is this how you breed quality genetics?

[Infinitesimal]

it is not a window into the future.
the cannabis plant and its genes are affected by environment especially the human aspect of its environment. from pampering to abusing a plant of the same specimin would affect the plants progeny. given the variability of all the different canna breeders out there this would be considered an epi-genetic influence of reasonably magnitude for it to be much more than a straw. i have seeded pampered plants and abused plants and will share the results. sofar it has affected sexual expression but im not smart or rich enough to know for certain. i am observing as much as possible and maybe oneday ill figure it out but i dont like the way you communicate to me or the descriptives you apply to my contribution so youre discounting your ability to be of help just as tony says my horrible punctuation will cause others to not read my posts. (maybe in their case theyre too lazy?)

I don't think weather or not you abuse or pamper an individual has any effect on its progeny... instead... it may have an effect on the way you perceive its value. If while under abuse that plant does not reach its phenotypic potential, one may cull it in favor of another individual, even though it may have been the homozygous individual... but was in a poor environment.

so the environment may effect your selection... but doesn't directly effect the progeny of a selected individual.


I used to be concerned that by actually producing seeds under CFL... the progeny might not like HID and prefer CFL... but then I learned that as long as the individual is selected under HID or Sunlight then the progeny would have the genes to thrive under those conditions... regardless of the conditions the mother experiences during seeds gestation.

 

[PWF]

plants can talk to each other via hormones they exude.
i guess that is hippy dippy shit.
the hormones trigger responses from genes in the plant. this can affect the genetic structure of new growth. hippy dippy shit.
Infintismal- thank you for posting that. tomhill wants me to be taking a stance on something he can say i am wrong about to support him calling me and/or my initial post towards him as "nonsense". tom hill has argued with so many people he makes me look normal. i am not arguing the point of genes being in a strand and the fact that theyre there. i am defending my statement that epi-genetics can affect how those genes cause phenotypical expression. i want to know where i am wrong and tom hasnt shown me anything but a bunch of accusations that im wrong or im trying to "get him on the ropes" or argue for the sake of arguing. epi-genetics most likely has more of a place in cannabis genetics than it would strawberries and i think tom ignores this in his regurgitation of c/p knowledge. he certainly doesnt have enough understanding of the material to give people a working applicable understanding and his name-calling is boorish. his attitude shuts down the concourse of civilized discussion of these things. if he has knowledge i have yet to see it in any form other than c/p shit that i can get out of any of the books he is referencing w/o all the bravado and insults.
personally i think he wants to build support for feminized commercial seed selling and if that is in fact true then it explains his behavior towards people who ask good questions about it and get shutdown by his insults and namecalling and never realy answers the questions. i see he does kindof admit that environment affects genetics but he also says that when i say the samething he does he instantly says im incorrect. doesnt say why or where, only that im wrong. i didnt come in asking about epi-genetics but rather why he ignored it as he never posts about it. one poster brought up a good point about how a bad environment will bring about a hermie and that is epi-genetic evidence right there. new knowledge needs to be allowed into the discussion even if it isnt all that new. i saw an article recently about another plant species that is epi-genetically influenced bigtime and we are seeing it all the time in insects that become immune to pesticides etc.
my first post was as benign as possible and i really do think we need to bring more thought to this subject.
cancers are epi-genetic
peace,
pwf

 

[xmobotx]

so; TH talks about using selfing to test for homozygosity and it becomes a sales pitch for feminised seeds?

wa-ay over

ETA; i never have seen him copy/paste anything even once that i can recall

 

[PWF]

the stressors a parent plant are under during the formation of the seed will affect genetic expression. it will adapt in the subsequent generations.
growing plants in different places in the world and at different elevations would be more effective than being stuck in one place trying to create an epi-genetic response unless you introduce hormones or are trying to develop pest resistant offspring. this is only to a degree, the same degree tom was refering to in a prior post about x plant being affected to more a degree of reaction than y plant. going to a wholely different climate, different longitude/latitude and elevation will bring out noticable pheno responses that are the beginning of the genetic changes but only to bring more dominance to some traits while other traits wan. harnessing that and making it useful is what i'd like to do but mainly to observe the results because i can't say with certainty if one expression is more desirable than another. that would be left to the end-user/grower.
i do belive in genetic memory and i believe we cannot trick the species into only giving us what we want beyond a degree. degrees denote statistics and that is a fringe science. genetics has alot of discovery yet and alot of that discovery is owned by big corporations under patent law. and even the big corporations cant control their genetic experiments. too many genes interacting really. and if we can understand the way genetics are affected by environment then we begin to understand the unknowns. no hippy dippy shit, just unknown and in many cases probably already known yet not shared due to patent laws. the universe is a mathematical equation and love is a chemical reaction. this doesnt mean we harnessed all the knowledge of these things.
peace,
pwf

 

[Tom Hill]

PWF, if plants talk to each other, it is their genes that ultimately determine their afluency potential. Hormone production, the same, all under the control of genes. You said I ignored something in your initial post, well you were wrong dude, so sorry for not sugar coating it for you. You said I was making up or it was my opinion the relative efficiency of selfing vs otherwise, yep, wrong again. If you can get this stuff in books than why haven't you? Why are you wasting bandwith? I argue with people because they, as you, are wrong, and spreading their ignorance, just as you are. Epigenetics has no place in cannabis breeding, and no place in strawberry breeding either,, all of that is wrongful thinking, it's just some straw you are reaching for, but it falls out from under you when pulled apart. I have tried to answer your every question pertaining to genetics, the one poster like you, is missing the point that all of this is under the influence of genetics. If it effected all plants the same, you guys would have a point but it doesn't does it? No, and therefore genes rule the day, it really is that plain and simple. Epigenetics have not been ignored at all, they've been taken into account, and dismissed as they should be.

 

[PWF]

tom you want to be able to verbally abuse people.
it has been your biggest contribution on these boards. i had hoped to chat with you but you insulted me right off. i have not seen you post about the subject of epi-genetics so how am i insulting you by stating such? do you think i came here to insult you? i have spoken in conversations before and you acted all happy. what the fuck is your problem with me saying epi-genetics is something to think about? if you never mention epi-genetics yet you post all over about genetics how could i word that any cleared than using the word ignore? does your knowledge of this subject give you license to talk down to me? so you have said it before. you havent said anything about epi-genetics. how is my bringing it up nonsense? you are a very unkind person and i dont find any value in your posts when im concerned that if i read one of them you maybe calling someone names or belittling them in some fashion. i dont want to see your bullshit. too bad you mostly post that crap.

 

[PWF]

folks, i'm going to do everyone a favor and put tom hill on ignore.

 

[PWF]

nevermind, im not allowed to ignore him because he is an administator/moderator.

 

[Tonygreen]

PWF you are talking more about Tom Hill than you are the science you purport to believe in.

Your whole exchange started when you started swearing at Tom for saying the study of epigenetics is not new ad it is not something that has major implications in cannabis breeding. Since then you have talked more about Tom than you have your knowledge of breeding. I'm sorry for pointing that out to you but I came in here to read about breeding cannabis not your drivel about your feelings about Tom Hill.

Your intitial post has no information on breeding in it whatsoever and no science other than "it is something to think about"

Furthermore you have added no valuable or useful info about epigenetic heritability or how it relates to breeding in your first post, mostly you have just shared your feelings about Tom Hill, maybe you should start a thread about that so you don't go off the OPs topic here?

Here is something I am thinking about now, if plants talk and they have bad genetics will they be babbling nonsense and spewing bullshit to the other plants all day fucking em up? How can we breed that out?

 

[Infinitesimal]

the stressors a parent plant are under during the formation of the seed will affect genetic expression. it will adapt in the subsequent generations.

have any evidence?

so if my girl lifts weights while she is pregnant... will my son be buff?

it has to do with mate selection... not the environment...

it might get confusing... BECAUSE... my environment can effect my selection... for example, if I am a professional athlete my environment (sports) may and will likely effect who I choose as a mate... doing so I will likely get along better with and be more attracted to an athletically physical women... a la evolution/natural selection I have now matched my genes for high testosterone and athleticism with my mates and have increased the frequency of those phenotypic expressions in our offspring and I will more than likely have a buff son... compared to a skinny un athletic couple who decide to work out while pregnant...

can you see the analogy?

growing plants in different places in the world and at different elevations would be more effective than being stuck in one place trying to create an epi-genetic response unless you introduce hormones or are trying to develop pest resistant offspring.

changing the environment ONLY has an effect if it in turn changes the selection...

for example... take some hindu kush seeds, clone them, grow one copy of each clone in northern california and grow the other copy in the peruvian rain forrest... most of the clones in california will express Indica propensity.. stay shorter get bushier and produce denser buds with a low occurrence of mold.

conversely the ones grown in the rain forest will have to adapt towards a more Sativa expression, compete with surrounding vegetation for sunlight making it grow taller and less bushy, do to the humidity the buds will grow less dense and those that don't will be more susceptible to mold and mildew... also many of the male plants especially will auto flower at a low latitude thereby missing the pollination window...

as a result...

the individuals that end up mating to produce the next generation will be different in the two locations, as the environment will cause different phenotypes to excel in nor cal than will excel in the rain forest... so it is not the environments effects on the individual that matters as much as it is the environments effects on the population and how that ultimately effects the selection of mates...(darwin's old theory)

this is only to a degree, the same degree tom was refering to in a prior post about x plant being affected to more a degree of reaction than y plant. going to a wholely different climate, different longitude/latitude and elevation will bring out noticable pheno responses that are the beginning of the genetic changes but only to bring more dominance to some traits while other traits wan.

you misunderstood, plant A is effected to X degree and plant B is only effected to the Y degree...

meaning...

I can take my Super Silver Haze cutting and take my afghoo cutting grow them in the same environment indoors... then grow the same cuttings outdoors in the same environment...

the SSH is effected by the change of environment to the degree... that it grows much wider, with thinner leaves, looser bud structure and has a more complex aroma with terpenes not present on the indoor grow

while the afghoo is effected by the change in environment to the null degree... that it is indiscernible from the indoor product and other than the overall size of the plant and has not changed in any significant or morphological sense.

so the afghoo is effected (or influenced) by its environment to a lessor degree than is the SSH.




PWF, you seem a little obsessed with what Tom is doing and saying...

if he rubs you the wrong way, ask yourself who is rubbing who?

when you post misinformation like you are stating fact, the people with the knowledge either just turn their head and leave rather than waste their time... or they have a visceral reaction to say "NO... YOU'RE WRONG"

I suggest when people have an idea, pretend you're on jeopardy and pose your statements in the form of a question... that way someone like tom or sam or chimera can say "yes thats correct" and validate your idea or correct it... without turning it into something personal.

 

[Lemon Larry]

?

 

[Weird]

so are you guys saying that epigentics has no bearing whatsoever in plant breeding science?

I am not making a comment either which way about epigentics and breeding but I do find it funny that everyone jumped on PWF for bringing up the topic for discussion.

google however brought up a wealth of material on the subject

http://www.dista.unibo.it/doublehelix/proceedings/SECTION_III/HELIX%20pp%20157-171.pdf

maybe people should stop being critical of other people and simply stick to discussing the matter at hand

I get it though lol sadly enough

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120920140150.htm

Scientists Uncover Mechanism by Which Plants Inherit Epigenetic Modifications


Sep. 20, 2012 — During embryonic development in humans and other mammals, sperm and egg cells are essentially wiped clean of chemical modifications to DNA called epigenetic marks. They are then held in reserve to await fertilization.
Share This:
62

In flowering plants the scenario is dramatically different. Germ cells don't even appear until the post-embryonic period -- sometimes not until many years later. When they do appear, only some epigenetic marks are wiped away; some remain, carried over from prior generations -- although until now little was known about how or to what extent.

"What we did know," says Professor and HHMI-GBMF Investigator Rob Martienssen, Ph.D., of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), "was that epigenetic inheritance -- the inheritance by offspring of chemical "tags" present in parental DNA that modify the expression of genes -- is much more widespread in plants than in animals."

In new research published online September 20 in the journal Cell, Martienssen and colleagues show that genome reprogramming through these epigenetic mechanisms is guided by small RNAs and is passed on to the next generation.

Some DNA is tagged with epigenetic marks

It has long been known that in plants, as the male germline pollen grains develop, they give rise to two sperm cells, and a structure called the vegetative nucleus, also known as the "nurse cell" because it provides energy and nourishment to the sperm cells.

The DNA in germ cells can exist in two dramatically different states: in one, it is very densely packed and essentially inaccessible to the cellular machinery that enables individual genes to be "expressed." In the other, in which the packing is much looser, genes can be expressed. In the latter state, because the genetic material is accessible, it is can also be modified by various chemical groups (two common ones are methyl and acetyl) which tend to attach to the DNA at specific locations.

These chemical tags are called epigenetic marks. The attachment of, for instance, a methyl group to a particular stretch of DNA containing a gene tends to prevent that gene from being accessed by the gene-expression machinery, and thus prevents the gene from being expressed.

Inherited methylation patterns are guided by small RNAs

Probing further into the set of modifications on the DNA in plant pollen grains, Martienssen and colleagues decided to look at the particular set of chemical marks called methyl groups. When they separated out pollen grains in different stages of development they found distinct patterns of the attachment of methyl groups to DNA.

They also noticed the corresponding accumulation of small RNAs, including two classes of so-called short-interfering RNAs (siRNAs) -- tiny RNA molecules, 21 or 24 nucleotides in length -- involved in silencing gene expression. These small siRNAs act as guides to where methylation will occur, silencing gene expression.

Previous work by the Martienssen lab and their collaborators, including a team of pollen specialists from the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia in Lisbon, Portugal, has shown that these epigenetic mechanisms are important for keeping transposons in check. Also known as "jumping genes" for their ability to be expressed and then re-insert themselves at random into a different area of the genome, transposons are dangerous because they can cause damage to DNA and disrupt genetic function.

In the current study, Martienssen's team discovered that while in sperm, some areas of DNA containing transposons had "lost" methyl groups, and thus had the potential to be expressed, the same stretches of DNA were observed to be methylated in the seed embryo. This was associated with the accumulation of 21 nucleotide long siRNA in the mature pollen and 24 nucelotide long siRNA in the seed embryo. Martienssen speculates that the loss of methylation in the sperm and subsequent re-methylation during fertilization may reflect an ancient mechanism for transposon recognition and silencing.

A second important observation made by the team was of the loss of methylation in "nurse cells." Methylation at these same sites is retained in the associated sperm cells, and, too, is associated with accumulation of 24 nucleotide siRNA. This process results in areas of recurrent epigenetic marking that are pre-methylated in the germline sperm and carried on to the next generation.

"This is what, at least in part, enables plants to inherit acquired traits from prior generations -- something that we mammals can rarely do," Martienssen observes.

Being able to trace the inheritance of traits -- both wanted and unwanted -- in plants, and notably in agricultural crops, is important for farmers. Martienssen predicts that "defining inheritance through epigenetic modifications will influence the ways people think about cross-breeding to select for desired traits." Such traits as resistance to temperature variation in crops have important agricultural and economic implications.

 

[Tonygreen]

Hey Weird you can see dude started cursing at Tom in his second reply and continued to badger from there.

All Tom said at first was epigentics is not new and genes matter. PWF then started coppin the attitude, ready to pick a fight. "What fuck nonsense why you talkin to me like that bro"'.... that shit was funny...lol

nonsense, and epigenetics is by no means new.

hey man, did i say it was new?
what the fuck are you calling nonsense btw?

Tom really went hard to start it off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GG...

So hey anyway can you tell me how to utilize the science of epigenetics in my breeding program? PWF suggested it was something to think about then posted 20 times about his feelings for TH so if anyone wants to share how it affects breeding cannabis I guess that would be better then going on and on...

 

[Weird]

really he said "what the fuck are you calling nonsense?"

cursing against the TOU now?

Is cursing at Tom going to offend Tom's sensibilities? It doesn't seem to effect them when he is the one doing the cursing.

I appreciate you want to soak in as much as you can from Tom but it doesn't mean you should be biased because of it. If your so hungry for what tom has to say that your willing to blindly dismiss what others screams a couple things to me

let tom fight his own battles, and base your critiques on opinion, anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence and simply state them as such

here are some examples

I do not agree, It does seem logical

I do not agree because I have experienced x, y & z

I do not agree because science states x, y & z

Tom NEVER countered the factor of epigenetics with science he did so based on his own criteria (he stated it as opinion but he may have anecdotal or scientific answers as well)

take it for face value or argue for a more scientific or anecdotal answer but to let it degrade into a shit show again

seriously

if more people lived the life instead of just reading about it these threads wouldn't happen

keep coming back it works if you work it

 

[imnotcrazy]

PWF just forget it man, you're in over your head, you thought you had someone on the ropes, and you were wrong. Just read dude, genetics trumps epigenetics, it trumps environment, it trumps it all man, any link you can or could ever post, was written by men who already understand this fact, get this through your head.

Actually, doesn't environment trump genetics?? IE: in a given environment certain gene combinations will have a distinct advantage over other gene combos.

The environment isn't changing but it is causing a change in the genes (over time) hence my thought of environment > genetics

 

[devilgoob]

Can't a harsh environment turn a plant hermie? Don't they do this because of environment, and since a seed produced by stressing and selfing this way....made it's way, this way, wouldn't it invariably know it has to do this "hermie" thing more in the future and would selectively exhibit this trait based on it's past dioeciousness?

So, I got neg repped for positing this can happen, that is if it can if a person could answer my question that it actually does affect the end result, instead of not contributing ANYTHING except negativeness.

Something can be dead old, but something older than it, makes that 'dead old' "newer."

Brain neurons are epigenetic in the fact, they weren't told they were brain cells by their DNA. They were told by their environment where to go.

Now, if the Cannabis plant is dioecious, then wouldn't the male and female flowers in different locations be caused by environment? I mean the plant already has it's genes, but you put it in a shitty location, where it KNOWS it's fucked, and it will spit out male flowers.

Of course, you are changing expressing of genes, but that's what epigenetics is. Something with all the original DNA changing it's expressed based on location. You know like how nerves and skin from stem cells?

This will enlighten some...maybe even on the molecular clocks things have, that aren't genetic, but rather epigenetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epigenetic_mechanisms.jpg

BUT do any of these things affect potency?

Probably not in the slightest, like TOMHill says, genetics is a big part.

This is not to say, things other than genes OR the proteins of which we haven't understood the mechanism of folding are not so well understood in the cannabis community, because it comes down to the cannabinoid profile.

I guess that could be affected by triploid making, but we tend to think of one factor that is tangible.

Try loading a "female" plant with collodial silver, and understand it's dioecious and can turn fully male.

Plus, if you're breeding for traits in the genes of cannabis, you're saying NOTHING you do to the plant besides combine them genetically will change the outcome?

I mean this to anybody, and I am asking a question. We have a plant that is transgender and it's expression is genetic, right? But a form of epigenetics is used to change it.



Plus, I have used it. Kind of.

I have germed corn. It sends a leaf-shoot up and a root down.

If the tip of the root is exposed at all, and the plant is thriving, the root will in fact send out a leaf and make a 'second' plant.

This has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with how you exposed the root.

But, like I said just now, I'm not expert and we tend to only think in terms of potency or some other thing, WHILST epigenetics being studied and protein-folding isn't understood. By the way, genes direct the folding, but other things affect the folding process, epigenetic.

Protein-folding is like...IS sacred geometry I would say

 

[vapor]

Interesting talk... We had a willie nelson cutting {the original} most of the growers who grew it, it would come out like the Vietnamese side{woody taste not the greatest/high, but great structure}
One of our green thumbed friends found that if he flowered a clone sooner then later the plant ended up leaning way heavy to the lemon side of things and the high and taste where spectacular compared to growing a big plant that has been around for some time. All kinds of trigger i guess, foods and thoughts....

 

[Infinitesimal]

Interesting talk... We had a willie nelson cutting {the original} most of the growers who grew it, it would come out like the Vietnamese side{woody taste not the greatest/high, but great structure}
One of our green thumbed friends found that if he flowered a clone sooner then later the plant ended up leaning way heavy to the lemon side of things and the high and taste where spectacular compared to growing a big plant that has been around for some time. All kinds of trigger i guess, foods and thoughts....

great example... that is the difference between a Sativa photoperiod where the plant initiates flowering quickly and an Indica photoperiod where there is a long veg before the plant begins flowering... and yes this is an epigenetic trigger for expression...

BUT...

this is the point... you are talking about cultivation... and yes you can change the expression... but when you pollinate it, it passes on the same genotype regardless of how soon you forced flowering... triggering a different expression does not cause a different gene to be passed on to its progeny.

 

[devilgoob]

Infinitesimal: but when you pollinate it, it passes on the same genotype regardless of how soon you forced flowering... triggering a different expression does not cause a different gene to be passed on to its progeny.

Very true. I believe the problem is how we're framing the problem.

Epigenetics: connecting environment and genotype to phenotype

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493882

The DNA folding structure holds information also, not just genes. Protein folding is poorly understood.

 

[MildeStoner]

"Epigenetics have not been ignored at all, they've been taken into account, and dismissed as they should be."

Bwhahahaha a man after my own heart. Infinitesmal is spelling out out nice and slowly for those who can't follow Tom's posts, it's an effective combo, you two make a great team