Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Please Tell Me You Can Debunk the Cyclops Kitten Picture

Penelope
January 18th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Snopes says that the associated press has went through measures to ensure the validity of this picture.
I would like a veternarian tell us about kittens eyes, and how easy or hard it would be to get a kitten, not even a day old to open it's eyes, let alone one. I am calling snopes on this cyclops kitten from Redmond Oregon. All kittens eyes are a deep blue color, AFTER they open, 8 to 10 days from birth. I have seen it happen before this time frame but, the eyes are cloudy.
Doctor, please? What do you say?

This may be a kitten from the same woman that had a two headed kitten also. OVERBREEDING much?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/cyclopes.asp

Prin
January 18th, 2006, 11:32 PM
We talked about the one-eyed kitty here:
http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=22843&highlight=genetic

The vets aren't on often, so don't hold your breath...
We explained it from a biological/reproduction point of view, if that helps anything. The kitty died pretty quickly though.:(

raingirl
January 19th, 2006, 05:57 AM
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060111_ap_cyclops_cat.html

rivers
January 19th, 2006, 08:15 AM
oh great, she's keeping it in the freezer! :eek: In case scientists want to examine it.

Beetlecat
January 19th, 2006, 12:54 PM
Fetal defomities are not caused by the breeder or genes of the parents or any other outside influences. (a notable exception is where the mother taking drugs can harm or deform the fetus)

Otherwise, It's just a random thing where the cells in the newly fertilized egg get a little confused and either fuse where they do not belong or fail to split properly.

I also see nothing wrong with keeping the body for research. These sorts of things do not happen everyday, and there is alot we do not know about them. To freeze it is actually best as far as short term preservation goes.

I do not understand why 'exploitation by the breeder' is even on the poll. Do you think she did this on purpose? To get fame or whatnot? Scientists would love to know how to do that, as it's not really something that can be controlled.

Penelope
January 19th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Well, if nothing else the owner should have brought it to the attention of a vet first, instead of the associated press, or asked scientists if they were interested in it.

I thought there were issues to breeding animals that could cause deformities.

So do you think the eye can be clear if it doesn't have an eyelid? Or do you think it should look like a kitten that has recently opened it's eyes, cloudy gray? Since it was in the sack, I would think this would act like an eyelid and it should look like a newly opened eye.

Beetlecat
January 19th, 2006, 03:29 PM
I thought there were issues to breeding animals that could cause deformities.

Not when something not under your control happens. Breeding purposly for deformities, yes. Although, that is still a fine line.

I agree that breeding 'twisty' cats is not right, since that deformity only cripples them. But, it is common for Manx cats (especially in the hands of irresponsible breeders) to have kittens deforemed so badly they die at birth or are crippled for life. Yet this is a recognized breed.

So do you think the eye can be clear if it doesn't have an eyelid? Or do you think it should look like a kitten that has recently opened it's eyes, cloudy gray? Since it was in the sack, I would think this would act like an eyelid and it should look like a newly opened eye.

I really can't say anything based only on one picture, and having no experience with cyclops kittens. And assumption or supposition is worthless with no facts and no experience.

All I can say is that mother nature will do whatever the heck she pleases. Some fetal deformities are so utterly weird and amazing, that it'd hard to believe they are real. Like internal parasitic twins, mermaid children, harlequin babies, etc.

(Heck, it's even hard to believe that platypuses are real)

Schwinn
January 19th, 2006, 03:32 PM
I think it's called cyclopia. If you do a google image search you'll see lots of pictures, mostly of human cases. (By the way, anyone who is expecting soon, DO NOT do a search!! Trust me!! I'll let you know a few other things not to search for either! I didn't sleep for the rest of Mrs. Schwinn's pregnancy!)

I'd say the short answer is it's just one of those things, and probably has nothing to do with breeding.

As for whether the eye should be clear, or open, or whatever. There should be two of them, so I don't think what "should be" or what is "normal" really applies here.

Sneaky
January 19th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Yep, it is a genetic condition.
I dont think it has anything to do with "exploitation"
by a breeder.
It is just a rare genetic condition that occurs occassionally
in almost every single animal population on the planet,
including humans.

Beetlecat
January 20th, 2006, 12:21 AM
Yep, it is a genetic condition.
I dont think it has anything to do with "exploitation"
by a breeder.
It is just a rare genetic condition that occurs occassionally
in almost every single animal population on the planet,
including humans.

*cough* just to be anal :) I have to argue it actually has nothing to do with genetics. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's just random chance.

Prin
January 20th, 2006, 12:33 AM
It is genetics. It might not only be due to the parents' given DNA but it's an error in the DNA nonetheless. Fetal deformities are caused by errors in DNA, either in omissions of pieces of DNA (fluke), errors in replication of DNA (either because of inheriting bad DNA replication genes or due to external factors like radiation, toxins), errors in meiosis to create the egg or sperm (like crossing over/recombination errors), error in mitosis within the zygote/fetus (errors in the zygote would cause more drastic malformations than errors in the fetus), or the fetal DNA could be missing chunks of genes that control important aspects of development. Anyway it happens, a deformed anything that is born that way is that way because of something wrong with it's DNA.;)

CyberKitten
January 20th, 2006, 04:25 AM
I have sooo much I want to say on this subject but it is late and I will wait for another time. If this person is a credible breeder and this happened even after all the genetic testing and was the result of a Queen and Tom or whatever other terms one wants to utilize that were both vetted and had ancestors without genetic anomolies, I think it should be researched. It could be genetic - I have not read the article - but some anomolies are also caused by other mutatons.

I myself have just signed up for a clinical trial that is doing genetic testing and as a reseacher, I would think this breeder - again if she is responsible - would want to know why this happened. OK, now I will read the article so I do not say something that makes no sense, lol

I agree Schwinn - I worried the entire time my sil was pregnant, I have seen so much that can go wrong but she is a healthy little girl - and so adorable , not that I am biased. She looked adorable in her ultrasound pix, lol

Penelope
January 20th, 2006, 09:36 AM
Maybe it has to do with money. If the breeder cannot afford to do this, couldn't/wouldn't scientists want to examine it? Or maybe they don't believe in giving up their kitten's body for research?

Beetlecat
January 20th, 2006, 11:14 AM
It is genetics. It might not only be due to the parents' given DNA but it's an error in the DNA nonetheless. Fetal deformities are caused by errors in DNA, either in omissions of pieces of DNA (fluke), errors in replication of DNA (either because of inheriting bad DNA replication genes or due to external factors like radiation, toxins), errors in meiosis to create the egg or sperm (like crossing over/recombination errors), error in mitosis within the zygote/fetus (errors in the zygote would cause more drastic malformations than errors in the fetus), or the fetal DNA could be missing chunks of genes that control important aspects of development. Anyway it happens, a deformed anything that is born that way is that way because of something wrong with it's DNA.;)

I disagree that malformation of the ovum is genetic. It can be *caused* by genetics, in some cases, but not all. Sometimes things just don't work out how they should.

There is no gene (that I know of) that causes siamese twins. It does not run in the family. You cannot predict it. It just happens.

Fetal deformities can be caused by by many things such as ingested drugs, ingury, DNA (mutations or genes), missing/excess protiens (causes by various things), etc.

Anyway it happens, a deformed anything that is born that way is that way because of something wrong with it's DNA.;)

This is such a horrible blanket statement. I was also totally wrong when I said it had nothing *at all* to do with genetics. Because I don't really know. Perhaops they played some role *shrug*

If we knew what caused all these random mutations, we could stop or control them. But we can't. And genetics is certianly not the end all be all, so I'd rather not see people stuffing every deformity into that tiny basket.

Schwinn
January 20th, 2006, 11:24 AM
I think you're both using genetics to mean two different things. Prin means genetic as in "it's in the genetic DNA (and error)", and Beetlecat means genetic as in "passed on from the parents", so I think you're both right. If I'm wrong, uh, never mind, carry on.

*goes for ice-cream*

Prin
January 20th, 2006, 12:58 PM
Exactly Schwinn. Genetic means "It's in the genes", but the genes don't necessarily come directly from the parents. There are a lot of events between the parents' genetic material and the genetic material the baby ends up getting. It's in the DNA, but that DNA might not be the same as the DNA the parents attempted to "give" to create the zygote.

Siamese twins occur like regular identical twins, only the egg splits too late (over 9 days after conception). There could be an inheritance factor in the length of time before the split (if it is safe to say that the probability of having twins is high if others in the same family have had them), but I haven't researched that... You know? Like if twins run in a family, does the zygote split at the same time within the family, or is it random?

Where drugs act to cause malformations in the fetus is at some stage of DNA replication (mitosis). For example, if two cells are dividing and there is a problem with actin or myosin (two of the filaments necessary to move the chromosomes around and to pull the cells apart), then the replication steps are interrupted and the cells don't divide properly.

So much is involved in cell division and DNA replication, so many proteins and enzymes, etc, that if you throw in some chemicals, you're bound to disrupt something.

So basically we're saying the same thing, in different words, right? You're saying that you could start off with a potentially healthy zygote and end up with a malformed fetus through random events and I'm saying most, if not all those events are targetted on the fetal DNA and DNA replication processes. But definitely not even close to all genetic defects are inherited from the parents. Is that it, in a nutshell?

meb999
January 20th, 2006, 01:29 PM
I think you're both using genetics to mean two different things. Prin means genetic as in "it's in the genetic DNA (and error)", and Beetlecat means genetic as in "passed on from the parents", so I think you're both right. If I'm wrong, uh, never mind, carry on.

*goes for ice-cream*

LOL!!! http://bestsmileys.com/lol/6.gif

Penelope
January 20th, 2006, 01:32 PM
I agree with Schwinn! watch the weak stomach. Thanks everyone for the information. It has been helpful to understand it a little better, uh, I think.

http://isc.temple.edu/neuroanatomy/lab/embryo_new/eye/4/cyclo.html

Beetlecat
January 21st, 2006, 01:04 AM
I think you're both using genetics to mean two different things. Prin means genetic as in "it's in the genetic DNA (and error)", and Beetlecat means genetic as in "passed on from the parents", so I think you're both right. If I'm wrong, uh, never mind, carry on.

*goes for ice-cream*

Sounds good. Save me some chocolate mint :)

Beetlecat
January 21st, 2006, 01:08 AM
So basically we're saying the same thing, in different words, right? You're saying that you could start off with a potentially healthy zygote and end up with a malformed fetus through random events and I'm saying most, if not all those events are targetted on the fetal DNA and DNA replication processes. But definitely not even close to all genetic defects are inherited from the parents. Is that it, in a nutshell?

Yeah. Splitting hairs. I'll be generous and say we both won ;D It's such a bugger arguing through typing.

*passes bowl* Ice cream?

Prin
January 22nd, 2006, 05:01 PM
Yeah. Splitting hairs. I'll be generous and say we both won ;D It's such a bugger arguing through typing.

*passes bowl* Ice cream?
Be generous? To yourself?:D :evil: I'll have peach. :D