FOOD FOR THOUGHT
for casual consumption only, not to be ingested without the proverbial grain
Lisa Warren
HYDROCEPHALUS - A BREEDER'S EXPERIENCE
Let me establish at the outset that I do not profess
to have any background in science, or in genetics beyond what I learned about
Mendel's peas in Biology 101 plus whatever I have added to that over the
years through the study of dogs.
What I do have, unfortunately, is quite a bit of first-hand experience
with hydrocephalus. For those readers who are completely unfamiliar with this
affliction, it is defined by Webster's as "an accumulation of serous fluid
within the cranium, especially in infancy, due to obstruction of the movement
of cerebrospinal fluid, often causing great enlargement of the head; water
on the brain."
Our first encounter with hydrocephalus was in a litter
of two. One of the pups was considerably smaller than a normal
mini, and had a skull shaped more like that of a Chihuahua than a dachshund:
domed, with an abrupt stop and a soft
spot. She also had a much shorter
body than one expects, and was extremely animated, probably
hyperactive. Andrew and I were
living in Australia at the time, and our veterinarian assured me that, while
we were dealing with an abnormality of some sort, he felt sure that there
was not a genetic factor at play.
That puppy had an abnormal heart, and lived to be about four months
old.
A second
such puppy appeared about two years later, and lived to about four
months. Three years later we
got another similar puppy who died at about three months of
age. We were living in a different
part of Melbourne by then, and another vet echoed the opinion of the first
one. However, I was not convinced
at this point, having noted that all three of these puppies had been in line-bred
litters. Questioning other breeders
brought forth no one who had any similar experience, or at least no one who
was willing to discuss it. I
was perplexed.
When we had
been back in the U.S. for about a year, we did a mating between a bitch and
her grandson. Both of these
animals were themselves the result of out-crosses, and neither of them had
been a parent of any of the puppies discussed so
far. In this litter was a puppy
with all of the symptoms we had encountered: extremely small size, odd head
shape with a pronounced soft spot, hyper-animation, and the constant runny
nose. With that one puppy, all
of my doubts and questions came to resolution, because it linked the other
pup with the runny nose to those that had preceded her, and all of them to
this most recent one. Our vet
here identified the affliction, and the pedigrees gave me all I needed to
track exactly where the origin was in our bloodline.
Now, it is
entirely possible that I am mistaken about what I have surmised to be the
mode of inheritance of hydrocephalus, but it seems to act exactly like a
simple recessive trait, and what little veterinary information I have been
able to find supports that. For
those even less schooled in genetics than I am, think of the afflicted puppy
from two normal parents as being like a black and tan from two red
parents: each parent must be
a carrier of the recessive gene, and neither parent can single-handedly produce
the trait in his or her offspring, as the gene in question must be married
to the same gene from the other parent to produce an afflicted
puppy. This means, of course,
that a given dog or bitch may be a carrier and never throw an afflicted puppy,
but each of that carrier's offspring has a fifty/fifty chance of being a
carrier. (It should also be
noted that hydrocephalus can occur as a congenital problem rather than as
a genetic one, having nothing to do with anything other than that particular
puppy's pre-natal development).
The range
of symptoms is broad. Any, all,
or none of the following may appear in a given puppy: a soft spot on the
top of the head, evident in some toy breeds but not commonly found in dachshunds;
extremely small size; failure to thrive; inability to nurse; appearance of
hyperactivity; oddly shaped head and low, wide eye placement, the combined
effect of which brings to the observer's mind a human child with Down's syndrome;
heart problems; an unrelenting runny
nose. I must add that our few
fading puppies over the years have been from parents that could have been
carriers, causing us to wonder if that too was a result of hydrocephalus,
but undetected because the pups did not survive long enough for any obvious
symptoms to appear.
I would like
to point out that not one of these hydrocephalic puppies has seemed mentally
retarded in any way. As a matter
of fact, most of them have been the most outgoing in the litter and the first
to do everything, thereby appearing to be the most
intelligent. Each of them has
been affectionate, good-natured, and altogether charming, compounding the
heartbreak when they die.
It seems
possible that a given dog might carry two recessive genes for this affliction
and show no outward signs, and a knowledgeable and very helpful Canadian
breeder has told me a story of just such a
dachshund. She had been shown
and was pointed, and then had a litter which produced a hydrocephalic
puppy. She was later placed
in a pet home with a well-to-do couple who doted on
her. Her owner accidentally slammed a car door on her head
one day, and while she seemed to suffer no long-term damage, they chose to
have an M.R.I. done to be certain.
To the great surprise of the veterinarian and probably everyone involved,
she was found to have a brain which occupied only a small part of her skull,
the rest being filled with fluid!
She was diagnosed at that point with
hydrocephalus. One of our own
dogs, now just over a year old, has a runny nose, but no other discernible
evidence of the disease. We have x-rayed both his chest and his head, and
all seems normal. Our vet was
difficult to convince, and she may only be humoring me now in agreeing that
this pup is hydrocephalic. He
even looks perfectly normal; I believe, in fact, that he could be finished
if we showed him. So, since
not all afflicted ones have the runny nose, it is not impossible to believe
that there are some dogs with two recessive genes for this syndrome who display
no symptoms at all.
We have had
to wonder if our problems did not start with such a
dog. Our first Australian stud
dog, the sire of our first hydrocephalic puppy from a bitch who was related
to him, was the sire of two outcrossed litters for us from another bitch.
(Incidentally, there were six champions from these litters, two of them all-breed
best-in-show winners and another a multiple group
winner, demonstrating that this
gene, like most others, does not affect the appearance of
carriers.) We went on over the next few years to breed from those
six champion offspring. We have
subsequently traced the gene for hydrocephalus back to five of them with
certainty, and cannot totally rule out the
sixth. Could it have been pure bad luck that every one of his
pups that we chose to go on with turned out to be a carrier, or was it inevitable
because he could only pass along the recessive (bad) gene to all of his
offspring, having two of them himself?
We will never know, but I will probably always wonder.
Several American breeders have told me that they have had a puppy
with symptoms described here, or know of another breeder who
did. Most, like us, did not
know what they were seeing, and the breeders I have talked to did not have
a recurrence, a fact directly attributable to the breedings not having been
repeated.
Our latest encounter with this problem is very
recent. We imported a dog from
Australia from a bloodline different from the one that we developed
there. This new import had been
used extensively at stud in Australia, and, to his breeder/owner's knowledge,
had never produced a hydrocephalic
puppy. This was, as one might
assume, very important to us, as his ability to help us dig out of this
particular hole was an important factor in our decision to purchase him,
along with other of his attributes which we hoped to add to our
bloodline. Much to our dismay
and shock, this dog produced an afflicted puppy in his first litter from
one of our own bitches. But
this is worse: an outside bitch, from a bloodline not known to be carrying
this gene, also produced an afflicted puppy when she was bred to this dog,
her litter being born a few weeks prior to our
own. Now, we needed to make
absolutely certain that one of our other dead-keen and oh-so-clever males,
known to be a carrier, had not gotten to this visiting bitch. This is something
that has never happened here, and it was surely impossible, as bitches in
season are housed in the equivalent of a concrete
bunker. But the "impossible"
does happen from time to time and, truth be told, we would have been relieved
to learn that it had happened, feeling that temporary embarrassment and an
unsolved mystery as to how it had occurred were preferable to learning that
our new import was a carrier. We
therefore did a DNA test to determine paternity, and the imported dog did
prove to be the sire. (At least
we now have scientific proof of our bad
luck!) As upset as we are about
our dashed hopes for the new dog, I feel worse for the other breeder: Andrew
and I are dealing with a devil we know all too well; she is now dealing with
the new knowledge that she has one of the breed's usually-lethal genes to
consider as she goes forward, whether she chooses to use offspring from this
litter or not. She kindly tells
me that she would rather know than be in the dark, and has been completely
cooperative about this whole development.
As nasty
recessive genes go, I suppose there is at least one aspect of this one that
makes it preferable to some others, those that evidence themselves later
in the afflicted dog's life, such as progressive retinal atrophy (P.R.A.),
disc disease, or epilepsy. I
do realize that this is something like comparing a rotten pear to a rotten
apple, but there are a formidable number of health-related genetic problems
out there, and a breeder takes a chance with every breeding, whether out-crossed
or within the line, and whether or not the stud's owner has been honest and
forthcoming. With hydrocephalus,
most afflicted animals are identifiable at about three or four weeks of age,
and therefore are not incorporated into a breeding
program. With other problems,
a dog may have sired numerous litters, spawning a large number of carriers
into the gene pool, before it is known that he has the
disease.
Permit me
a brief digression. There is
a chronic disease in quarter horses known as "tying up" which nearly devastated
the breed. Horses with this
syndrome will just fall over one day, not dead, but unable to move for a
period of time. It all goes
back to one magnificent horse who was used extensively at
stud. For quite some time everyone
who bred to him and got the problem kept quiet about it, each thinking that
it was unique to his own particular horse and being reluctant to deal with
the gossip and innuendo that would result about his own bloodline if he were
to go public with the problem. Similarly, P.R.A. became a huge problem in English mini-longs
at least partly due to the breeders who were quite aware that they had the
problem in their lines but were unwilling to be honest about
it. Finally, the lid was blown
off the whole thing by a very successful breeder who clearly cared more about
the future of the breed than the reputation of his own bloodline. At that
point, one of those breeders who had kept the problem under wraps for so
long is reported to have said that, while she knew her extensively-used stud
dog was a carrier, she had kept it a secret because she could not afford
to lose the stud fees that he was bringing
in. Such stories cause me to
fervently hope that my trust in cosmic justice is not misplaced.
So, with
hydrocephalus we are dealing with a self-limiting disease which seems not
to be widely known or even recognized, with a diverse set of symptoms ranging
from usually fatal to occasionally (and rarely, I hope,) totally
absent. The question: how should breeders, aspiring to do more
good than harm as a result of their efforts, proceed when such a gene is
discovered in the line? Should
the whole bloodline be scrapped?
That was my initial reaction when we first sorted out what the problem
was. Andrew was convinced
otherwise. He felt that we were
not likely to be the only ones with this problem and therefore were not
necessarily going to make a significant impact on it by turning away from
the line that we had developed, one which has produced many animals very
pleasing to us in many ways. He
also maintained that if we were to start over, we could quite easily get
involved with something worse in our view, a problem that does not evidence
itself so early in the puppy's life.
It has taken me a long time to come around to his viewpoint, but these
most recent events, along with stories of other breeders' discoveries of
other diseases, have convinced me that there are merits to his
arguments. This is not to say
that we feel we can go forward willy-nilly, pretending that the problem does
not exist. But I do believe,
after long and sometimes heart-wrenching consideration, that the answer is
a controlled program which attempts to contain and eventually eliminate the
problem without sacrificing the desirable elements of the
bloodline. And a necessary part
of this effort is limiting outsider access to the bloodline to a very few
people whom we know we can trust to be as conscientious about this as we
intend to be.
I wonder
how much of this disease exists in our American gene
pool. I know of a pup acquired
from a pet shop who died of it, and have heard of several other smooth and
longhaired pups from show lines, both standard and miniature, who had
it. It is probably not rampant,
being so often fatal and therefore
self-limiting. But perhaps reading this will help a few other breeders
to identify the problem and thereby limit its spread.
I would welcome
any information that readers might have about this subject, and will gladly
discuss it with anyone who has questions, although most of what I have learned
is detailed here. Our e-mail
address is [email protected]
(Author's
postscript) Since this article
was originally published in the spring '96 issue of "The Dachshund Review",
we have taken two young afflicted dogs to the University of Pennsylvania's
Genetic Diseases specialists. They
have confirmed that we are dealing with a simple recessive
gene. They have also informed
us that the runny noses are probably a result of failure of the cilia, the
tiny hairlike structures that move the body's normal fluids, to function
adequately. The fluids therefore
build up to levels that cause discomfort to the dog, and that must be moved
by coughing or sneezing.
This is a syndrome that has been observed in dogs
of other breeds who were known to be hydrocephalic.