Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SPAM][Tracing_Pugh_Origins] And now a word from the lurker . . . .

Expand Messages
  • Dorthy Casten
    Thank you for the information Gordon. I really am interested in this DNA information, but maybe I m expecting more than I should. I, too, am a scientist - an
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 15 7:51 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for the information Gordon.  I really am interested in this DNA information, but maybe I'm expecting more than I should. 
      I, too, am a scientist - an engineer.  Guess that's what makes me cautious and hesitant to believe anything I see until someone can give me the skinny on what is really going on.  From what I've read, the mutation does not necessarily mean that two people are not CLOSELY related, the mutation just means that something has gone awry for that person.  So I am cautious about excluding someone from "my group" because of a marker that reads differently.  That marker may or not actually be different, based on who actually tested the samples (human error).  I deal in analyzing defect data and managing by what that data tells me.  It causes me to look at data more than one time and dig for what that information is really telling me rather than just the surface muck that I'm seeing.  and I'm accustomed to comparing several different types of analysis to see if the picture I'm seeing is true or false.  Right now from the DNA data that I'm seeing, it appears that more information is needed about the DNA. 
      What does one marker difference really mean?  Is it important that its at a particular marker?  What do 2 and 3 etc. markers that are different really mean?  Are these really signs that two folks are not closely related or is it that "somethng" happened at fertilization or during cell development?  So when I say that the DNA information that I'm seeing doesn't tell me anything, thus far I haven't seen an analysis of the data; and right now, to my knowledge, there is no more information to be had that will allow an analysis to occur.  Right now its just raw, meaningless data. 
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:14 PM
      Subject: [SPAM][Tracing_Pugh_Origins] And now a word from the lurker . . . .

      In a message dated 2/15/2008 12:03:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jpughdog@msn. com writes:


      I am sorry that you feel this way but believe me, I understand.  It is frustrating

      This is Gordon  Pugh from the line that developed (paper trail confirmed by the tests) Pughtown, WV. I'm basically a scientist and raise cats as a retiree Transmission Engineer from "Ma Bell." So I have a different outlook than many people. Still, the results we have are confusing to me and I have my research into what it all means ahead of me.
      We talk a lot about genetics in the cat fancy and I'm working with a group that is developing a new breed of cat based upon finding two out of a litter of five kittens from a semi feral cat that had her kittens on a back porch in Tennessee about six years ago. I now have three full Tennessee Rex kittens from bringing together outcrosses that carry one gene with the mutation. It's fun. It also stimulates the "retired" brain that has become saddened by not having all the things I used to do now tucked back into those slots in memory. Things have moved so fast since retiring in 1990 it's tough to keep up on the outside.
      We are using genetics to develop a future breed (like Pugh). Many in the cat fancy are using genetics to weed defective genes that cause medical and life threatening problems in the cats we breed. Hooray! Many are absolute. Some are "iffy." We now have a known gene mutation that "causes" HCM (Feline Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy) .  Well it may cause it. No one is sure beyond a reasonable doubt. It appears to be a factor. Some cats with the defective gene(s) never develop the thickening of the heart wall and cats that are clean sometimes do. But by testing each breeding animal and breeding only cats are free of this mutation we have eliminated it from the future populations from the pair and we no longer have to test the offspring. Thus we are eliminating one possible source of the disease.
      That's sort of backwards from digging into the past but there is a similarity since genes do mutate. Look at the now wide spread flu epidemic. The different strains are mutating so fast that it's a whole new ball game each year incuding many educated guesses.
      Guess my point is that unless we had done all the collections from cats that were 16 years old and free of the disease as well as the ones that developed it we would not have the knowledge we have today. In this case it started as a shot in the dark.
      Some of our Pugh line genetic testing will be a shot in the dark, too, until there is enough of a sample to shoot the lock off the door and let the light in. Just a little crack in the door will give us more light to take better aim.  So -- all is not wasted. As the saying goes (I Think)"(S)he also serves who just sits around and waits. (to be useful)." 


      The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.