re: Labrador color impacts how long they live and chances of developing serious illnesses

quote:

---

Axltgr, Im not sure what your trying to argue.

---

I know, and it's not my fault.

quote:

---

But did you read and comprehend the article?

---

Yes, yes I did.

quote:

---

You have left the realm of opinion and are just dead wrong

---

About what? Nothing I have posted here is wrong.

quote:

---

You seem to be pulling out pieces to justify something that isn't there. stop your an idiot when you do this.

---

I did nothing of the sort. This topic is way over your cute little troll head.

I know you are a smart guy, and know what I'm trying to say.

You just like to play the counter-side to an argument for the sake of it.

Especially after you find out who he really is.

quote:

---

You just like to play the counter-side to an argument for the sake of it.

---

bullshite. That's a pretty shitty comment BTW. What I am saying is exactly what every other poster who knows anything about genetics is saying. Are they doing this too? Do you not remember the other thread where multiples pointed out how wrong your line of thinking is?

OK, since the article posted in the OP does really discuss the genetics of color at all, here's one:

Health risks linked to color

quote:

---

Unlike in many species, there are very few colour-associated health problems in dogs, and most are avoidable through careful breeding.

---

And here it is.

quote:

---

There is a common misconception that dilutes are in some way naturally sickly - this is not in fact the case. As with most recessives, the dilute allele is in some way "faulty", but it is only faulty in its ability to distribute melanin evenly along the hair shaft (the uneven distribution causes the paler appearance).
This does not affect the health of the dog at all, simply its colour.

---

Your misconception is not unlike Balls when he was blaming moisture on concrete on a lack of visqueen. That's just a common misconception that has been passed along for forever.

quote:

---

Bull shite. That's a pretty shitty comment BTW

---

It's okay to like to argue. Got a family member who is a staunch arguer for the sake of it, and I still love them anyway.

In your link:

quote:

---

merle gene can also cause eye deformities when homozygous.

---

quote:

---

Colour Dilution Alopecia. This is an apparently genetic disease causing hair loss and skin problems

---

quote:

---

modifier that causes ticking to become Dalmatian spots is thought to also be responsible for the kidney issues that affect a large proportion of Dalmatians

---

quote:

---

Grey Collie Syndrome, also known as Cyclic Neutropenia, is an autoimmune disease causing an extreme drop in white blood cell levels, leading to an increased risk of infection

---

Pretty apparent that color genes can have linkages to diseases.

And the best one from that source

quote:

---

Please note that I am not a research scientist,

---

Merle is not an issue in this discussion.

quote:

---

It's okay to like to argue. Got a family member who is a staunch arguer for the sake of it, and I still love them anyway.

---

You're holding on to this despite all the other posters saying exactly what I am saying. That's what is so shitty about your pattern of posting.

None of that has anything to do with:

eeBB, eeBb, eebb = A yellow lab (If an ‘ee’ pairing is present, the lab will always be yellow regardless of the ‘B’ or ‘b’ gene combination.)

EEBB, EeBB, EEBb, EeBb = A black lab (With at least one ‘E’ and ‘B’ present, the lab will always be black regardless of the other 2 allele in the genes.)

EEbb, Eebb = A chocolate lab (With at least one ‘E’ present, and a ‘bb’ pairing the lab will always be chocolate.)



And why are you ignoring yellow labs?

quote:

---

To discuss yellow coloration, a third gene must be introduced. Yellow is produced by the presence of a recessive epistatic gene which has the effect of blotting out the expression of the black or chocolate genes.

---

quote:

---

Yellow labs didn't show a shorter lifespan in the study, so they can be ignored.

---

What?

This is your post from this thread:

quote:

---

Just because an individual ends up with one trait caused by a pair of recessive genes does not mean that individual will have any health issues at all.


Right. But looking at the population as a whole, which is the point of the study, the individuals that express recessive coloring traits have a higher probability of having health issues. The breeding for color may exacerbate the problem, but lighter coat colored animals typically have greater risk of health issues.

---

Good grief. You're focused that I didn't specify chocolates in that line.

I'll retype it for you:

Looking at the population as a whole, the chocolate recessive coloring trait has a higher probability of having health issues. The breeding for chocolate color may exacerbate the problem, but lighter coats typically have greater risk of health problems.

I know you'll still argue light coats don't have more issues, but I really don't want to go any further down the rabbit holes.

Could be a gene linked to the recessive color allele that when double recessive is inherited it has a negative impact on the immune system.

How the gene linkage could have gotten in there maybe due to a point mutation in one individual that got concentrated along the way of breeding for chocolate.

Or it could be the level of deleterious recessive traits in chocolates is higher than their counterparts having negative impacts on the health.


Yellows are a little different than the typical "light coated" animal because of epistatic genes. Yellow isn't really a color but a lack of color gene expression. It'd be really interesting to look into the yellows that are homozygous recessive and compare those to the chocolate population.