Effective dog owner at summit avn wait for profits 3 to Milwaukee's mean streets. What was going on here? Was Wisdom Panel wrong? I wanted answers, I called Wisdom Panel's veterinary geneticist, Angela Hughes. Don't Judge a Book by its Cover. Hughes spends a lot of her time helping dog owners understand the test's results, and is willing to admit the test sometimes barks up the wrong tree. I'm sorry, but that Entlebucher Mountain Dog is a false positive, she said. Having had a few days to ponder the reports by then, I felt a little disappointed. I'd already concocted a romantic, sepia-tinted backstory for 's great-grandparent, perhaps brought to Wisconsin by Swiss immigrants to wrangle a few of the plentiful ruminants of 's Dairyland, then, one day, seduced by urbanite boxer passing through town, running off to the bright lights and big city of Milwaukee. The Entlebucher is a rare breed with a strong signature. The computer could be fixating on one or two chromosomes, Hughes explained, digging deeper into 's report, looking at breed signatures that popped up as possible ancestors but below the detection threshold. She decided that the Mastiff, suggested his Mixed Breed Signature, was more likely to be his background because it appeared on of the lineage trees the computer builds as it processes a dog's unique profile. Hughes also had explanation for why Tyche and Pullo's results threw me for a loop. Wisdom Panel looks for genetic markers that 't affect expression, she explained. The genetic markers aren't dictating a dog's behavior or appearance, and they're not causing disease. Instead, they're the product of random mutations that form a pattern over time a single breed, just sitting quietly the background of the dog genome. By focusing on those non-coding markers, Wisdom Panel reduces the chances of a false positive that's how the company can claim accuracy rate of 90 percent. It's also how, Hughes says, owners can be surprised by their pets' Wisdom Panel results. As humans we fixate on one trait, said Hughes. People think, for example, that bigger dogs with are Catahoula, smaller dogs are Australian shepherds. But there's a single for and it's dominant it could be from 20 generations ago, and everything from Schnauzers to Great Danes has it. We need to move beyond the single trait. It's like seeing someone with blue eyes and saying ‘Oh, you must be from Sweden.'. Trait-Baiting. Everything Hughes said made sense to me as a science journalist, but as someone who has spent a lot of time peeling off trees futile pursuit of squirrels, I clung to the idea of him having some large hound his background. Following up via email a few days later with Hughes, I asked for a better idea which specific marker might have caused all the Entlebucher confusion. Her reply answered question by providing greater insight into the overall test: The computer is making the neighborhood of 7 million statistical calculations matching 's data to our database and what I is a very distilled version of that analysis I 't have that degree of granularity available to look at and be able to tell you that it is making a match say on chromosome A at position D. What I can tell you is that some breeds have a genetic signature pattern that is very tight e.g. not a lot variation certain areas and if a mixed breed dog happens to have a similar pattern or signature by chance it can come up as a false positive match to that breed I tell you that the Entlebucher is not one I commonly as a false positive is definitely unique that way. Oh, is unique, all right. Lurch is special, as are Tyche and Pullo, and any dog loved by its forever family. But, if the Wisdom Panel test told me only what I already knew for certain that American Staffordshire terriers pop up all three dogs' background was it a waste of money? I think it's amazing that even the one breed was deciphered by 320 or different markers, says PennGen's Giger, whose lab has no affiliation with Wisdom Panel. The answer is complex. Hughes notes that knowing the high percentage of AmStaffie dogs can also help me be vigilant about certain conditions, such as skin cancer, that they are more likely to get, regardless of what other breeds contributed to their DNA. It's also possible, note both Giger and Hughes, to run a much more precise breed identification DNA test, but it would cost thousands of dollars, well beyond what most dog owners would be willing or able to spend. Giger theorizes that Wisdom Panel be less helpful to owners of dogs like pit bull types that are the product of backyard breeders, who operate outside of AKC-registered bloodlines and often introduce other breeds to their stock hopes of capturing a specific trait such as size, coat color or even regional aesthetics. One would have to moderate enthusiasm for the test results of a more locally generated dog, Giger says tactfully. I'm glad I gave Wisdom Panel a shot, even if rambunctious but good-natured dogs are