all the things you mentioned would be to do with the clones brain. so not really applicable to plants
can we talk genetic drift in clones?
- Thread starter greenpinky
- Start date
all the things you mentioned would be to do with the clones brain. so not really applicable to plants
firstly jeez yet another copy and post from you. nice read but is that all you do?
second they tested this on one species of plant only. and even then they said they will be doing new research.
most apple strains only exist in clone form and have been for hundreds of years with no change or mutations...
In regards to an identical environment, this issue will be settled very soon. There really isn't much sense in having a strong opinion either way until then. EG, chem 4 vs chem d.... Chem 4 wanna be brown inside of a new york minute,,, is it genotype (?) or is it pathogen (?). If pathogen it is about to stay green for much longer because we will be able to rid individuals of disease in vitro. But guys, really, genetic drift, uhhhh, no...
Tom, can you elaborate on the issue being settled very soon? Do you know of testing going on, it would be interesting to know. I have not noticed genetic drift in my clones I have had for years, with the exception of one weird episode that has nothing to do with genetic drift, but I do think just for discussion sake it is still interesting to here others opinions. In the case of my clone of nine years auto flowering just recently when in a small pot, what do you think the reason could be? I know certain strains exhibit this quality but it has never happened with my clone. I know you know a lot on the subject and would really like to here what reasons could be behind it. Thanks!
TGT
TGT
S
SeaMaiden
Sifted, he can only C&P others' published (and reviewed) work when referring to it and as far as I'm concerned he cited correctly.
Also, 'thalecress' is also known as Arabidopsis, and it is *the* standard plant with which all kinds of scientific work is performed and through which much of what we know has been learned. Stuff like red light wavelengths switching flowering on and off, through Arabidopsis experiments.
I believe this was the study I've been searching for that I'd read about regarding genetic drift (yes, genetic drift; i.e. actual changes in the genome) via cloning/cuttings.
I personally feel that it's a far better corollary to cannabis than apples (or oranges), specifically due to their growth habits and nature. Annual vs perennial, woody vs herbaceous.
I found that a very interesting article and thank you for posting it. I do believe when they talk of genetic drift on Arabidopsis they are referring to minute changes and the cuts are still very much recognizable as being related, or at least that is what I understood. If genetic drift in cannabis is real I think it too would be minute changes and those changes probably don't happen as often as some think, or at least that is what I believe. It will be interesting to see the results from follow up studies.
TGT
TGT
S
SeaMaiden
I'll quote from the article instead of the study itself what I think are the key points:
K, so first we have the opening of the article that makes a positive assertion, "Scientists have known for some time." That means that DNA changes observed in 'clonal' regenerated plants are already established, not a question, established. Not all, but some, Arabidopsis would be one of those that does, is my guess without looking further into it.
Second paragraph I've quoted goes on to discuss the why of the observations being made. And they're pretty firm in this point, it's the genomes of the regenerative plants that are making changes at the DNA level. That's genetic drift, any way you want to define it, it qualifies. Furthermore! They're observing mutations in genetic sequences that, and again this is absolutely key to the debate here, that are occurring only in the clones and not the parent plants. Genetic drift.
So that leaves me at this point: Genetic drift isn't a fallacy, it's an established fact.
Furthermore, observable genetic drift in clones is an established scientific fact.
That leaves the question(s) as to why it occurs in some plants and not others, and to what degree. That would probably lead us back into epigenetics territory, with stuff being switched on and off or dialed up or down.
University of Oxford said:
K, so first we have the opening of the article that makes a positive assertion, "Scientists have known for some time." That means that DNA changes observed in 'clonal' regenerated plants are already established, not a question, established. Not all, but some, Arabidopsis would be one of those that does, is my guess without looking further into it.
Second paragraph I've quoted goes on to discuss the why of the observations being made. And they're pretty firm in this point, it's the genomes of the regenerative plants that are making changes at the DNA level. That's genetic drift, any way you want to define it, it qualifies. Furthermore! They're observing mutations in genetic sequences that, and again this is absolutely key to the debate here, that are occurring only in the clones and not the parent plants. Genetic drift.
So that leaves me at this point: Genetic drift isn't a fallacy, it's an established fact.
Furthermore, observable genetic drift in clones is an established scientific fact.
That leaves the question(s) as to why it occurs in some plants and not others, and to what degree. That would probably lead us back into epigenetics territory, with stuff being switched on and off or dialed up or down.
yup fair enough but all of his post are c and p. anyway...
yup i agree they didnt observe this in parent plants but that wasnt mentioned wether that was possible. you can test a plant species but not all are gonna fit into the same bracket. perhaps your right perhaps this is aplicable to cannabis, perhaps not.
i would assume that mutations/Epigenetics/genetic drift is possible. but i do know that there are strains we have had here which have been used and abused for 20+ years and are still exactly the same. the uk exodus is one. and the original growers are still around and they say its the same.
stickshift
Active member
I have highlighted the word regenerated! hopefully you understand why! but I doubt it. There was a thread on here were it was laid out for you. Also I have highlighted what IS absolutely key, the FACT they are not talking about clones.
No thats not the study to confirm this at all. Drift is applicaple to populations where the Ne is low therefore sampling error and a low number of allele frequencies. so for clarity for drift it's mostly applicaple because of Ne size, founder effect, and a severe bottleneck. For a clone to do this it has to be via a mutation probably due to illness/infection.
S
SeaMaiden
I'm sitting here reading both the article and the study, AGAIN, and they're quite specific, they're talking about clones. And very specifically they're saying that they observed genetic mutations that they did not observe in the parent plants. So, if they're not talking about clones when they're stating unequivocally that they're talking about clones, what are they actually talking about? And if they're talking about observable genetic mutations that were not present in the parent stock, how does that *not* qualify as genetic drift?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say this isn't the study. There are at least two, one is using populations of either aspen or poplar, I don't recall which, that didn't seem to be quite the appropriate corollary here. I can't speak to the sample size of this study because I can only read the news article and the abstract.
So, are you saying there is no genetic drift to be observed in clones, or are you saying that if there is genetic drift it's only to be attributed to disease?
greenpinky
Member
I knew genitic drift happens. And I know it doesn't just happen to sick or mutated clones... I have had my clone in a perfect environment there whole lives.I only took clones from a mama plant in veg... the genotypes adapt to the environment. I wonder if these Mama plants breed true or does the genotype expression play a role in the offspring too?
stickshift
Active member
I do not care if you sit there with a full on hard on thinking it's about clones, It isn't. THEY ARE talking about regenerants not taking a clone off a mother plant like we would..
They go on
Theres that word again, REGENERANT..
here I went and found the thread that puts it much better than myself. pay attention to post number 8
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=218919
greenpinky
Member
Lol bro stop look at the regenerate word and read.......
"Clones of 'thalecress' were analysed Clones of the plant 'thalecress' were analysed. Photo: Alberto Salguero
A new study of plants that are reproduced by ‘cloning’ has shown why cloned plants are not identical.
Scientists have known for some time that ‘clonal’ (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.
Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.
The team report their findings in this week’s Current Biology.
‘Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,’ said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. ‘But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.’
Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years
Professor Nicholas Harberd
Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called ‘whole genome sequencing’) the researchers analysed ‘clones’ of the small flowering plant ‘thalecress’ (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.
‘Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,’ said Professor Harberd. ‘They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.’
The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals – where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.
"Clones of 'thalecress' were analysed Clones of the plant 'thalecress' were analysed. Photo: Alberto Salguero
A new study of plants that are reproduced by ‘cloning’ has shown why cloned plants are not identical.
Scientists have known for some time that ‘clonal’ (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.
Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.
The team report their findings in this week’s Current Biology.
‘Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,’ said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. ‘But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.’
Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years
Professor Nicholas Harberd
Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called ‘whole genome sequencing’) the researchers analysed ‘clones’ of the small flowering plant ‘thalecress’ (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.
‘Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,’ said Professor Harberd. ‘They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.’
The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals – where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.
S
SeaMaiden
While stickshift's communication style is leaving a *lot* to be desired, I think I get what he's trying to convey. This is basically tissue culture vs taking entire pieces of a plant that are easily observed by the naked eye. And he's right, Chimera conveyed it much better. If I ever get the opportunity to do so again, I'll share another joint with him and tell him so myself.
However, while my own period of time spent making observations may not be so extensive, I still have been able to observe what appear to be non disease-related or stress-related changes in phenotypic expressions of plant growth. The strongest example of that would be an African that was gifted, the sister plants shown to me were stout girls with almost no strong Sativa-type traits outside somewhat thin leaves. Yet I put this one outside in a natural environment and she began to express a very strong Sativa phenotype. One season, and no disease observed. Outdoors, natural photoperiod, organic amended soil utilizing SFW methodologies, and UP UP AND AWAY she stretched. She was the only one who did that, another sister of the exact same type kept a more hybrid appearance.
However, while my own period of time spent making observations may not be so extensive, I still have been able to observe what appear to be non disease-related or stress-related changes in phenotypic expressions of plant growth. The strongest example of that would be an African that was gifted, the sister plants shown to me were stout girls with almost no strong Sativa-type traits outside somewhat thin leaves. Yet I put this one outside in a natural environment and she began to express a very strong Sativa phenotype. One season, and no disease observed. Outdoors, natural photoperiod, organic amended soil utilizing SFW methodologies, and UP UP AND AWAY she stretched. She was the only one who did that, another sister of the exact same type kept a more hybrid appearance.
stickshift
Active member
Style's overrated substance is where it's at.
I
ItsTopShelf
got a product last month called nitrozime.. shit i spray mother plants a week before i cut clones.. and next thing u know.. those clones are looking like they did last year. ! looks like some vigor came back?
TGT,
Sure, simply put, I believe the vast majority of stoners referring to their clones experiencing "genetic drift" are actually looking at systemic pathogen of various types. This should be easily enough to gather support for in the various tissue culture labs currently in progress. When this "genetic drift" magically disappears as has been accomplished with numerous centuries-old individuals of other species in the micro-propagation lab, perhaps we can put to rest some of these accounts of genetic drift. One way the other, we'll have plenty more input very soon. I reckon it will go down along the same lines as how often stoners are correct regarding their clones being infected by TMV, ie, trace amounts at best, of confirmed cases. Perhaps we'll be able to send our motherplants in for tune-ups, as it were, in the very near future, and "cure" them of this, "genetic drift". -T
Sure, simply put, I believe the vast majority of stoners referring to their clones experiencing "genetic drift" are actually looking at systemic pathogen of various types. This should be easily enough to gather support for in the various tissue culture labs currently in progress. When this "genetic drift" magically disappears as has been accomplished with numerous centuries-old individuals of other species in the micro-propagation lab, perhaps we can put to rest some of these accounts of genetic drift. One way the other, we'll have plenty more input very soon. I reckon it will go down along the same lines as how often stoners are correct regarding their clones being infected by TMV, ie, trace amounts at best, of confirmed cases. Perhaps we'll be able to send our motherplants in for tune-ups, as it were, in the very near future, and "cure" them of this, "genetic drift". -T
Holy shit man... This topic is officially getting hammered out huh?
Say genetic drift is prevalent in pot, the only topic that seems to spawn is "less quality" or "lower yields".. Id say genetic drift according to the theory, could be good or bad????
If I am understanding correctly?
Say genetic drift is prevalent in pot, the only topic that seems to spawn is "less quality" or "lower yields".. Id say genetic drift according to the theory, could be good or bad????
If I am understanding correctly?
greenpinky
Member
Lol no one will complain if genitic drift made there plant better. Who knows I bet it has happened.
I think drift happens due to the genitic bottle neck we are breading into these plants. evolution is proven, why can't it not happen to this wonderful plant.. lol I was one of the people that got bugged if people said clones lose vigor.I don't think it happens. But I do think anything put into the same environment more then 2x and it Will start to will adapt...
I think drift happens due to the genitic bottle neck we are breading into these plants. evolution is proven, why can't it not happen to this wonderful plant.. lol I was one of the people that got bugged if people said clones lose vigor.I don't think it happens. But I do think anything put into the same environment more then 2x and it Will start to will adapt...
I've never had a clone do anything wierd until I first had broad mites... I started getting clones that would go "dud". Same clones of the same mom but like 20% of clones would have no smell and minimal frost...
Now this makes more sense... The Broad Mites posion they inject back into the plant must linger for quite sometime.. I had a few moms that I went crazy on with a few SAR boosters and a few where I did nothing but just Pesticide routine... The SAR boosted plants never went dud on me again with the clones..but the other moms still continue to produce duds...
Damn dude... seems like the best idea is to throw everything away...nuke the rooms...
Start from seed....and watch this Drift aka Systemic Poision residues never even become an issue again... That infamous leaf curl in the ChemD was just hosting Broad Mites AIDS... that cut was spread around to everyone and same with the OG cuts...
Du du du duuuuuddddddddd?
Now this makes more sense... The Broad Mites posion they inject back into the plant must linger for quite sometime.. I had a few moms that I went crazy on with a few SAR boosters and a few where I did nothing but just Pesticide routine... The SAR boosted plants never went dud on me again with the clones..but the other moms still continue to produce duds...
Damn dude... seems like the best idea is to throw everything away...nuke the rooms...
Start from seed....and watch this Drift aka Systemic Poision residues never even become an issue again... That infamous leaf curl in the ChemD was just hosting Broad Mites AIDS... that cut was spread around to everyone and same with the OG cuts...
Du du du duuuuuddddddddd?
