Yes - I am very familiar with white coats and blue eyes in several breeds - this is a lack of pigment and often a signal that the dog is deaf or blind and never a positive health sign. It is considered a recessive trait and health problem.
The Boxer breed, especially since it has become so popular in recent years also has problems with white dogs - and in fact the Boxer Club asked responsible breeders to never use a white dog in an effort to erradicate them and their associated health problems. Unscrupulous breeders capitalized on the ignorance of the public not knowing this and sold white boxers as unique and special - they are usually deaf.
Dalmatians to a lesser degree, also watch pigment level on the ears for deafness - a common problem. All white heads and ears are a sign of a problem here and most look for strong black pigment ideally.
Then there are cases of albinism in breeds such as Dobermans, which can be white. Being albino present different and unique problems.
This is not to say that all white dogs run the risk of being blind - but certain breeds that should not be white, therefore run a high risk of blindness or deafness when they are white. It is therefore critical that we support the breed standard for each breed and help protect it for this very reason.
Here is some information from an expert on deafness, written to a Boxer Breeder regarding the problem in that breed, that sheds some light on how the genes work and the white color is connected to deafness and blindness:
Dear Matthew,
I am unaware of studies specific to the boxer and white boxers. I suspect it is very similar to the circumstances of the Norwegian dunkerhound, where something like 75% of the whites are deaf [Foss, I. (1981). Development of hearing and vision, and morphological examination of the inner ear in hereditarily deaf white Norwegian dunkerhounds and normal dogs (black and dappled Norwegian dunkerhounds). Masters thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 133 pp]. When deafness is first addressed within a breed, individuals will often claim that (1) this is not a real problem in our breed, or (2) no studies have been done so it is not a problem, or (3) what are you trying to do - destroy the reputation of our breed? This problem is similar among all of the breeds that carry one of the alleles of the piebald gene (extreme-white piebald, piebald, and Irish spotting). This gene is recessive, so dogs with white are homozygous. White results from the gene suppressing melanocytes (pigment cells). I have become convinced from working on this for more than a decade that a second gene regulates how strongly the piebald gene affects a dog, since the problem does not appear to conform to simple recessive inheritance. In Dals, weak piebald expression results in a patch, where the white fails to cover up the underlying black or liver color (these dogs are less likely to be deaf). Strong piebald expression leads to suppression of melanocytes in the iris (=> blue eyes, more likely to be deaf) and in the blood supply of the cochlea (=> deafness). One deaf ear is still genetic deafness and these dogs produce increased numbers of deaf offspring. Clearly from the data you compiled (the first I’ve seen) deafness in boxers does not require that the dog be white, but if it IS white the chances are much higher. In English cocker spaniels deafness is absent in solid colored dogs (I've only seen one case, and it may have carried one copy of the recessive piebald gene) but present in parti-colors. In bull terriers, deafness is 10X more prevalent in whites than in colored (which still have white). Note also that if one is not looking for deafness one often does not find it -- typically for each identified dog that is deaf in both ears there will be 2-3 dogs deaf in just one ear, and these dogs are not at all obvious from behavior, so they get bred. These uni’s at a young age show difficulty localizing the source of a sound, but they soon adapt.
It is my opinion that white boxers carry a version of the regulatory gene that causes over- expression of the piebald gene, producing heavy white color, blue eyes, and deafness. Breeding these dogs back into the boxer gene pool will very likely increase the overall incidence of deafness in ALL boxers (white or otherwise). I do not know the genetics of BCM, but it is not likely that white boxers are free of the defect, and nothing associated with pigmentation (or its absence) should logically protect against BCM. Breeding a white boxer without BCM back into the breed gene pool is not likely to affect BCM incidence, and in fact could worsen it if BCM is polygenic and the white boxer carries some of the responsible genes. If asked, I would be opposed to breeding white boxers -- to either whites or colors. If this practice is continued the prevalence of deafness in all boxers will increase as has happened with other breeds. I know that there is a strong group of advocates for white boxers, mostly because there is always attraction to something novel. To me it seems totally without logic to continue a breeding practice which, based on all available knowledge, will increase the prevalence of hereditary disease in a dog breed.
I hope this is of some help. I would appreciate being kept up to date on any data you accumulate.
George M. Strain
Associate Vice Chancellor
Office of Research & Graduate Studies
Louisiana State University
240 Thomas Boyd Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Voice 225-578-5833 Fax 225-578-5983
ORGS Web:
www.research.l su.eduPersonal Research Web:
www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm