There is
nothing new under the sun.
A historical view on a hot issue.
(N.B.
This article was was written in July 2004, so the numbers of recent cases
are not up to date) .
Over the last
years we were frequently confronted with terms as PN (Polyneuropathy), LP
(Laryngeal Paralysis), Ataxia spinocerebellar/cerebellar, Quadruplegia, LEM (Leuco-encephalo-myelopathy).
These are all genetic neurological disorders that can cause all kind of
physical problems like gait problems, paralyses, respiration problems etc.
The first time
we were confronted with problems of this kind was in 1965. We came in the
possession of Sascha v. Pappelhof. (case 1).We got him when he was 6 months old
and the breeder, Mrs. Kraus told us he suffered from growing pains. He had
indeed a very weak backhand and he was asthmatic. He was treated for his
asthma/bronchitis, got his medication for a stronger backhand. It seemed to
help a little. He developed into a young charming dog, could cope splendid with
the whole pack of dogs, could run and play. Needed from time to time some extra
rest. Had a bit of a hoarse barking but that was blamed on the bronchitis.
Because of his funny gait we gave him the nickname of Hampelmann (German for a
puppet/punch). Our vets had the opinion that his gait came from an insufficient
attachment of muscles and strings to the bones and that he suffered from a chronic
bronchitis.
According to
them there were no objections to use him for breeding, so we did. He sired 2
litters, 1 of 2 pups and 1 of 4 pups. We watched them very carefully and the
pups developed splendidly. By the time they ware about 7 years we lost contact
with some owners but until that moment everything seemed to be fine. Sascha
died at the age of almost 5 years of pneumonia.
In 1966 we met
the Muller family (v. Murrtal). We became friends and imported 4 pups of their
D litter. We saw a lot of their breeding, no sign of symptoms like Sascha. Also
the dogs on the German shows seemed to be ok. In 1968 the Mullers took back a
neglected male with a kind of Sascha symptoms. He was
Gauner von Murrtal. (case 2). We took him because we
didn’t belief in multi-mating and as Sascha’s pups are doing extremely well we
didn’t bother about his somewhat heavy breathing and his not all correct gait.
His condition was fine. We always fancied the C litter of Murrtal. We tried to
buy a puppy, but we were too late. We used Gauner's uncle Cay, and got a small
but a fine litter. Once again our vets didn’t see any harm in using him so we
did. A litter of six was born and no problems.
During a visit
at the v. Staufenzwinger in about 1972 we saw Etzel (case 3) a 4 years old
male. After an enthousiastic greeting we noticed that he had a very, very heavy
breathing and when he jumped on the garden seat we saw the uncontrolled
hindlegs.
In 1973 an
almost 2 year old male started developing a loose gait. (case 4). More or less
the way Gauner moved but a little bit better. No breathing problems. Our vets
thought again it was a muscle/string problem. He was taken to Utrecht where he was operated in the orthopaedic
clinic of the University, but the gait stayed the same and the dog kept his
slightly uncontrolled gait. When he was 6 years his owner moved to another
place and we lost contact.
In 1974 a litter was born. One male pup
(case 5) had at the age of 10 months serious problems with breathing and
walking. He went to Utrecht University where Dr. Venker at that time
had a LP project on the bouvier of Flanders.
Diagnosis LP. He
got a tie-back, but it didn’t help him that much. At the age of about 2 years
he was put to sleep.
In this time
there was good contact with Dr. Venker. We talked about the other cases and she
also believed there must be a relation with the other cases, with this
exception that the last case was indeed a very severe one. Unfortunaly the
university had no financial means to start a similar project for the Leonberger
so we decided to be very alert on breathing and gait problems.
It stayed calm until
1978. Two 3 year old males were showing the well known symptoms.
Case 6 was a
German imported male. He got his tie back surgery and lived still another 1 ½
year.
The other male
(case 7) was first treated the homoeopathically way, but then the owner decided
to operate him but he didn’t stand the narcosis.
There were some more cases in the
eighties and again some more in the nineties. But all the cases were not the
same. There were a few cases that ended with a total paralysis. That was called
LEM.
The same
happened in the period of 2000-2004.
Holland is a small country. Of course was always possible that there were
more cases, but to hide things is very difficult especially in Leonberger world
were everybody knows everybody.
Let’s have a closer
look at what we call our 7 first cases.
Case 1. Sascha v. Pappelhof.
No one of his
children or grandchildren gave any sign of the symptoms. Also their offspring
as far we can follow didn’t show any signs. His line is still present.
Sascha’s father,
Boris v. Staufenzwinger, sired 68 children. The Gaisberg line with Arko v.
Gaisberg is full alive. Arko v. Gaisberg for instance was father of 55 children
of which the 3 Danubia litters were perhaps the most important. From these 3
litters (19 children) 10 were used for breeding.
Sascha’s mother
Hanny v. Donautal had a total of 21 children from 4 litters (the N, O, P and S
litter v. Pappelhof). Both males from the N litter came into breeding and their
lines are still present. From the P litter siblings of a male and a female can
still be traced.
Carlo v. Glemstal DLZB 2001
Alex v. Wissberg DLZB 2279
Astra v. Neckarursprung DLZB 2068
Boris v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 2512
Ortwin v. Bendstich DLZB 1327
Dorle v. Fuldatal DLZB 2112
Anka v. Weinberg DLZB 1700
Sascha v.
Pappelhof DLZB 2771
Arko v. Pappelhof DLZB 1337
Barko v. Hohen Karpfen DLZB 1910
Bettty v. Carolshofen DLZB
1537
Hanny v. Donautal DLZB 2290
Alex v. Carolshofen DLZB
1518
Bella v. Tivoli DLZB 1667
Astra v. Saul DLZB 1496
Case 2. Gauner v.
Murrtal.
He sires only 1
litter. None of his children showed any signs. 1 male and 1 female come into
breeding and their offspring was also clear. Their offspring is still very well
represented. The first problems we saw when his grandson was sired to a
daughter of Alkeste v.d. Danubia x Gyurcsitarjan Zegty Zorvath Zwo.
Gauner’s father
Nick v. Pappelhof had 21 children of which Gina and Grandel continued the line,
just as their half brother/sister Kuno and Kira (Nick x Camilla).
Gauner’s uncle
Nöck v. Pappelhof sired only 1 litter. This line is very well represented in Holland.
Borris v. Schwenten DDR 41
Famos v. Fuldatal DLZB 2150
Ada v. Fuldatal DLZB 1953
Nick v. Pappelhof DLZB 2504
Barko
v. Hohen Karpfen DLZB 1910
Hanny v. Donautal DLZB 2290
Bella v. Tivoli
DLZB 1667
Gauner v. Murrtal DLZB 2974
Akko v.d. Luisenruhe DLZB 1834
Greif v. Bildstockle DLZB 2198
Citta v. Bildstockle DLZB 1940
Cilly v. Murrtal DLZB 2750
Barko v. Hohen Karpfen DLZB 1910
Camilla v.d. Hohen Feste Wildenstein DLZB 2348
Alma v. Donautal DLZB 1847
Case 3. Etzel v. Staufenzwinger.
No offspring. Etzels mother (Asta v.
Staufenzwinger) is a sister of Sascha’s father (Boris v. Staufenzwinger) see
also case 1.
Akko v.d. Luisenruhe DLZB 1834
Greif v. Bildstockle DLZB 2198
Citta v. Bildstockle DLZB 1940
Akbar v. Pfinztal DLZB 2547
Borris v. Schwenten DDR 41
Gitta v. Fuldatal DLZB 2161
Alke v. Weinberg DLZB 1699
Etzel v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 3104a
Carlo v. Glemstal DLZB 2001
Alax v. Wissberg DLZB 2279
Astra v. Neckarursprung DLZB 2068
Asta v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 2450
Ortwin v. Bendstich DLZB 1327
Dorle v. Fuldatal
DLZB 2112
Anka v. Weinberg DLZB 1700
Case 4.
Gyurcsitarjan Knirs Masodik.
No offspring.
The line goes on through Gyurcsitarjan Kakayanos, Kiraly Dolog Fej and
Kisbobanya but mainly by Kakayanos and Kiraly.
Mother Yeigesty
Kriesant and her sisters Yamly and Yobo Bils are widely spread in the Dutch
lines.
Greif v. Bildstockle DLZB 2198
Gyurcsitarjan Dorpel NHSB 340409
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Gyurcsitarjan Knirs-Kuno NHSB 390978
Bari v. Wissberg DLZB 2322
Ronny v. Pappelhof DLZB 2723
Barsa v. Vogtland DDR 94
Gyurcsitarjan Knirs-Masodik NHSB
633368
Nock v. Pappelhof DLZB 2505
Gyurcsitarjan Gregoritch NHSB
363264
Elka v. Rossbach DLZB 2398
Gyurcsitarjan
Yeigesty-Krysant NHSB 482851
Gyurcsitarjan Horvath NHSB 373191
Gyurcsitarjan Oevelly NHSB 423841
Ronny v. Pappelhof DLZB 2723
--------------------------------
Case 5. Nagybobanya
Zsarnok Zsalv.
No offspring. The father's line is related to case 2. From him and 2 of his
sisters still offspring is present in Holland and abroad.
Mother Gyurcsitarjan Inshivaya got only 1
litter. Offspring of littermates Iwanowitch and sister Insgaya is still
present as well as offspring of sister Moefka.
Nick v. Pappelhof DLZB 2504
Gauner v. Murrtal DLZB 2974
Cilly v. Murrtal DLZB 2750
Gyurcsitarjan Toltan NHSB 452296
Akbar v.d. Burghalde DLZB 2105
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Dorle v.
Rossbach
Makoum Rishon NHSB 541663
Nock v. Pappelhof DLZB 2505
Gyurcsitarjan Gregoritch NHSB
363264
Elka v. Rossbach DLZB 2398
Gyurcsitarjan Yobo-Bils NHSB
482847
Gyurcsitarjan Horvath NHSB 373191
Gyurcsitarjan Oevelly NHSB 423841
Ronny v. Pappelhof DLZB 2723
Nagybobanya Zsarnok Zsalv NHSB
717703
Gyurcsitarjan Horvath NHSB 373191
Arras v.d. Dommerbeek NHSB 444103
Dorle v. Murrtal DLZB 2884
Gyurcsitarjan Zegty Zorvath Zwo NHSB 484371
Akbar v.d. Burghalde DLZB 2105
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Dorle v. Rossbach
Gyurcsitarjan Inshivaya NHSB 589512
Boris
v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 2512
Arko v. Gaisberg DLZB 2917
Diana v. Glemstal DLZB 2647
Alkeste v.d. Danubia DLZB 3347
Caesar v.
Hohentwiel DLZB 2599
Hella v. Tuttlingen DLZB 3023
Edda v.
Tuttlingen DLZB 2725
Case 6. Donar v. Hofoldinger Forst.
No offspring.
Brother Dorian and sister Dunja were tested by EMG and nothing abnormal was
found.
Both Dorian and
Dunja’s siblings ares widely spread the same as their brother from a later
litter.
Alf v.d. Achalm DLZB 2371
Gyurcsitarjan Azor NHSB 319578
Elka v. Rossbach DLZB 2398
Alf v. Elisabethenberg DLZB 3221
Nick v. Pappelhof DLZB 2504
Gina v.
Murrtal DLZB 2977
Cilly v. Murrtal DLZB 2750
Cliff v. Nonnenberg DLZB 3631
Boris
v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 2512
Arko v. Gaisberg DLZB 2917
Diana v. Glemstal DLZB 2647
Asta v. Nonnenberg DLZB 3232
Lord v.d.
Solitude DLZB 2485
Tessa v. Pappelhof DLZB 2948
Pritta v.
Pappelhof DLZB 2687
Donar v. Hofoldinger Forst DLZB 4490
Baldur v. Leonberg DLZB 1542
Abel v. Malisfelsen DLZB 2070
Alfle v. Donautal DLZB 1848
Arno v. Schloss Bronnen DLZB 2709
Barko v. Hohen Karpfen DLZB 1910
Andra
v. Tuttlingen DLZB 2407
Diana v.d. Solitude DLZB 2223
Anja v. Hofoldinger Forst DLZB 3437
Inca du Chateau de Reveillon LOF 46
Gyurcsitarjan Hovell NHSB 373192
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Wega v. Pappelhof DLZB
3111
Petz v. Pappelhof DLZB 2684
Orelia du Mont Notre-Dame LOF
127
Idole du Chateau de Reveillon LOF 50
-------------------------------
Case 7. Karabas Akimo
Thor.
No offspring. Father is brother of case 4. Littermates continue the line. Mother
has a second litter with no problems.
Greif v. Bildstockle DLZB 2198
Gyurcsitarjan Dorpel NHSB 340409
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Gyurcsitarjan Knirs-Kuno NHSB
390978
Bari v. Wissberg DLZB 2322
Ronny v. Pappelhof DLZB 2723
Barsa v. Vogtland DDR 94
Gyurcsitarjan Kakayanos NHSB 633370
Nock v. Pappelhof DLZB 2505
Gyurcsitarjan
Gregoritch NHSB 363264
Elka v. Rossbach DLZB 2398
Gyurcsitarjan Yeigesty-Krysant
NHSB 482851
Gyurcsitarjan Horvath NHSB 373191
Gyurcsitarjan Oevelly NHSB 423841
Ronny v. Pappelhof DLZB 2723
Karabas Akimo
Thor NHSB 859105
Gyurcsitarjan
Horvath NHSB 373191
Arras v.d. Dommerbeek NHSB 444103
Dorle v. Murrtal DLZB 2884
Gyurcsitarjan Zegty Zorvath Zwo NHSB 484371
Akbar v.d. Burghalde DLZB
2105
Elfe v. Rossbach DLZB 2400
Dorle v. Rossbach
Gyurcsitarjan Moefka NHSB 668679
Boris v. Staufenzwinger DLZB 2512
Arko v. Gaisberg DLZB 2917
Diana v. Glemstal DLZB 2647
Alkeste v.d. Danubia DLZB 3347
Caesar v. Hohentwiel DLZB 2599
Hella
v. Tuttlingen DLZB 3023
Edda v. Tuttlingen DLZB 2725
Even if one can
have comment on the early cases as being not officially diagnosted as LP,
number 5 was done professional by the Utrecht University in
1974.
If we look at the
pedigrees we see that the Leonbergers are very related to each other. When the population grew, new cases were found, but not that often.
In the past and
in the present we saw and see sometimes dogs with symptoms that could point to
LP/PN, but we know that there can be lots of reasons why dogs show these
symptoms. It can come from trauma’s or/and another diseases or disorders.
There is a lot
of talking of dogs being operated (tie-back), tonsillitis etc. Sometimes those
dogs were used for breeding and some males even have quite a lot of offspring.
It seems that
the UK has now an explosion of
PN cases. According to the Newsletter 57 cases have been counted. But not all
are official diagnosted. It is a pity that nothing more is known. How is the
relation between these cases. Were the parents also suffering from PN. How
serious are the problems? Even if one wants his privacy, at least you can give
that kind of information without hurting owners en breeders feelings.
A few official
cases are known to us. As we look into the pedigrees we see quit a lot of
inbreeding. Not allways clear visible in the first generations. But going
further back you see more and more the same dogs appear. This is perhaps
something to keep in mind.
Both the
UK and Scandinavian countries Sweden, Norway, Finland had in the
past troubles in importing dogs because of the quarantaine and long distance.
Their population goes for the major part back to dogs from Danmark, Germany and Holland. The
Danish population was also on a very narrow base.
The Americans
published a list of 28 cases. Again here we see sometimes a rather strong
inbreeding.
In
France about 18 cases were found during
the last years.
In the former
GDR (Eastern Germany) where the Leonberger was part of the Breeding Society of
Bernese Mountain Dogs and Leonberger (Spezialzuchtgemeinschaft Berner
Sennenhunde- und Leonberger Züchter) we read in de studbook over the years
1978-1981: “Our goal is to fight against HD, Entropium, Ectropium,
teethproblems, loss of type and laryngeal stenosis (stricture).
Lets look at the
cases in a different way.
How many cases there
are in Holland has is not quite
clear. Personally we estimate the whole total including the old cases will be
less than 40. This seems quite a lot, but we must also keep in mind that during
the last 15 years an average of 300 pups a year were registered.
Belgium has at least 1 confirmed case.
France has now 8 cases. But the last years there is an average of 1000
registered pups a year.
Germany. At least 1 official case and a few suspected cases are known to us.
We can see in the studbooks that there is an average of 700 pups a year.
The only Swedish
cases we know are of Swedish dogs abroad but there must be also cases in Sweden. We estimate an average of about
400 pups a year born.
From
Finland we heard that 295 pups were
registred in 2006. There is no knowledge of any cases.
Danmark. Seems
to have 1 official case. Number of pups born every year unknown.
Switzerland. Has 1 official case. Number of pups unknown.
Summarising we
can say that PN in the full sense of the word is not something new. Did we in
the old days only notice males that were affected. Now we find also females. We
see very serious cases, but also milder ones.
At what age we
accept symptoms te be from old age?
It is not
typical Leonberger because you see also other breeds having the same kind of
problems.
It must be
heriditary, but the way is still unknown. Of course all kinds of theories are
launched. From dominant till recessive, X linked or not, polygenitic or not with
eventually not full penetration.
At this moment
nobody can determine the carriers. The only way to determine if a Leonberger is
really affected is by doing a biopsy. But than can only be done after his/her
death. Nevertheless we must go on breeding in a responsible way.
We must focus
more and more on health but not forget the other issues.
We have still
plenty of healthy Leo’s.
Perhaps we must
change our attitude to studdogs. In some countries there is a restriction to
the number of litters of male can sire.
In
Holland there is a limit of 6. Finland has a the rule that 40 puppies can
be registrated + the rest of the puppies from the last litter. After this you
can try to get an exceptional permit.
A different way of having a kind of restriction is not the absolute number of
litters during his life, but a restriction on a number of litters a year. After
1 or 2 year there could be an evaluation and then certain conditions could be
made on future matings. In that way one can find out pretty soon if every thing
is in order.
We surely think
it is not in the benefit of the breed as we see that a young male sired in 12
months about 30 times as we know that in that year in that country about 100
litters will be born. By doing so our genpool will absolutely shrink rapidly
especially when it turn out that other problems can occurs. Every country can
make his limits.
Perhaps one
should bring all the qualified studdogs more in the open. Not only on a list.
It was not a bad idee what our former GDR friends had. Every studdog had to go
at least once a year to a real dog show.
But we could change that also to
special breeding days where studdogs and broodbitches are judged or presented
to the audience.
We could monitor
the youth through special young dogs days as we have them in Holland and
Belgium, Germany is starting also.
Or the special breedingcontrol as
Switzerland has. There are plenty
possibilities in learning and giving information.
We personally
started to prefer older studdogs. Perhaps we must pay more attention to them.
During the LP
project in Holland the bouvier
de Flandres were tested by EMG.
We could do it
and use the information the positive way. Test the Leonbergers also (EMG/MRI
whatever the possibilities are) and publish a list of dogs with normal results,
meaning that they probably are not affected by PN. Its of course no guarantee
and they could show the symptoms later. But it is at least a start.
In fact we
do the same with HD. That the parents have good hips doesn’t mean their
offspring also have a good rating.
There is a lot
to do for breedingcommissions.
But whatever you do, don’t jump too quickly to
conclusion with unsufficient informations.
For example. When the first 3 cases
of LEM were diagnosted in Holland it was the male (a) that was marked as only carrier. The litters
were from male a with a mother and her daughter. The mother had already had 2 litters which
seemed to be normal., so one pointed at male (a).
Then there was a fourth case that seemed to prove this
theory because the father (male b) of that litter was related to male (a). They
were halfbrothers.
But
then there was a fifth case and there the only link to
the other cases was that the grandfather from fathersside was related to the
mother of the fourth case and that had nothing to do with male (a) and male
(b).
The whole
situation remind us a little bit at the 60 ’s when the HD was the hot issue.
Dysplasia was the magic word and that was all that counted. The Leo survived.
And by using
again our common sens the Leonberger will survive also the PN, LP etc.
Metha
Stramer & Hein Sibrijns