I was privileged to attend the 7th International Conference on Advances in Canine and Feline Genomics and Inherited Diseases this past week at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It wasn’t a large conference: about 150 dog and cat genetics researchers who get together every year and a half or so to catch each other up on what they’ve discovered recently, give each other suggestions about how to proceed or where to get good samples, and give their graduate students a chance to give some talks. I took notes on Twitter (#canfelgen) on my favorite talks (er, those of them that were not too technical; there were quite a few talks that I enjoyed hugely but that did not lend themselves to 140 character summaries). My apologies in advance if I got anything wrong; I was typing with my thumbs as fast as I could and may have made some mistakes.
Robert Wayne, Analysis of recent and ancient canine genomes suggest a new hypothesis for dog origins
Robert Wayne of UCLA talked about ancient canid genomes and “a new hypothesis for dog origins.” We are still not sure which gray wolf population was directly ancestral to modern dogs, and his work has shown that in fact no single population appears to fit the bill. Wayne believes that in addition to all the gene mixing between dog and wolves since domestication (which obviously muddies the picture), there was an ancient population of canids that gave rise to both dogs and wolves which we have not yet found samples from.
Wayne explained that ancient populations of wolves were much more diverse genetically than modern day populations, and we will really need to look to those ancient populations to solve the mystery of dog origins. About 10,000 years ago, populations of both wolves and dogs shrank dramatically in size, which explains why wolf populations are less diverse today than before that bottleneck. This was right around the time that domestication may have been happening, but we don’t know if the events are related.
So, based on this information, Wayne Lab embarked on a study of ancient canid DNA, comparing samples from dogs and wolves both from about 15,000-30,000 years ago. They found that the oldest dog populations were in Europe, not Asia. One interesting finding was in the black coat gene, which was relatively recently introduced from dogs into wolves and has swept through wolves. Apparently, being homozygous for black coat reduces fitness in wolves, but being heterozygous increases fitness. They don’t know why yet.
Wesley Warren, Genetic signatures of selection in the domestic cat lineage
Wesley Warren of the Washington University School of Medicine talked about using cats as models to study domestication. Comparing what we know about the behavior of cats to work in other species (dogs, horses, and chickens), he hypothesizes that cats aren’t actually undergoing significant domestication at all, because they are still very competent at living independently from humans and hunting their own prey. He talked about his work developing a SNP chip for cats, to aid in future genomic research in that species. A SNP chip is basically a library of known polymorphisms in the cat genome — single nucleotides that are known to differ between different individuals. Having all of these SNPs cataloged and available for use on a chip makes looking for correlations between these differences and things like behaviors or diseases much easier. At one point, his chip was used to discover the gene for curly coats in cats.
Warren talked about his recent work comparing the genomes of domesticated cats with their nearest wild relative. He found differences in RALY, a coat color gene. He found that cats have fewer receptors for smell than dogs do, but more for pheromones, and he wants to compare both olfactory and pheromone receptor genes in domesticated cats to big cats. He also talked about the 99Lives project, a project to get more cats sequenced (a theme which was returned to later in the conference).
Anna Kukekova, Simple behavioral pattern: is it simple?
Anna Kukekova of the University of Illinois talked about her work with tame foxes (if you don’t know about the Russian farm fox project, check out the excellent summary at the Thoughtful Animal). Kukekova opened by demonstrating the difference between the lines of foxes selected for tameness and the foxes selected for aggression with video in which a researcher performed a behavioral test on one fox from each line: first standing by a fox’s cage, then opening the door and reaching for the fox, then trying to pet the fox. The videos, shown side by side, were dramatically different: on the left, a clearly wild animal, both cowering from and menacing the human who stood near it. On the right, an animal reacting to human presence just as a dog in a shelter might, almost in a spasm of enthusiasm, wagging its tail, soliciting affection, rolling over to let the human pet its belly. Kukekova talked about analyzing the differences in behavior statistically, and how some of the most important behaviors they found for consistent differentiation between the populations were pricking ears forward, wagging tails, and approaching humans.
Kukekova investigated foxes which were second-generation crosses between tame and aggressive lines. The tame behavior was highly heritable, which was already known. Animals with heritage from both lines usually showed intermediate behavior, on the spectrum between tameness and aggression. What was interesting was that some of the crossed animals showed what she called “switching” behavior: the animals showed tame behavior at some points in the test, and aggressive behavior at others. For example, some of these animals were aggressive to humans who stood at their cage doors, but friendly when the door was opened. Others were friendly when the door was closed, but aggressive once it was opened.
Tara Baxter, Genomic approaches to identify putative canine behavior-associated genes
Tara Baxter of Cornell talked about her method of trying to track down some genes that are associated with different behaviors in dogs. This is a tough problem, as behaviors are usually influenced by multiple genes as well as by the environment, so tracking down a gene that influences aggression (for example) is a lot harder than tracking down a gene that is all by itself responsible for a disease. Baxter reviewed test results from owners who filled out a CBARQ (behavioral survey) about their dogs; she had access to a database of 19,000 surveys, so an impressive sample size. Using these tests, she averaged behaviors for each breed, getting a score of how likely animals of a particular breed were to display a particular behavior (for example, “begging”). Then she did an association study, using a canine SNP chip similar to the feline one discussed above. She used the chip to compare the SNPs found in individual dogs from various breeds, and looked for correlations between the average breed behaviors and the SNPs that she found in individuals of those breeds.
She had some interesting results which will benefit from more study. For example, for the behavior of urinating while left alone, she found an association in an area which is related to behavioral disorders in humans. Finding this association in an area which seems to affect behavior suggested to her that she might be on the right track, though of course a lot more work will need to be done. She mentioned some other interesting associations that she found as well. She also, of course, found associations that appear spurious, such as the association between a gene for long hair and chasing behavior. One amusing association she found was a relationship between the gene for short legs, such as you might see in a corgi, and a fear of stairs! She commented that sometimes physical traits explain behavior.
...And that is my smattering of summaries from the conference. Here’s hoping that I will manage to attend the next one, in eighteen months, in the other Cambridge — the one in the UK!
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Guessing at the mechanisms of dog aggression
I've been thinking a lot lately about how dog aggression works, since the recent dog fighting bust (second largest in history). Fighting dogs are bred for willingness to attack other dogs, but for docility with humans. You don’t want your fighting dog to turn on you in the training yard or in the ring! Willingness to attack another dog, and to continue to attack when the other dog retaliates, is called “gameness.” Despite intense selection on the part of the dog fighters, the dogs show a lot of variation in levels of gameness: some dogs are very game and some are less so, even with training. But it does seem to be true that gameness is heritable, something you can breed for.
So how do you get aggression which is so specific? And what are the fighting dog breeders actually selecting for? What’s different in the DNA of a game dog and a not-game dog? We don’t have any real idea. Recently I came up with one possibility (too new even to be called a theory). It opens more questions than answers, but here’s the story.
There is a well-studied phenomenon in rats and mice related to the position of the fetuses in the uterus. (I know, uterine position is probably not related to genetics, but bear with me for a minute.) If a female fetus is surrounded by two males, one on each side, she gets more than her usual dose of testosterone in the uterus. Because testosterone helps the developing fetus know what sex to develop into, this extra testosterone makes her develop some masculine characteristics which will stay with her throughout life: she will be what is referred to as a masculinized female. Among other things, her behavior will be affected. Her play style will change to a more rough and tumble style. And she will be more aggressive towards others of her species.
This phenomenon has been demonstrated in multiple species, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and marmots. It is suspected to be in effect in dogs as well: although there are no published papers reporting on it in dogs (at least none that I could find — please let me know if I’m wrong!) I have heard it discussed at dog training seminars as a possibility. And given the range of species it affects and the similarity of effects of reproductive hormones on development across species, it seems really likely to affect dogs.
The big question is: how could this be a genetic phenomenon? The genders of your neighbors in the uterus are random, right? Well, not completely: one of the differences between masculinized and non-masculinized females is that masculinized females have more male offspring. Really. We don't know how that works, though there are some theories about why it may be a useful adaptation to some environments.
Moreover, testosterone doesn't just come from other fetuses. It comes from the mother as well. Some amount of testosterone is normal in development. What if what dog fighters are breeding for, without knowing it, is mothers who produce more testosterone when they are pregnant? Or maybe fetuses which are worse at transforming testosterone into estrogen (as fetuses like to do)? Or fetuses which are more sensitive to testosterone (maybe have more numerous or more sensitive testosterone receptors)?
These questions lead to even more questions, of course, which is why I haven’t even called these ideas a theory yet. Do the more aggressive masculinized female rodents show more aggression to their own species than to humans (which is my initial question about the fighting dogs)? Do male rodents with more males beside them in the uterus show increased levels of aggression? Do we know anything at all about different levels of testosterone released by the dam, not just by uterine neighbors?
There is a lot known about intrauterine position. It is really well studied, partly because it might help us understand the effects of reproductive hormones on fetuses in general, such as possible effects of artificial hormones which are unintentionally introduced into our diets, like BPA. So as I continue to read about it, I hope I’ll start to figure out if this is an idea with legs or just a passing fancy. In the interests of keeping this post readable, I haven’t written about all the interesting facets that I’ve encountered in this phenomenon, so feel free to ask questions. And there are certainly holes in the idea beyond the ones I mentioned, so feel free to point those out, too!
Edited to add: I messed up in suggesting that intra-uterine position might affect dogs the way it has been shown to affect rats, humans, and cattle. Dog placentas are fundamentally different from rat and human placentas, and also different from cow placentas (which form a third category). In short, it would be pretty unlikely for two fetuses to share hormones in-utero in a dog the way they can in rats, humans, and cows. So while I still think it's an interesting idea that a dog fetus could be exposed to different amounts of testosterone in-utero (probably due to processing of hormones by the placenta) and that this could affect its adult behavior, I want to emphasize that it is actually not likely that these hormones could be from other fetuses in a dog. The hormones would be from some difference in the mother, not from a chance alignment of the offspring. So in summary: if your bitch gives birth to one female and two males, that's not a reason to worry about masculinization and temperament in the female.
References
So how do you get aggression which is so specific? And what are the fighting dog breeders actually selecting for? What’s different in the DNA of a game dog and a not-game dog? We don’t have any real idea. Recently I came up with one possibility (too new even to be called a theory). It opens more questions than answers, but here’s the story.
There is a well-studied phenomenon in rats and mice related to the position of the fetuses in the uterus. (I know, uterine position is probably not related to genetics, but bear with me for a minute.) If a female fetus is surrounded by two males, one on each side, she gets more than her usual dose of testosterone in the uterus. Because testosterone helps the developing fetus know what sex to develop into, this extra testosterone makes her develop some masculine characteristics which will stay with her throughout life: she will be what is referred to as a masculinized female. Among other things, her behavior will be affected. Her play style will change to a more rough and tumble style. And she will be more aggressive towards others of her species.
This phenomenon has been demonstrated in multiple species, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and marmots. It is suspected to be in effect in dogs as well: although there are no published papers reporting on it in dogs (at least none that I could find — please let me know if I’m wrong!) I have heard it discussed at dog training seminars as a possibility. And given the range of species it affects and the similarity of effects of reproductive hormones on development across species, it seems really likely to affect dogs.
The big question is: how could this be a genetic phenomenon? The genders of your neighbors in the uterus are random, right? Well, not completely: one of the differences between masculinized and non-masculinized females is that masculinized females have more male offspring. Really. We don't know how that works, though there are some theories about why it may be a useful adaptation to some environments.
Moreover, testosterone doesn't just come from other fetuses. It comes from the mother as well. Some amount of testosterone is normal in development. What if what dog fighters are breeding for, without knowing it, is mothers who produce more testosterone when they are pregnant? Or maybe fetuses which are worse at transforming testosterone into estrogen (as fetuses like to do)? Or fetuses which are more sensitive to testosterone (maybe have more numerous or more sensitive testosterone receptors)?
These questions lead to even more questions, of course, which is why I haven’t even called these ideas a theory yet. Do the more aggressive masculinized female rodents show more aggression to their own species than to humans (which is my initial question about the fighting dogs)? Do male rodents with more males beside them in the uterus show increased levels of aggression? Do we know anything at all about different levels of testosterone released by the dam, not just by uterine neighbors?
There is a lot known about intrauterine position. It is really well studied, partly because it might help us understand the effects of reproductive hormones on fetuses in general, such as possible effects of artificial hormones which are unintentionally introduced into our diets, like BPA. So as I continue to read about it, I hope I’ll start to figure out if this is an idea with legs or just a passing fancy. In the interests of keeping this post readable, I haven’t written about all the interesting facets that I’ve encountered in this phenomenon, so feel free to ask questions. And there are certainly holes in the idea beyond the ones I mentioned, so feel free to point those out, too!
Edited to add: I messed up in suggesting that intra-uterine position might affect dogs the way it has been shown to affect rats, humans, and cattle. Dog placentas are fundamentally different from rat and human placentas, and also different from cow placentas (which form a third category). In short, it would be pretty unlikely for two fetuses to share hormones in-utero in a dog the way they can in rats, humans, and cows. So while I still think it's an interesting idea that a dog fetus could be exposed to different amounts of testosterone in-utero (probably due to processing of hormones by the placenta) and that this could affect its adult behavior, I want to emphasize that it is actually not likely that these hormones could be from other fetuses in a dog. The hormones would be from some difference in the mother, not from a chance alignment of the offspring. So in summary: if your bitch gives birth to one female and two males, that's not a reason to worry about masculinization and temperament in the female.
References
- Ryan B.C. (2002). Intrauterine position effects, Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 26 (6) 665-678. PMID: 12479841
- Monclus R., Cook T. & Blumstein D.T. (2012). Masculinized female yellow-bellied marmots initiate more social interactions, Biology Letters, 8 (2) 208-210. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0754
- Hotchkiss A.K., Lambright C.S., Ostby J.S., Parks-Saldutti L., Vandenbergh J.G. & Gray L.E. (2006). Prenatal Testosterone Exposure Permanently Masculinizes Anogenital Distance, Nipple Development, and Reproductive Tract Morphology in Female Sprague-Dawley Rats, Toxicological Sciences, 96 (2) 335-345. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm002
- Bánszegi O., Altbäcker V. & Bilkó Á. (2009). Intrauterine position influences anatomy and behavior in domestic rabbits, Physiology & Behavior, 98 (3) 258-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.05.016
- Correa L.A., Frugone M.J. & Soto-Gamboa M. (2013). Social dominance and behavioral consequences of intrauterine position in female groups of the social rodent Octodon degus., Physiology & behavior, PMID: 23769692
Monday, September 9, 2013
State of the Zombieverse
I finished my veterinary shelter medicine internship at the end of June. It was a crazy year. I learned so much, and I am so glad that I did it. I do feel that I did what I set out to do: learned a lot about the inner workings of animal shelters and made some very valuable contacts in the field.
I left the South and moved to the Midwest, where this fall I have started a PhD program. I'm working with a lab that focuses on the genetics of canid behavior and domestication (I know, right?). I'm so lucky that a place like this even exists. Sometimes I am frustrated that I found these interests in dog behavior and domestication so late in life, but then I remember that a few years ago, shelter medicine internships didn't exist, and there were no PhD programs studying canid behavior.
My life is very different right now compared to a few months ago. Instead of spending my days at chaotic shelters, I spend them alternating between lab work (so far, running PCRs) and lectures. Instead of having a highly organized schedule, everything is up to me: how many classes to take, how much to work in the lab, even what projects to work on in the lab.
So how will this blog's content change? I'm not sure yet. At a guess, I will write less about shelters, and more about the science behind behavior. I do hope to stay connected to the sheltering world in my Copious Free Time, though, so I may still write about that stuff. I'll see how my career here develops, and of course I am always open to requests from you guys!
I left the South and moved to the Midwest, where this fall I have started a PhD program. I'm working with a lab that focuses on the genetics of canid behavior and domestication (I know, right?). I'm so lucky that a place like this even exists. Sometimes I am frustrated that I found these interests in dog behavior and domestication so late in life, but then I remember that a few years ago, shelter medicine internships didn't exist, and there were no PhD programs studying canid behavior.
My life is very different right now compared to a few months ago. Instead of spending my days at chaotic shelters, I spend them alternating between lab work (so far, running PCRs) and lectures. Instead of having a highly organized schedule, everything is up to me: how many classes to take, how much to work in the lab, even what projects to work on in the lab.
So how will this blog's content change? I'm not sure yet. At a guess, I will write less about shelters, and more about the science behind behavior. I do hope to stay connected to the sheltering world in my Copious Free Time, though, so I may still write about that stuff. I'll see how my career here develops, and of course I am always open to requests from you guys!
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Laws and consequences: Texas legal changes in excruciating detail
On the face of it, the recent changes to Texas state law appear to be a good idea, aimed at preventing non-veterinarians from practicing veterinary medicine. But as is often the case with legislation, digging in to the situation a little deeper uncovers a load of unintended consequences, in this case in animal shelters. The whole story makes a great teaching case for how population medicine differs from individual medicine. There's a lot to cover, so let's get going.
The body of law in question is the Veterinary Practice Act. This Act covers, you guessed it, the practice of veterinary medicine. Among the basic rules that the Act lays out is the rule that in order for veterinary medicine to be legally practiced on an animal, there must exist a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship. That statement takes quite a lot of unpacking, so here you go:
Until recently, the situation in Texas was that it was legal for a non-veterinarian shelter employee to give vaccines to animals in the shelter because they were members of a herd, so the veterinarian could write general herd health protocols ("give the core vaccines to all animals at intake") without having to see each individual animal. Now that's changed.
The problem is with stray animals. Shelters don't own stray animals for the first few days that they are in the shelter. This is called the animal's "stray hold," and is intended to give the owner a chance to reclaim their animal before it is put up for adoption. The number of reclaimed stray animals is typically low, especially for cats; often only 2% of stray cats are ever reclaimed. The majority of stray animals go on to be owned by the shelter.
Texas has changed the wording of their Animal Practice Act to specify that dogs and cats cannot be considered herd animals. Yes, it has really taken me this much explanation to get to the actual change in wording, but here it is: in the middle of a definition of the veterinary-patient-client relationship, the Act states (newly added text in italics):
On the one hand, it does seem silly to think of a "herd" of dogs and cats. But if you forget about the fact that the word "herd" has other meanings in other contexts, the real question that this change in wording is addressing is: Should shelters be allowed to practice population medicine on their animals?
In this particular instance, the fallout goes like this:
Not a big deal. Surely all shelter animals are examined by a veterinarian, right?
Actually, in quite a few shelters, veterinarians are only called in to treat sick animals, and the healthy animals are managed by technicians. Even in shelters which have a veterinarian, it is common for the veterinarian to only see sick animals. Of course, it is in the best interest of the animals for a veterinarian to see all of them as they come in the door, to establish a baseline of health status and to identify any problems that a technician might miss. But even in shelters with this policy, an animal may not be seen by a veterinarian for several days. Shelters are chronically understaffed and the vets are often behind on performing physical exams, as they have to prioritize treating sick animals more highly than checking on healthy ones.
Even in shelters which are fully staffed, it may be the next day before an animal is seen. If an animal comes in at the end of the day, the veterinarian may be in surgery the next morning and not get to physical exams until the following afternoon, so that the animal isn't seen for about 24 hours.
So the animal isn't seen by a vet for a day or three. If it's healthy, that shouldn't be a problem.
In the case of a shelter animal, one thing must happen the minute it comes in the door to the shelter: it must receive its vaccines. Prompt vaccination, right at the time of intake, is crucial in keeping animals healthy in shelters. Vaccination takes several weeks to bring the immune system up to its full efficiency in dealing with a pathogen, but there does seem to be an effect much earlier than that. Just a few hours one way or the other can actually make a difference, most critically in the very young and susceptible animals (did I mention in any previous posts how crazy kitten season can be in some areas?) and in the very dangerous diseases (such as parvovirus, which often simply manifests as dead animals with no warning). But don't take my word for it. The bible of shelter medicine, the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, has this to say about prompt vaccination:
I'm saying this as someone who vaccinates her own animals much less often than conventional veterinary wisdom would have me do it. Shelters are full of disease and stress, and decisions about when and how to vaccinate there are going to be very different from decisions about animals in a home environment. I can't say it too often: without prompt vaccination, animals in shelters will die. The first question a shelter medicine specialist asks upon being confronted with an outbreak of parvovirus or distemper is "Are your animals vaccinated on intake?"
So, finally, on to this recent legal change in Texas. What shelter specialists see coming like an impending train wreck is lots of stray animals in Texas not getting seen by a veterinarian as soon as they are brought in to the shelter (it is not reasonable to expect that the vet could see them immediately); therefore, those animals not getting prompt vaccination; therefore, sick animals in shelters. Lots of them.
There is legal recourse at the city or county level: each city or county with a municipal shelter can change its ordinances to appoint the shelter the "designated caretaker" of stray animals during their hold periods. This allows the shelter to once again consider stray animals as part of the shelter herd, so that the veterinarian may ask someone else to give the vaccines before a physical exam has been performed. I have no real idea how likely it is that cities and counties will pass such ordinances, but I am guessing that the rate of adoption won't be anywhere near complete, and that the speed of adoption won't be blinding.
What's the moral of this story? I'm not really sure, but I think it has something to do with how complicated the consequences of legal wording can be, and how important it is to take the advice of specialists into account. I send my sympathies to Texas shelter veterinarians, who now will be faced with the scramble to still vaccinate stray animals on intake despite the change in laws.
The body of law in question is the Veterinary Practice Act. This Act covers, you guessed it, the practice of veterinary medicine. Among the basic rules that the Act lays out is the rule that in order for veterinary medicine to be legally practiced on an animal, there must exist a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship. That statement takes quite a lot of unpacking, so here you go:
- Veterinary medicine: in this case, giving a vaccination
- Valid veterinary-client-patient relationship: the relationship between the veterinarian, the client, and the patient. The veterinarian must have actually met both the client and the patient. Usually this must be renewed yearly -- so if you call your veterinarian and ask for a refill on your pet's medication, but you haven't had your pet in to the clinic for more than a year, the veterinarian must ask you to bring your pet back in for a checkup, or the veterinarian is at risk of losing their license. (Seriously. That's why they won't refill over the phone after a particular period of time.)
- But there is an exception made for herd health. If the veterinarian is treating a herd of animals (commonly livestock such as cows) then the relationship is with the herd, not the individual animal. So the vet can prescribe treatments over the phone for a herd member that they haven't ever seen, if they have recent experience with that herd as a whole.
Until recently, the situation in Texas was that it was legal for a non-veterinarian shelter employee to give vaccines to animals in the shelter because they were members of a herd, so the veterinarian could write general herd health protocols ("give the core vaccines to all animals at intake") without having to see each individual animal. Now that's changed.
The problem is with stray animals. Shelters don't own stray animals for the first few days that they are in the shelter. This is called the animal's "stray hold," and is intended to give the owner a chance to reclaim their animal before it is put up for adoption. The number of reclaimed stray animals is typically low, especially for cats; often only 2% of stray cats are ever reclaimed. The majority of stray animals go on to be owned by the shelter.
Texas has changed the wording of their Animal Practice Act to specify that dogs and cats cannot be considered herd animals. Yes, it has really taken me this much explanation to get to the actual change in wording, but here it is: in the middle of a definition of the veterinary-patient-client relationship, the Act states (newly added text in italics):
A veterinarian possesses sufficient knowledge of the animal for purposes of Subsection (a)(2) [having a valid veterinary-patient-client relationship] if the veterinarian has recently seen, or is personally acquainted with, the keeping and care of the animal by:
(1) examining the animal; or
(2) making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal is kept. (NOTE: Per TAC 573.20(b) and 573.80(14), this section only applies to herd animals not including cats and dogs.)
On the one hand, it does seem silly to think of a "herd" of dogs and cats. But if you forget about the fact that the word "herd" has other meanings in other contexts, the real question that this change in wording is addressing is: Should shelters be allowed to practice population medicine on their animals?
In this particular instance, the fallout goes like this:
- By default, shelter animals in Texas cannot be treated as "herd" animals.
- Animals which are owned by the shelter are exempt from the Veterinary Practice Act, and therefore may still be treated as a herd.
- Stray animals which are still in their stray holding period, however, are not yet owned by the shelter and therefore are not part of the shelter's herd.
- Therefore, stray animals in their stray hold period must be examined by a veterinarian before receiving any treatment, including initial vaccines.
Not a big deal. Surely all shelter animals are examined by a veterinarian, right?
Actually, in quite a few shelters, veterinarians are only called in to treat sick animals, and the healthy animals are managed by technicians. Even in shelters which have a veterinarian, it is common for the veterinarian to only see sick animals. Of course, it is in the best interest of the animals for a veterinarian to see all of them as they come in the door, to establish a baseline of health status and to identify any problems that a technician might miss. But even in shelters with this policy, an animal may not be seen by a veterinarian for several days. Shelters are chronically understaffed and the vets are often behind on performing physical exams, as they have to prioritize treating sick animals more highly than checking on healthy ones.
Even in shelters which are fully staffed, it may be the next day before an animal is seen. If an animal comes in at the end of the day, the veterinarian may be in surgery the next morning and not get to physical exams until the following afternoon, so that the animal isn't seen for about 24 hours.
So the animal isn't seen by a vet for a day or three. If it's healthy, that shouldn't be a problem.
In the case of a shelter animal, one thing must happen the minute it comes in the door to the shelter: it must receive its vaccines. Prompt vaccination, right at the time of intake, is crucial in keeping animals healthy in shelters. Vaccination takes several weeks to bring the immune system up to its full efficiency in dealing with a pathogen, but there does seem to be an effect much earlier than that. Just a few hours one way or the other can actually make a difference, most critically in the very young and susceptible animals (did I mention in any previous posts how crazy kitten season can be in some areas?) and in the very dangerous diseases (such as parvovirus, which often simply manifests as dead animals with no warning). But don't take my word for it. The bible of shelter medicine, the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, has this to say about prompt vaccination:
Because risk of disease exposure is often high in shelters, animals must be vaccinated at or prior to intake with core vaccines... Shelters that do not vaccinate with core vaccines immediately on entry, or do not vaccinate all animals, are much more likely to experience deadly outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease (Larson 2009).This is how it works: the animal comes in to the shelter, either as a stray or surrendered by an owner. It gets processed, minimally receiving an identifying number, and is placed in a cage or run. Whoever performs this processing can either stick the animal with vaccines (and give it dewormers) at that time, or call a technician to do it. Giving vaccines isn't hard and you can train just about anyone to do it: it's technically easy (though it's nice to have someone else around to hold the animal still), and no decisions are really necessary. If the animal is too sick to receive its core vaccines against the most dangerous shelter diseases, it is too sick to be in the shelter and should get transferred to a hospital or other off-site care. Period. They all need their vaccines.
I'm saying this as someone who vaccinates her own animals much less often than conventional veterinary wisdom would have me do it. Shelters are full of disease and stress, and decisions about when and how to vaccinate there are going to be very different from decisions about animals in a home environment. I can't say it too often: without prompt vaccination, animals in shelters will die. The first question a shelter medicine specialist asks upon being confronted with an outbreak of parvovirus or distemper is "Are your animals vaccinated on intake?"
So, finally, on to this recent legal change in Texas. What shelter specialists see coming like an impending train wreck is lots of stray animals in Texas not getting seen by a veterinarian as soon as they are brought in to the shelter (it is not reasonable to expect that the vet could see them immediately); therefore, those animals not getting prompt vaccination; therefore, sick animals in shelters. Lots of them.
There is legal recourse at the city or county level: each city or county with a municipal shelter can change its ordinances to appoint the shelter the "designated caretaker" of stray animals during their hold periods. This allows the shelter to once again consider stray animals as part of the shelter herd, so that the veterinarian may ask someone else to give the vaccines before a physical exam has been performed. I have no real idea how likely it is that cities and counties will pass such ordinances, but I am guessing that the rate of adoption won't be anywhere near complete, and that the speed of adoption won't be blinding.
What's the moral of this story? I'm not really sure, but I think it has something to do with how complicated the consequences of legal wording can be, and how important it is to take the advice of specialists into account. I send my sympathies to Texas shelter veterinarians, who now will be faced with the scramble to still vaccinate stray animals on intake despite the change in laws.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Looking at dog brains
Today I was privileged to visit Dr. Greg Berns' laboratory to see awake dogs in an fMRI. In vet school, of course I saw dogs getting MRIs of their brains as part of medical diagnostics, in hunts for cancer, stroke, inflammation, etc. But because an MRI requires that the subject hold perfectly still for several minutes at a time, these dogs were under general anesthesia, which is both expensive for the owner and physically difficult on the dog.
In humans, we can use the related technology, functional MRI (fMRI), to see changes in brain activity in response to different stimuli, such as music, smells, or looking at pictures. This is a useful tool in research, for example as we try to figure out which brain areas perform which tasks. In dogs, we haven't been able to do such studies, because the only way to keep dogs still enough for an fMRI has been to anesthetize them, and obviously a sleeping dog isn't going to have a meaningful reaction to external stimuli.
At Dr. Berns' lab, they have trained dogs to hold still in an fMRI machine while resting their chins on a chin rest. Can your dog hold its head perfectly still for minutes at a time? What about in a strange room, with loud machine noises all around, with ear muffs on to protect their hearing? It's an impressive feat, and done using entirely positive methods. (The training protocol was developed by Mark Spivak of Comprehensive Pet Therapy, Inc.)
I was most impressed by the dogs' relaxed body language. They entered the machine willingly, when their owners asked them to. They lay down with their chins on the rest and waited. As I watched from behind, I could see that many of the dogs were lying on one hip or even frog-legged, in very relaxed postures, suggesting that they were comfortable being in the machine. (Have you ever had an MRI? It is a claustrophobic experience. Humans getting MRIs would benefit from the extensive conditioning preparation that these dogs had, as well as having a loved one present to feed them treats periodically!) Some dogs would balk at some points and exit the machine, at which point their handler would ask them to return and they would. Dogs always had the opportunity to leave. At the end of the test, they came out happy and wriggly.
Highlights of the day for me:
It was a fascinating day. I am deeply happy to see non-invasive research going on which takes the welfare of its canine participants into account, and waiting with bated breath to find out the results of the experiments I saw.
Further reading
In humans, we can use the related technology, functional MRI (fMRI), to see changes in brain activity in response to different stimuli, such as music, smells, or looking at pictures. This is a useful tool in research, for example as we try to figure out which brain areas perform which tasks. In dogs, we haven't been able to do such studies, because the only way to keep dogs still enough for an fMRI has been to anesthetize them, and obviously a sleeping dog isn't going to have a meaningful reaction to external stimuli.
At Dr. Berns' lab, they have trained dogs to hold still in an fMRI machine while resting their chins on a chin rest. Can your dog hold its head perfectly still for minutes at a time? What about in a strange room, with loud machine noises all around, with ear muffs on to protect their hearing? It's an impressive feat, and done using entirely positive methods. (The training protocol was developed by Mark Spivak of Comprehensive Pet Therapy, Inc.)
I was most impressed by the dogs' relaxed body language. They entered the machine willingly, when their owners asked them to. They lay down with their chins on the rest and waited. As I watched from behind, I could see that many of the dogs were lying on one hip or even frog-legged, in very relaxed postures, suggesting that they were comfortable being in the machine. (Have you ever had an MRI? It is a claustrophobic experience. Humans getting MRIs would benefit from the extensive conditioning preparation that these dogs had, as well as having a loved one present to feed them treats periodically!) Some dogs would balk at some points and exit the machine, at which point their handler would ask them to return and they would. Dogs always had the opportunity to leave. At the end of the test, they came out happy and wriggly.
Highlights of the day for me:
- The Boston terrier who hurled himself into the fMRI at full speed and then became rock-still for as long as his owner asked him to. That dog was committed to his fMRI experience! (Who would expect the Boston to be the calmest dog in the magnet?)
- The dogs with their ear protectors wrapped onto their heads with an elastic material normally used to attach catheters and the like. They looked hilarious.
- The treats fed to dogs on the end of long sticks so that they're easier to deliver inside the magnet. Ingenious.
- Personally getting to participate in experiments by giving hand signals to dogs who were in the magnet, watching me intently as they waited for their treats.
It was a fascinating day. I am deeply happy to see non-invasive research going on which takes the welfare of its canine participants into account, and waiting with bated breath to find out the results of the experiments I saw.
Further reading
- Functional fMRI in awake unrestrained dogs (open access)
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Health care agents on mobile phones for pets?
I was just listening to a podcast about new health care technology using mobile phones. For example: someone wants to start eating healthier food. They install an agent on their mobile device which checks in with them every few days, asking things like How’s it going? Not so well? Why not? These agents are interactive, so if the user complains that things are not going well, it can understand the answer and reply: Here are some ideas to help you get past that particular hurdle. So I thought: why not for pets?
Imagine that when someone adopts a new dog (from a breeder or a shelter) they are asked if they’re willing to be signed up for a free preventive health care service. When they agree, they give their mobile phone number to the service. The shelter also provides some information about the animal: age, gender, if it is already spayed/neutered, and anything they think might need followup (such as if the animal is not housetrained, or if it is a jumpy-mouthy dog).
A week later, the new adopter gets a text message: How’s it going? Have you made your first vet appointment for Buster yet? No? Would you like some suggestions of veterinarians located near your home?
A few weeks later: How’s Buster? How is housetraining going? Not so well? Would you like some suggestions of dog trainers located in your area? The application might also alert the shelter that there is a training problem, so that the shelter can provide some followup if they have the resources.
And perhaps yearly: How’s Buster? Have you gotten his yearly checkup?
It would make an interesting study: are owners randomized into this service less likely to return their new pets than owners who are randomized out of it? How many owners continue to use the service (and how many request being removed from it)? Do owners find it helpful or annoying?
The first step, I imagine, is for me to do some reading on how these agents are implemented on the human side. I don’t know anything about this particular area, so anyone out there in internet land who has ideas for where to start (specifically, suggestions of peer-reviewed papers), they’d be welcome!
Imagine that when someone adopts a new dog (from a breeder or a shelter) they are asked if they’re willing to be signed up for a free preventive health care service. When they agree, they give their mobile phone number to the service. The shelter also provides some information about the animal: age, gender, if it is already spayed/neutered, and anything they think might need followup (such as if the animal is not housetrained, or if it is a jumpy-mouthy dog).
A week later, the new adopter gets a text message: How’s it going? Have you made your first vet appointment for Buster yet? No? Would you like some suggestions of veterinarians located near your home?
A few weeks later: How’s Buster? How is housetraining going? Not so well? Would you like some suggestions of dog trainers located in your area? The application might also alert the shelter that there is a training problem, so that the shelter can provide some followup if they have the resources.
And perhaps yearly: How’s Buster? Have you gotten his yearly checkup?
It would make an interesting study: are owners randomized into this service less likely to return their new pets than owners who are randomized out of it? How many owners continue to use the service (and how many request being removed from it)? Do owners find it helpful or annoying?
The first step, I imagine, is for me to do some reading on how these agents are implemented on the human side. I don’t know anything about this particular area, so anyone out there in internet land who has ideas for where to start (specifically, suggestions of peer-reviewed papers), they’d be welcome!
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Is the flood of animals receding?
I got a great question from Christopher of Border Wars on my last post. He wrote: “From the data I’ve seen, shelter intakes are dropping in real numbers and have been for decades despite constant growth in both population and animal ownership. So aren't the flood waters already going out?” I answered there, but have been feeling that there’s more to say on the topic.
As I wrote back to Christopher, the numbers of animals surrendered to shelters and the numbers of stray animals are definitely dropping in most (but not all) communities. Does this mean our work is done? Below you will find rampant over-generalization! Enjoy.
Location, location, location
Things are pretty good in the northeastern United States. When I started this blog, I lived in New England. Shelters there certainly had their problems, but they weren’t nearly as overwhelmed as the shelters that I have seen this year in the South. Northeastern shelters often import dogs (particularly puppies) from Southern shelters. So when you’re looking at intake numbers, think about what part of the country you’re in. The problems in the South are still intense, as I can attest from first-hand experience this year.
Dogs vs cats
When I was in New England, I observed that many shelters were managing their dog populations very well. Dogs in most shelters had a very high adoption rate there; healthy, behaviorally stable dogs in New England shelters had little to fear. Cats were an entirely different story. Plenty of shelters were euthanizing cats for space, and the others were stuck holding cats for months before finding homes for them.
Ironically, the tide is turning with the new programs in which cats who have been successfully following a healthy free-roaming lifestyle are simply sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to the neighborhood in which they were living. This has dropped cat euthanasia rates dramatically in participating communities. (See my previous post on leaving outdoor cats where they are.) You can’t really do this with dogs, so suddenly some shelters are finding themselves euthanizing more dogs than cats!
A dog problem or a pit bull problem?
I have been told that New England doesn’t have an unwanted dog problem, but it does have an unwanted pit bull problem. By that, of course, I mean pit bull type dogs, as the “pit bull” designation does not refer to a specific breed and is often used loosely to describe mixed-breed dogs who have a certain look.
For sure, in almost any shelter you go to, you’ll see many more pit bull types than dogs of any other breed. (The exception is shelters in communities with breed specific bans, in which those types of dogs may not be allowed in the shelters, or are immediately shipped out or euthanized.) This type of dog is harder to adopt out of shelters, as many adopters are looking for a different type of pet. They also do poorly in shelters, because they are highly social, smart, and energetic. Many shelters are specifically struggling with how to stem the flood of pit bull type dogs; the various programs that have been tried are a topic for a different post.
Some improvement is not enough
And finally, as I said to Christopher in my answer to his comment, we may have seen some improvement, but it is nowhere near enough. Appalling numbers of animals were euthanized in shelters in the past. Somewhat less appalling animals are euthanized now. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that the numbers have dropped from 12-20 million shelter euthanasias per year in the 1970s to 2.7 million shelter euthanasias today. It’s all guesswork, because there is no centralized reporting for animal shelters; we don’t even know how many shelters are in the U.S., let alone how many animals they process and how many animals survive. Remember, though, that those numbers don’t include animals trapped in inhumane conditions in long-term facilities, sometimes for years (again, this is from personal experience). It does not account for overcrowding at shelters causing welfare problems, even short-term, for the animals who stay there. Nor does it account for animals dying of disease in shelters which do not have the resources to manage their populations. And it probably accounts for spectacular changes in some shelters, but much less change in others.
The trend is in a good direction, but we’re not done, and the trend won’t continue in this direction without more work. So get your animals spayed or neutered, don’t buy animals from pet stores or flea markets or online, take your dog to a training class to prevent behavior problems, exercise your dog for the same reason, and volunteer at your local shelter.
As I wrote back to Christopher, the numbers of animals surrendered to shelters and the numbers of stray animals are definitely dropping in most (but not all) communities. Does this mean our work is done? Below you will find rampant over-generalization! Enjoy.
Location, location, location
Things are pretty good in the northeastern United States. When I started this blog, I lived in New England. Shelters there certainly had their problems, but they weren’t nearly as overwhelmed as the shelters that I have seen this year in the South. Northeastern shelters often import dogs (particularly puppies) from Southern shelters. So when you’re looking at intake numbers, think about what part of the country you’re in. The problems in the South are still intense, as I can attest from first-hand experience this year.
Dogs vs cats
When I was in New England, I observed that many shelters were managing their dog populations very well. Dogs in most shelters had a very high adoption rate there; healthy, behaviorally stable dogs in New England shelters had little to fear. Cats were an entirely different story. Plenty of shelters were euthanizing cats for space, and the others were stuck holding cats for months before finding homes for them.
Ironically, the tide is turning with the new programs in which cats who have been successfully following a healthy free-roaming lifestyle are simply sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to the neighborhood in which they were living. This has dropped cat euthanasia rates dramatically in participating communities. (See my previous post on leaving outdoor cats where they are.) You can’t really do this with dogs, so suddenly some shelters are finding themselves euthanizing more dogs than cats!
A dog problem or a pit bull problem?
I have been told that New England doesn’t have an unwanted dog problem, but it does have an unwanted pit bull problem. By that, of course, I mean pit bull type dogs, as the “pit bull” designation does not refer to a specific breed and is often used loosely to describe mixed-breed dogs who have a certain look.
For sure, in almost any shelter you go to, you’ll see many more pit bull types than dogs of any other breed. (The exception is shelters in communities with breed specific bans, in which those types of dogs may not be allowed in the shelters, or are immediately shipped out or euthanized.) This type of dog is harder to adopt out of shelters, as many adopters are looking for a different type of pet. They also do poorly in shelters, because they are highly social, smart, and energetic. Many shelters are specifically struggling with how to stem the flood of pit bull type dogs; the various programs that have been tried are a topic for a different post.
Some improvement is not enough
And finally, as I said to Christopher in my answer to his comment, we may have seen some improvement, but it is nowhere near enough. Appalling numbers of animals were euthanized in shelters in the past. Somewhat less appalling animals are euthanized now. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that the numbers have dropped from 12-20 million shelter euthanasias per year in the 1970s to 2.7 million shelter euthanasias today. It’s all guesswork, because there is no centralized reporting for animal shelters; we don’t even know how many shelters are in the U.S., let alone how many animals they process and how many animals survive. Remember, though, that those numbers don’t include animals trapped in inhumane conditions in long-term facilities, sometimes for years (again, this is from personal experience). It does not account for overcrowding at shelters causing welfare problems, even short-term, for the animals who stay there. Nor does it account for animals dying of disease in shelters which do not have the resources to manage their populations. And it probably accounts for spectacular changes in some shelters, but much less change in others.
The trend is in a good direction, but we’re not done, and the trend won’t continue in this direction without more work. So get your animals spayed or neutered, don’t buy animals from pet stores or flea markets or online, take your dog to a training class to prevent behavior problems, exercise your dog for the same reason, and volunteer at your local shelter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
