your suspect. Once you have that you can compare the two bar codes. That is all that DNA can do. If it could do more they would be using it for human testing...but the sad truth is it can't.

On top of the limitation of genetic markers, the evolution of dogs isn't that distinguished genetically. I highly doubt there would be any highly distinguishable genetic attributes to tell between pure bred dogs and mixes.

So....readers digest version: if you can't use DNA to tell "breeds" of people apart you can't use it to tell breeds of dogs. Read the AKC's statement on DNA testing.

[katietornado]

Redheadbaker got it right.

For reference, we have an unusual breed (Australian Kelpie). We did the DNA test just for fun, knowing it was unlikely to be accurate or useful.

Here's Cal (on the right):



The test said he's mostly Samoyed:



And there's some border collie in there:



BCs and Kelpies share a common ancestor, so I can see that. But Samoyed? Not likely...

[redheadbaker]

Oct 21, 2013 14:10:11 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Redheadbaker got it right.

For reference, we have an unusual breed (Australian Kelpie). We did the DNA test just for fun, knowing it was unlikely to be accurate or useful.

Here's Cal (on the right):



The test said he's mostly Samoyed:



And there's some border collie in there:



BCs and Kelpies share a common ancestor, so I can see that. But Samoyed? Not likely...

Remember when Samara's Rottie mix's test came back as mostly poodle?

I'm mobile and miss my physical keyboard!