The Colors of Life

You are here

SEAL Brown - discussion.

206 posts / 0 new
Last post
NZ Appaloosas
NZ Appaloosas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/14/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

I think the actual location of what he found may be enough. But, I can't say with any confidence that he isn't. The only thing I know he isn't doing is testing pintos (and I understand why). I heard at one point he wasn't testing chestnuts, but it may have not been true. I know he's done some cream and duns but I'm not sure they knew they were cream or dun.

Why would pinto patterning change things? Agouti is found in pintos as well as non-pintos...

Diane

accphotography
accphotography's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/15/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Why would pinto patterning change things? Agouti is found in pintos as well as non-pintos...

Well I think they try to have the horse be recessive for *everything* possible except what is necessary to create the phenotype they are in search of. Once they're past that stage, I think the main reason is because they want an unobstructed view of the coat color.

IMAGE(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w65/accphotography/Misc/Sig.png) IMAGE(http://phrf.pitapata.com/uno2m5.png)

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Seal brown Arabian mare ... WinTeal
http://www.tamarsventures.com/ArabianMares.html
Labeled as 'black bay' because that seems to be the cooler term (vs. brown/seal brown) in the Arabian world. And when we did her site several years ago, we went with it, even though the owner knows she's technically a seal brown.

I don't have links at my finger tips for seal brown Morgans, but they are actually quite common, especially in certain lines (Lippitt, for example). There have been quite a number of seal brown Morgans have been reg. as black, sadly. But I have seen photos of plenty of darker (seal) brown Morgans ... overall black bodies, tan or red at the soft areas only. They really are not rare in the Morgan breed.

Brown vs. Seal Brown - personally, I just call them all "brown" for the most part (though I will often qualify by adding light/medium/dark in front of it), because the on-going study indicates that they are caused by the same mutation. I have photos of tested (At) brown horses that range in phenotype.

Last I knew, the 'At' mutation showed a 95+% consistency with brown phenotype. Yes, "brown phenotype" can be a subjective concept, as some will say the brown phenotype is only the dark seal brown, while others (myself included) believe there is a wider range of shade. I believed this for several years, and the study seems to be supporting my suspicions for the most part.

As for the <5% that appear brown, but tested "at/at", either there is another modifier more akin to some sort of "shade" or sooty gene responsible for these horses, or there is yet another, as yet unidentified, mutation of agouti. Your guess on which it might be is as good as mine!! :D

There are something like 20 mutations of agouti in mice, so why couldn't horses have more than just one or two?

A friend of mine has a mare who is textbook seal brown (she's either TB or QH ... I can't recall which, as she owns both breeds), but tested "at/at". So there is no doubt there is something else going on with some horses besides the mutation that Pet DNA found.

Nancy Castle
Dun Central Station
http://www.duncentralstation.com

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.
I honestly don't have an opinion on this discussion one way or another but I would be very interested to see how some black chestnuts and very dark palominos test using the At test.

I have wanted the same thing for a long time now LOL

That would indeed be interesting, but I'm not sure that I would expect anything earth-shattering from such testing. Agouti acts to "block" or prevent the production of eumelanin in specific areas of the body (depending on which mutation "A" or "At").

Since chestnuts and palominos are "ee", and the "e" allele turns off the ability to produce eumelanin, there wouldn't be anything for the agouti allele to do to the horse's phenotype. No eumelanin being produced at all on the dark chestnut/palomino ... nothing for the agouti to block.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Birth color of brown horses

From my observations, coupled with what the 'At' study seems to have been accomplishing, I (and others) have noticed that foals that mature to some shade of brown (not clear red bay) are born showing some signs of their future brown adult coat.

Already developed leg points to some degree - could be quite solid, or dark charcoal-looking shadow up to the knees/hocks.

Darker masking on the face.

Caping of darker coloring along the neck and topline. But could be as minimal as a dark dorsal.

Richer, more mature colored red-brown coat at birth.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

Daylene Alford
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 21 hours ago
Joined: 02/12/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

That would indeed be interesting, but I'm not sure that I would expect anything earth-shattering from such testing. Agouti acts to "block" or prevent the production of eumelanin in specific areas of the body (depending on which mutation "A" or "At").

Since chestnuts and palominos are "ee", and the "e" allele turns off the ability to produce eumelanin, there wouldn't be anything for the agouti allele to do to the horse's phenotype. No eumelanin being produced at all on the dark chestnut/palomino ... nothing for the agouti to block.

I was looking at it more from the perspective of whether or not what he has found is truly at agouti or perhaps something else.

Daylene

Daylene Alford
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 21 hours ago
Joined: 02/12/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Welcome to the forum btw I'm glad you made it!

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.
That would indeed be interesting, but I'm not sure that I would expect anything earth-shattering from such testing. Agouti acts to "block" or prevent the production of eumelanin in specific areas of the body (depending on which mutation "A" or "At").

Since chestnuts and palominos are "ee", and the "e" allele turns off the ability to produce eumelanin, there wouldn't be anything for the agouti allele to do to the horse's phenotype. No eumelanin being produced at all on the dark chestnut/palomino ... nothing for the agouti to block.

I was looking at it more from the perspective of whether or not what he has found is truly at agouti or perhaps something else.

Daylene

AHHHHH!! Okay, I understand now.

My understanding, as it was explained to me, calling it "At" is not inappropriate. The explanation I was given was not a full-blown scientific explanation. It was a very shortened scientific explanation. I really cannot elaborate more without saying things I'm not supposed to say. I really hate that I cannot say more ... I really do! I wish he could finish and publish so we could all have the info available to us. But I do know that he has run into funding issues to be able to complete the study properly, and that is so sad ... for him as well as those of us who would love to know the whole thing.

But given what I was told, I'll stand by what I said originally about it having no effect on red based horses, and leave it at that, I guess.

BTW, if I ever learn of chestnut horses that have been tested for "At", I will be sure to let ya'll know!! Regardless of whether they are "normal" shade or dark shade.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

rabbitsfizz
rabbitsfizz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 02/16/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

As none of this has been proven yet I think we should hold off calling it anything, especially as that Arab site appear not to have grasped what the erroneously labeled "Dominant White" actually is....which as far as I remember is exactly what they are saying it is not???
Also, I have to say that mare looks like a Black Bay to me.....

website: please come and visit... http://www.shadowplayminihorses.co.uk/

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

As none of this has been proven yet I think we should hold off calling it anything, especially as that Arab site appear not to have grasped what the erroneously labeled "Dominant White" actually is....which as far as I remember is exactly what they are saying it is not???
Also, I have to say that mare looks like a Black Bay to me.....

No ... the white Arabians on the Tamars Ventures site are indeed properly labeled, as scientifically proven to be the result of the W3 mutation of KIT. I have the published study that PROVES it is Dominant White, so they are not erroneously labeled in the least. In fact, we had them erroneously labeled as Max. Sabinos initially ... until this paper was published. We then corrected their colors. :D

You can read the study yourself if you like, as it was published on-line in an open access journal. If you disagree with the geneticists, then you'll have to take it up with them. I, personally, defer to them, since they have the degrees, their studies are peer reviewed and their peers agreed with their results.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030195#journal-pgen-0030195-sg001

You are welcome to call the mare black bay if you like. She is, however, a classic seal brown by phenotype.

While I respect that some people are not going to agree with the whole "At" thing until they it is peer reviewed and published, I still tend to defer to the geneticists as they are the people who have the education and training in research and appropriate genetic designations. So, until the "At" study is submitted for peer review and rejected, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the experienced researcher at this time.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

accphotography
accphotography's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/15/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Thanks for joining Nancy. It's good to have you back. :D

IMAGE(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w65/accphotography/Misc/Sig.png) IMAGE(http://phrf.pitapata.com/uno2m5.png)

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Thanks for joining Nancy. It's good to have you back. :D

Thanks! I meant to join the new forum much sooner, but have just been WAY too busy to "get around to it" until this morning. I have a hard enough time keeping up with a couple of the Yahoogroups lists I'm on and private stuff. So I don't generally manage to keep up with the EquineColor forum as a general rule, anyway. I try to pop in once in a while, though.

I know I'm a bit of a gnat (you know ... that annoying little pest that keeps buzzing around ones face and won't be swatted away for anything!! :x ) on the brown topic. I pester the heck out of the folks with it on the Morgan groups I'm on, too.

What can I say ... I'm a believer. At least until it is proven otherwise. If it is, then I'll readily accept that I believed "wrong".

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

Sara
Sara's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: 02/13/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

A-ha, my quotation about theories would come in handy here too.

[url=http://www.myrewyn.com/]Myrewyn Equestrian[/url]

[url=http://myrewyn.com/sales/]New! Updated sales list.[/url]

accphotography
accphotography's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/15/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

I know I'm a bit of a gnat (you know ... that annoying little pest that keeps buzzing around ones face and won't be swatted away for anything!! :x ) on the brown topic.

What can I say ... I'm a believer. At least until it is proven otherwise. If it is, then I'll readily accept that I believed "wrong".

Ditto that. What's weird about it is that I used to be COMPLETELY convinced it was wrong. I'm not entirely sure what changed my mind. Honestly I think it was the brown mare that moved in next door and stayed with a red bay mare. The more I looked at those two the more I believed there had to be a genetic difference besides shade or sooty. After that epiphany... it was all downhill. :laugh1

Sara: What's your quote about theories? Or the jist of it?

IMAGE(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w65/accphotography/Misc/Sig.png) IMAGE(http://phrf.pitapata.com/uno2m5.png)

Sara
Sara's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: 02/13/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

It was the one about particle physics. Someone asked the physicist if he "believed in" a current theory and he said that as a scientist he doesn't "believe in" anything until it is experimentally proven. All he would say about that theory was that he is confident that it is currently the best approach on the table but that if a better approach presented itself, he would turn his attention toward it.

It just got me thinking about all the color stuff and how we (myself included) would probably be wise to take his advice and keep our minds open to all possibilities until there are tests available. We have pet theories here, some are accepted by nearly everyone here and some split us up, but we should remember that they are only theories at this point. I'm thinking specifically about appy patterns, splash, seal...

[url=http://www.myrewyn.com/]Myrewyn Equestrian[/url]

[url=http://myrewyn.com/sales/]New! Updated sales list.[/url]

Sara
Sara's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: 02/13/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Also I wanted to add that he said that scientists get excited when they're looking for something and it turns out not to be there, because it means they get to come up with a new theory and look some more! The only bad part is having to explain why they need more grant money. That made me chuckle.

[url=http://www.myrewyn.com/]Myrewyn Equestrian[/url]

[url=http://myrewyn.com/sales/]New! Updated sales list.[/url]

NZ Appaloosas
NZ Appaloosas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/14/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.
I honestly don't have an opinion on this discussion one way or another but I would be very interested to see how some black chestnuts and very dark palominos test using the At test.

I have wanted the same thing for a long time now LOL

That would indeed be interesting, but I'm not sure that I would expect anything earth-shattering from such testing. Agouti acts to "block" or prevent the production of eumelanin in specific areas of the body (depending on which mutation "A" or "At").

Since chestnuts and palominos are "ee", and the "e" allele turns off the ability to produce eumelanin, there wouldn't be anything for the agouti allele to do to the horse's phenotype. No eumelanin being produced at all on the dark chestnut/palomino ... nothing for the agouti to block.

But since chestnuts/palominos can carry agouti, then they can also carry this "At" gene as well...

Diane

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Also I wanted to add that he said that scientists get excited when they're looking for something and it turns out not to be there, because it means they get to come up with a new theory and look some more! The only bad part is having to explain why they need more grant money. That made me chuckle.

:rofl That IS funny! And I can totally understand the "get excited .... come up with a new theory" thing, as well.

That's how I felt the first time I looked at a seal brown stallion, seal brown mare, and their two youngish (2 & 3 yr olds) "sooty/mahogany bay" looking offspring ... about 4 years ago, I think.

THAT was when it first dawned on me that "brown" horses could seemingly be much lighter than previously thought. Mind you, there was not even an experimental "At" test at that time. So I started observing other horses of the seal brown phenotype and their offspring out of black, brown and tested "aa" mares. Time and again, I saw a range of expression (lightness/darkness) in the offspring.

So that was my little theoretical "discovery". Not that others may not have seen, thought, and said the same thing, mind you. Just that no one I knew had said it to my knowledge.

As you can imagine, the results that Michal of Pet DNA Services has been reporting from his study have been exciting for me because of the observations that I had begun making already.

Yes, it still needs to be written up, peer reviewed, accept, and published before it's no longer technically theory. And I'm cool with that. Okay ... not really. I'm as impatient as heck!! :lol: But there isn't anything I can do about it, so I have to wait like everyone else on that count.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

But since chestnuts/palominos can carry agouti, then they can also carry this "At" gene as well...

Diane

OH! Absolutely! Over the past handful of years, I have seen a number of chestnut mares that were bred to blacks and produced brown foals. Or they were bred to clear bays who were known/tested "Aa" and produced brown foals.

I was only saying that because those chestnuts do not produce black pigment (eumelanin), there is nothing for any form of agouti to "do" on them, therefore, there is no visual effect on chestnuts of any shade.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.
I know I'm a bit of a gnat (you know ... that annoying little pest that keeps buzzing around ones face and won't be swatted away for anything!! :x ) on the brown topic.

What can I say ... I'm a believer. At least until it is proven otherwise. If it is, then I'll readily accept that I believed "wrong".

Ditto that. What's weird about it is that I used to be COMPLETELY convinced it was wrong. I'm not entirely sure what changed my mind. Honestly I think it was the brown mare that moved in next door and stayed with a red bay mare. The more I looked at those two the more I believed there had to be a genetic difference besides shade or sooty. After that epiphany... it was all downhill. :laugh1

Hey, the powers of observation, ACC ... they are a vital part of color genetics!! The geneticists I've spoken generally agree that those of us out in the trenches can play an important role in research.

Also, I might point out that *I* was VERY against there being any true "W" gene in horses, until that Dominant White study came out. I find it hilarious now that I had to eat crow on that one. But I don't mind too much. I love learning this stuff, and being wrong/mistaken is just part of the learning process. I'm sure I'll be wrong again, and again, and ....

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

NZ Appaloosas
NZ Appaloosas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/14/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

But since chestnuts/palominos can carry agouti, then they can also carry this "At" gene as well...

Diane

OH! Absolutely! Over the past handful of years, I have seen a number of chestnut mares that were bred to blacks and produced brown foals. Or they were bred to clear bays who were known/tested "Aa" and produced brown foals.

I was only saying that because those chestnuts do not produce black pigment (eumelanin), there is nothing for any form of agouti to "do" on them, therefore, there is no visual effect on chestnuts of any shade.

Having a litigation background (paralegal for 25+ years), I have a "need" to see that all common denominators are accounted for/checked out/resolved for me to accept something as a "given". There's just too much of a scent of secrecy for me to be comfortable accept "At" as a given, as it appears there is just too much selectiveness/subjectiveness in what gets tested, and with a less than 100% accuracy. I would have thought that there would be counter-testing to enforce the idea that there is another agouti mutation (I'm not sure I'm explaining that right...). It's just that I have seen incidents where lives, people and families have been destroyed based on the strength of "scientific evidence" which came about from highly selective case studies, designed specifically to prove the point, rather than wholescale case studies enabling the point to be proven or disproven.

As I've stated before, I am NOT criticising, maligning or questioning the credentials here...I am, however, chary of the veils behind which his investigation takes place, and do question the selectiveness of what gets tested and by what criteria.

Diane

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

I'll test Lace for At if he'll let me. That might tell us *something*. We already know she's got two dominant alleles in there.

I think I may have skipped some of the pages or posts earlier.

He'll test any horse you want tested, but if you're thinking he might do it as part of the study (at no charge to you), you might ask him about that. A big part of the hold up on getting his study completed is lack of funding, sadly. So, I'm not sure if he can justify testing a chestnut as part of the research ... if you know what I mean.

Let me ask you ... what shade of chestnut is Lace? Not that I think it matters one way or the other, but I'm just curious.

OH! OH! I just thought of something!! A liver chestnut Morgan mare!! No, she was not tested for "At" herself, but her buckskin daughter tested to be "At/At". So by default, the liver chestnut dam has to be at least "At/at". Though I don't know what her overall agouti status is. Her list of progeny on her owner's site does not show any black (aa) offspring, so she could be (but doesn't have to be) homozgyous for agouti, which could be either At/At or At/A.

The sire of the buckskin mare is perlino. He tested via the traditional agouti test to be "AA". We know by default that one agouti must be "At", and since his dam is a pretty clear coated buckskin, his other agout could be "A". She has never produced an "aa" offspring, though, so without testing, we cannot know for sure that she isn't homozygous agouti and what her other agouti might be, if so.

At any rate, both the sire and the dam obviously have to at least each have one "At" in order for this buckskin mare to test "At/At".

So, there is one example of a liver chestnut who must have an "At" gene.

Not quite what you ordered, but that's as close as I've got right now.

You can see the horses here ....

Sire: Devine Spirit of Hope (perlino)
http://www.colorfulmorgans.com/Devine/sp..." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dam: Devine Catalina (6th mare down - liver chestnut)
http://www.colorfulmorgans.com/Devine/ma..." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Offspring: Devine Mountain Echo (3rd mare down - At/At Buckskin)
http://www.colorfulmorgans.com/Devine/ma..." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just try not to freak when you see Echo. She's not likely what you're going to be expecting!

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

But since chestnuts/palominos can carry agouti, then they can also carry this "At" gene as well...

Diane

OH! Absolutely! Over the past handful of years, I have seen a number of chestnut mares that were bred to blacks and produced brown foals. Or they were bred to clear bays who were known/tested "Aa" and produced brown foals.

I was only saying that because those chestnuts do not produce black pigment (eumelanin), there is nothing for any form of agouti to "do" on them, therefore, there is no visual effect on chestnuts of any shade.

Having a litigation background (paralegal for 25+ years), I have a "need" to see that all common denominators are accounted for/checked out/resolved for me to accept something as a "given". There's just too much of a scent of secrecy for me to be comfortable accept "At" as a given, as it appears there is just too much selectiveness/subjectiveness in what gets tested, and with a less than 100% accuracy. I would have thought that there would be counter-testing to enforce the idea that there is another agouti mutation (I'm not sure I'm explaining that right...). It's just that I have seen incidents where lives, people and families have been destroyed based on the strength of "scientific evidence" which came about from highly selective case studies, designed specifically to prove the point, rather than wholescale case studies enabling the point to be proven or disproven.

As I've stated before, I am NOT criticising, maligning or questioning the credentials here...I am, however, chary of the veils behind which his investigation takes place, and do question the selectiveness of what gets tested and by what criteria.

Diane

No disrespect intended, but sometimes a reality check can be in order.

If I were in a competitive field where my findings could help fund future endeavors (pay my bills, too), I would not let the specific details of those findings out, either. Not until it was time to publish them. It's called not being stupid and handing over the vital info to the competition. ;)

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "selectiveness of what gets tested and by what criteria", though I'll make a guess for now.

Are you referring to selectively only collecting samples from horses that fit the more classic phenotype of seal brown/brown initially for the study? If so, why is this a problem? As I understand it, that's common practice in many such research projects. I know of more than one researcher who told me this was what they were doing at first, too. Once they get things narrowed down (thinking they may have isolated the mutation or at least down to a couple of prime possibilities), then they begin cross checking using horses whose color is almost certainly *not* that color, to be sure they are on the right track. Not sure if I've explained that very well or not.

I guess it's a bit like starting off with circumstantial evidence, and then digging like crazy to find that hard evidence that can actually be substantiated. Yes, I've watched way too much Law & Order and CSI which means I know almost diddly about litigation. :lol:

The beauty of most of this research is that the studies end up going through a peer review process, which one would think serves to minimize the chances for inaccuracies.

But perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant. If so, then ignore the above paragraph, of course.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

I think the actual location of what he found may be enough. But, I can't say with any confidence that he isn't. The only thing I know he isn't doing is testing pintos (and I understand why). I heard at one point he wasn't testing chestnuts, but it may have not been true. I know he's done some cream and duns but I'm not sure they knew they were cream or dun.

Now, don't quote me on this, because I would have to ask him to be sure, but he probably was not testing chestnuts (not including them in the study) because agouti has no visible effect on red based colors. Therefore, they would be of absolutely no real value to the study.

However, since he began offering the test for a fee, I would not think that he would decline to test a chestnut. But, I could be wrong. He might decline because the research is still ongoing, and since there is no visual effect of any form of agouti on "ee" horses, he might feel it's just too soon.

Seriously, email him and ask him about testing chestnuts at this time. What can it hurt?

Yes, I do know of some cream dilutes (buckskins) that have been tested, and in fact just posted about one in particular who was found to be "At/At". I know of another one who was found to be "At/a". And yes, he knew they were single cream dilutes, as photos of them and their parents were made available to him.

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

NZ Appaloosas
NZ Appaloosas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/14/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

No disrespect intended, but sometimes a reality check can be in order.

None taken

If I were in a competitive field where my findings could help fund future endeavors (pay my bills, too), I would not let the specific details of those findings out, either. Not until it was time to publish them. It's called not being stupid and handing over the vital info to the competition. ;)

Understood, but whereas with other studies there has been either lack of interest in the proceedings and/or an openness that seems to be missing here. (note, I am saying "seems"). There was an "openness of discussion" in other genetics research that just isn't apparent with the research into brown (and not just colour), and that "secrecy" gets reinforced with comments like yours earlier, about not being able to speak openly.

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "selectiveness of what gets tested and by what criteria", though I'll make a guess for now.

Are you referring to selectively only collecting samples from horses that fit the more classic phenotype of seal brown/brown initially for the study? If so, why is this a problem? As I understand it, that's common practice in many such research projects. I know of more than one researcher who told me this was what they were doing at first, too. Once they get things narrowed down (thinking they may have isolated the mutation or at least down to a couple of prime possibilities), then they begin cross checking using horses whose color is almost certainly *not* that color, to be sure they are on the right track. Not sure if I've explained that very well or not.

Yes, that is pretty much what I meant, and I guess my unease comes from the fact that a paid-for test became available while the research seems to be still at the early stages of gathering information.

I guess it's a bit like starting off with circumstantial evidence, and then digging like crazy to find that hard evidence that can actually be substantiated. Yes, I've watched way too much Law & Order and CSI which means I know almost diddly about litigation. :lol:

But usually that digging occurs before having to pay for tests and what is coming across as a "This Is It And It Has Been Proven So" by adherents of this "At" theory.

The beauty of most of this research is that the studies end up going through a peer review process, which one would think serves to minimize the chances for inaccuracies.

But perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant. If so, then ignore the above paragraph, of course.

No, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. It just keeps coming across to me that there has been too much blanket acceptance of the "At" theory too early in the game, where the steps to disprove the theory haven't even been started (my science teachers always said that a researcher needed to attack the problem from both sides--to prove and disprove a theory for the research to be solid).

And while I don't think that anything about the "At" research will ruin/destroy lives, etc., as stated above, I have seen incidents where the "facts" were as latched upon as this one seems to be, and the selectiveness wasn't really found/discovered until some 20+ years later. In that paricular situation, some 200+ people were jailed on what has since been found to be extremely flawed science. That's why complete research, on both sides of the equation, is so important.

Diane

accphotography
accphotography's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/15/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Well that's said Nancy, but I know several people who have asked to be tested, even at their expense, and they were told no for some reason or another... that or they never heard from them. Maybe if they just send the hair in... *shrug*

My Lace is a VERY light chestnut (tested negative for everything under the sun and 'AA'). I would *LOVE* to know if she's got something other than standard bay in there.

No, I don't think testing chestnuts would be to show 'At' can have an effect on red based horses, it would be to help confirm it is indeed part of agouti. Some people theorized he might have actually found sooty, and thus it would effect chestnuts. But if you're sure he's sure then I'm sure. :rofl Yeah I know that made no sense, but I'm tired. :lol:

IMAGE(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w65/accphotography/Misc/Sig.png) IMAGE(http://phrf.pitapata.com/uno2m5.png)

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Understood, but whereas with other studies there has been either lack of interest in the proceedings and/or an openness that seems to be missing here. (note, I am saying "seems"). There was an "openness of discussion" in other genetics research that just isn't apparent with the research into brown (and not just colour), and that "secrecy" gets reinforced with comments like yours earlier, about not being able to speak openly.

I absolutely understand your point here. Let me just say that the only reason all of this "secrecy" on my part ever got started is because someone on this forum had heard through some "grapevine" that what Michal found was not a mutation involving agouti. And this was being accepted here as fact.

This lead me to believe that Michal may have told someone else a little bit about what he found, and it ended up getting relayed incorrectly or incompletely through that grapevine, leading to him being kind of trashed in a way. The responses were something to the effect of "If it's not agouti then how can he call it 'At'. That's just wrong!" I'm not literally quoting what was written, but just how I basically remember it.

Those comments were, IMO, causing people to come to the conclusion that he might be ... shall we say ... less than intelligent enough to be doing any sort of research.

I am not a personal friend of his as some have referred to me in the past. But he has been published over 60 times in reputable medical journals. So my assumption is that he most likely knows how to conduct research. So, I found that whole thing very distasteful. And I did something about it.

I went directly to the source. I told him what had been said and asked if he was free to clarify it for me, and if I could post the gist of his response to the forum. At that point, he told me more than what I had expected (surprising since it would seem someone else leaked it and it passed around incorrectly), asking for my promise of confidentiality regarding the most technical part of it. But at the same time, giving me permission to at least say publicly that, yes, what he found does involve agouti and can legitimately be deemed "At".

Sometimes if people would simply grow a set, have the kahunas to contact the person who can *legitimately* answer their questions, much of this crap could be so easily avoided. They may not be able to tell you every detail of their ongoing research, but if at all possible, they will try their best to clarify for you. And what's the worst that can happen if you email them?

They reply? ;) Or they don't?

I have never, ever, ever had a researcher cause, or threaten to cause me bodily harm for asking a question ... I swear! :hammer Without exception, I have found them to be very congenial, and they do try to answer the questions to the extent that they can when it's ongoing research.

I have had direct contact with Dr. Penedo and Stephanie Bricker at UC Davis regarding the dun study. Even made them both "Triple Dun Bun Salute" certificates for some test results they provided us (myself and owners) on some possible dunalino Morgan foals before the test was offered, and they loved them! In fact, they requested the high res versions so they could print and hang them.

Samantha Brooks, formerly with U of Ky, now with Cornell, is a gem! Super, super person and enjoyable, as well as very tolerant of my questions.

Tosso Leeb, Univeristy of Bern, Switzerland is the latest to go on my personal Wall of Fame for his generosity, trust, and patience!

And then there is Michal at Pet DNA Services. We have exchanged many emails, he has been super kind and generous, as well as very supportive of my desire to learn some of the more technical side of things. Of the Morgan people I know who have had contact with him regarding the At study, he has been good to communicate with them as well.

My point here being ... ask the person who knows the answer. Don't rely on hearsay if you don't have to. Don't rely on what I post. Ask him. He's a nice guy from my experience. As are all the others I've pestered.

Yes, that is pretty much what I meant, and I guess my unease comes from the fact that a paid-for test became available while the research seems to be still at the early stages of gathering information.

But usually that digging occurs before having to pay for tests and what is coming across as a "This Is It And It Has Been Proven So" by adherents of this "At" theory.

So, you probably aren’t on board with UC Davis offering the dun zygosity test, either, right?

No, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. It just keeps coming across to me that there has been too much blanket acceptance of the "At" theory too early in the game, where the steps to disprove the theory haven't even been started (my science teachers always said that a researcher needed to attack the problem from both sides--to prove and disprove a theory for the research to be solid).

And we know the steps to disprove it have not been taken yet, because …. ??? Rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious ... we have not seen the published study. But, do we know what controls he has used in his study? Do we know that he has not used controls? Have you asked him? Has anyone?

And while I don't think that anything about the "At" research will ruin/destroy lives, etc., as stated above, I have seen incidents where the "facts" were as latched upon as this one seems to be, and the selectiveness wasn't really found/discovered until some 20+ years later. In that paricular situation, some 200+ people were jailed on what has since been found to be extremely flawed science. That's why complete research, on both sides of the equation, is so important.

I laughed at this, because I totally bypassed any commentary on lives being ruined in your first post, because I knew you didn’t mean the comparison literally. Again … peer review once he can (hopefully) wrap it up and submit it for publication. That is as “proven” as ANY color genetics study gets. And if you read some of them, you will see a lot of words like “predicted to”. But what gets relayed to the layperson is “proven to be”. So, how proven is any scientific finding … color related or otherwise … really? Rhetorical question, as you’ve already made that very point yourself. And it’s actually true!

But let's focus on why you're personally "nervous" about this. Because of what you feel is a lot of secrecy, which I do understand. You already stated that you realize this has become an issue with At specifically because of what I've said. I accept that responsibility.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that every ongoing study has its "secrecy". And let's put this studies secrecy in perspective. Blame or credit me with seeing inaccuracies via what seemed to be a seriously flawed grapevine being readily accepted as if it were fact, when it was not proven, either. And blame or credit me for taking the initiative post a correction from the one true legitimate source with his permission.

Had that misinformation not been posted, and had it not appeared that is was being accepted without question from a source other than the researcher of that study, this secrecy issue probably wouldn't have come about at all. Then again, had I just kept my mouth shut, it wouldn't have happened, either, right?

In a way, I have actually "learned my lession". I keep "secrets" better now, I assure you!

I'm really not being snotty towards you ... honest. Just playing Devil's Advocate in places, and just 'splaining the chain of events in others.

But I'm so tired now ... must ... get ... sleep!

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

Sara
Sara's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: 02/13/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

If Michal knows about this site and is offended by what is/was being said, he could also come here, get a user name, and engage in a dialog with us. He would not be the first geneticist to come and rub elbows with the common folk here. ;)

[url=http://www.myrewyn.com/]Myrewyn Equestrian[/url]

[url=http://myrewyn.com/sales/]New! Updated sales list.[/url]

duncentralstation
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

Well that's said Nancy, but I know several people who have asked to be tested, even at their expense, and they were told no for some reason or another... that or they never heard from them. Maybe if they just send the hair in... *shrug*

Interesting! I wouldn't even be able to hazard a guess as to why they were turned down. That would be a question for them to ask him why he declined their horse in particular.

Seriously, though, just email him and ask him about testing your mare. If he says no, ask him why not. Do give him some time to respond, as I know that lately he has a lot on his plate.

My Lace is a VERY light chestnut (tested negative for everything under the sun and 'AA'). I would *LOVE* to know if she's got something other than standard bay in there.

No, I don't think testing chestnuts would be to show 'At' can have an effect on red based horses, it would be to help confirm it is indeed part of agouti. Some people theorized he might have actually found sooty, and thus it would effect chestnuts. But if you're sure he's sure then I'm sure. :rofl Yeah I know that made no sense, but I'm tired. :lol:

:laugh1

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it actually did make sense to me!! Then again, that last (book) post that I just typed in response to NZ wore my butt out, and I'm tired, too!!

On the comment "if you're sure he's sure" ... I'm sure that what he was able to tell me made sense to me. I'm no geneticist, so take that for what it's worth. I have been reading genetics studies, asking questions of various researchers, have a genetics dictionary, consult with a friend who understands some of the scientific jargon, etc.

So I am now much more capable of asking ... how shall I say this ... more reasonably intelligent technical/scientific type questions and actually understanding their responses even when they don't totally dummy it down.

In no way does this mean I understand it all!! But what Michal said to me was, in my opinion, fairly "basic". Mind you, he did not give me tons of detail, either. Just the basic gist of it. But enough that he didn't want that particular quote to be repeated. Only for me to confirm to others that what he found does involve agouti.

So, at this time I cannot imagine that he has found sooty and is mistaking it for an agouti mutation.

Okay, I am definitely going to get washed up and to bed now!!

Nancy Castle
[url=http://www.duncentralstation.com]Dun Central Station[/url]

accphotography
accphotography's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/15/09
Re: SEAL Brown - discussion.

I'm not sure she was saying HE was offended... more like she felt the desire to defend him herself. I dunno, maybe I missed it.

IMAGE(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w65/accphotography/Misc/Sig.png) IMAGE(http://phrf.pitapata.com/uno2m5.png)

Pages

pandemonium