is this how you breed quality genetics?

[Pepe le skunk]

Maybe for individual traits, I don't think that works for the plant as a whole?

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/meiosis/main.html

I think yer gonna get different results per trait per male each time, AA male, Aa, male, aa male...

Yer polyhybrid mom can be AA Aa aa for each trait she is expressing too.
So whatever she is for whatever trait x whatever the male is that is used each time is gonna get you different results?

You would only pick a great female as the mother and you would want the traits she expressed that's why you are trying to bx2 in the first place. The second part about different results is true for the f2 cross but wouldn't 75% of the genetics be the choosen females genetics anyway? Not saying you won't get some differences but as long as they are not a bad trait (ie intersex or lanky ect.) the next cross (f3 backcross to one female) would reaffirm the mothers genetics to 87% regardless? And the last cross would again reaffirm the mothers genetics up to 99%

If the mother is a polyhybrid then yes more intense selection of the resulting seeds and that male would need to be selected based on the traits your breeding for. I agree. That's why poly hybrids would be alot more difficult to bx2.

That is ALL dependent on the recurrent (mother as you put it) in the 1st place.

There's a post in here on backcrossing.


https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=5684602#post5684602

It is always the same mother regardless for what you are crossing into. Not saying other traits might not be present. (wishful thinking probably but hopefully those traits would be for something like desease resistance and not something bad) lol

Still believe this to be one of the best methods to stabilize a trait or plant that will breed 99% true. (meaning less chance for multiple phenos.) And in most grows that are small is one of the best methods to breed seeds that will produce the same results everytime. Also to be able to pass those traits on every time in any new crosses. Meaning different strain crosses of different types.

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

It is always the same mother regardless for what you are crossing into. Not saying other traits might not be present. (wishful thinking probably but hopefully those traits would be for something like desease resistance and not something bad) lol

Still believe this to be one of the best methods to stabilize a trait or strain that will breed 99% true. And in most grows that are small is one of the best methods to breed seeds that will produce the same results everytime. Also to be able to pass those traits on every time in any new crosses.

Being the same mother is not the point! I would of thought with the ref to Chimeras post you may of got the point, sadly it seems not.

 

[Pepe le skunk]

Being the same mother is not the point! I would of thought with the ref to Chimeras post you may of got the point, sadly it seems not.

Not sure if this is what you are refering to from Chimeras post:

The absolute fastest and tightest methodology for said task is the self-cross. The problem is that any trait that is the result of a heterozygous gene condition at a specific locus, falls apart in 50% of the progeny. Sure, it may also re-occur in %50 of the resulting as well, but it is by no means stable in those individuals, it's simply present.

The only way to recapitulate the hybrid (Aa) at that locus, is to take the 2x (25% classes, AA and aa) and intermate them to get the desired Aa genetic condition again.

What I wonder is with the continued crossing back to the one single female using only the seeds (ie male only) from each additional backcross if this would not keep the mothers traits intact or reinforced? I agree that the f2 and f3 population might not be as close a copy of the mother but anything after the 4th cross would be almost exactly like the original mother. Especially if 99% of the genetic makeup of the f4 (final backcross) is the mother.

 

[fadetoclear]

are you correct in that thought?... yes, and no...

yes, the quickest and most efficient way to determine an individuals genetic worth/breeding potential is to self it... that way there is no confusing which trait came from which parent since both the mother and father are essentially the same plant...

no, you are incorrect... in that; you can use it in subsequent breeding, because, by selfing we are increasing the gene frequency and subsequently the rate of individuals that are homozygous "true breeding" for our desired traits... and when those S1 individuals are grown out separated and then each one that contains the desired traits selfed creating different "families" of the same strain, the S2s are then grown out telling us which of the S1s were true breeding and the S2s of those true breeding "families" go on to create the S3s and so on S4s, S5s Etc. Etc. until we have achieved near homogeny of homozygous individuals among the population.

I hope that makes sense,
Peace
Infi

and will those lines that have been selfed still produce even numbers of males and females as normally bred hybrids would? also, does this not increase the probability of intersexing in each subsequent generation?

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

Not sure if this is what you are refering to from Chimeras post:

What I wonder is with the continued crossing back to the one single female using only the seeds (ie male only) from each additional backcross if this would not keep the mothers traits intact or reinforced? I agree that the f2 and f3 population might not be as close a copy of the mother but anything after the 4th cross would be almost exactly like the original mother. Especially if 99% of the genetic makeup of the f4 (final backcross) is the mother.

if the chosen one has one trait then yee haaa! (Aa) but that is not the case is it. And if that was the aim then why bother you would of found it in S1's quicker (like the bit you quoted states). (The backcross is to add something that is missing, ie in the SPG case to get rid of its tendency to be floppy)

it was more this;

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The backcross scheme has specific drawbacks, however. When the recurrent parent is not very true-breeding, the resulting backcross generations segregate, and many of the traits deemed desirable to the line fail to be reproduced reliably. Another limitation of the backcross is that the “improved” variety differs only slightly from the recurrent parent (e.g., one trait). If multiple traits are to be introgressed into the new population, other techniques such as inbreeding or recurrent selection may be more rewarding.[/FONT]

 

[Infinitesimal]

and will those lines that have been selfed still produce even numbers of males and females as normally bred hybrids would? also, does this not increase the probability of intersexing in each subsequent generation?

a stable female, one that isn't already intersex prone, will produce female only offspring with no higher probability of intersex than the mother (assuming that any "family" which display intersex is culled from the breeding program)... from generation to generation... with the exception of rare genetic anomalies.

 

[Infinitesimal]

if the chosen one has one trait then yee haaa! (Aa) but that is not the case is it. And if that was the aim then why bother you would of found it in S1's quicker (like the bit you quoted states). (The backcross is to add something that is missing, ie in the SPG case to get rid of its tendency to be floppy)

it was more this;

yes, and even if one is successful at reproducing multiple traits, there are increased chances of producing recessive deleterious (negative) traits that were not expressed in the original clone mother... because they are recessive and need to be homozygous for expression.

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

Idk about contempt PWF but your punctuation is horrible and your sentence structure is laborious to read.

Most selfed stock for sale is a s1 of a random f1 cross, thats why they generally show alot of variability, that and alot of seed companies dont seem to genotype test their lines before they release them. How many random male x female crosses are for sale right now that have show major variability? That is not due to method of sexual reproduction it is due to lazy people making these lines not testing them properly.

Hell its not just the fems showing variability. You get that shit just as bad from non fem standard seeds for some of the same reasons, people are not genotype testing before they release alot of times and most shit is a poly hybrid mess.

ive been out of contact for a while, getting into other shit until I can start growing again so ive been catching up on this thread I started.

this goddamn post is exactly what Ive been saying for the longest time to so many others BUT didn't have the background knowledge to legibly articulate this very point.

thank you for chimming in

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

No if you cant reproduce the pheno the strain is claimed to be to it means you got no real strain and the breeder did a shit job breeding.

FUCKING THANK YOOOU!!!! FIIIIINALLY!!! WHAT TEH FUCK IVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LONGEST AND WHY IVE BEEN SO RELUCTANT TO BUY SEEDS FROM JUST ANYONE!!

oh man, you guys don't know how it feels to intellectually exhale

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

Isnt the whole reason to fix a trait in a line is so that its fixed and shows up reliably in the progeny, regardless of how the progeny is spawned? MxF, Selfed or in a petri dish?

goddamn, I wish I could buy you a drink or some shit man, damn

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

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

THEN . . .

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

YO, THIS IS THE FUNNIEST SHIT IVE EVER SEEN IN A THREAD ANYWHERE IN MY LIFE!!!! SERIOUSLY ROFLMAO!!! wife even came out and asked me what the hell was wrong, son is just laughing right along with me

good thing I wasn't drinking anything, awe shit man, tears, tears!!

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

ok I kinda get a better understanding of where the best breeding protocols can and are coming from.

everything that has been stated so far is beneficial and would need to be carried out BUT at certain times during the entire breeding process

some people have stated facts that I think would be helpful to continue a line/strain but not to help "create" or bring the better qualities of a plant to the forefront of its genetic code WHILE there are other facts that would be better to practice when creating a line/strain but not to "continue" the proper passing of genetics in seed form.

now lets be clear about one thing, I think that it got lost in the discussion, this whole discussion was started with the idea that when a person takes on a breeding project they are in a stable environment where not much can happen outside of human error which is always the case or of course with the occasional acts of god/nature tossed in just for the hell of it as murphy states; with regard to epigenetics it would seem that those could be applied if you were willing and had to deal with something occurring in the wild or nature and not a controlled area/situation (just imo) but I dig it/understand it and it does have its place in the scope of breeding practice I think.

with that, I am greatful for you all. as with these threads the ignorant always poke their heads up and they have to be dealt with accordingly and we all know who they really are with their post content. facts are facts, opinions should be fact based so science and understanding have no room for "feelings/ emotions" ('tis why I love facts so much!!) , no matter where you go that's what that is going to be take it or leave it.

growing is my main hobby, I love it dearly, but since I have to take some steps back to take some more steps forward with it ive immersed myself into other things and ICMAG was starting to become one of those things and it shouldn't so ive taken the time to understand more of the hobby I love so much. the more I grow I figure the better my plants will in the long run.

I just really hope this one doesn't end up getting binned or anything, tons of good stuff so far, please keep it going for the community, I for one, truly appreciate it and you

 

[xmobotx]

Ironic because you can use that technique to TEST progeny, this does not necessary imply that you should breeding them out using selfing.

I believe Tom mentioned this, as it was his implication that impressed me with that notion

here's the thing; if you self to TEST progeny and find the progeny to be stable females after the self'n well; there you have it

what my experience leads me to believe is that in certain lines or certain expressions of hermaphroditism; the trait is passed as a recessive trait while in other instances; it passes as incomplete dominant ~i.e. many of the offspring will express hermaphroditism

oiw; it depends on the reason you are seeing hermaphrodite progeny

there's likely more to it than that because we are talking about a trait which is a tendency to express ~not like brown eyes or blonde hair maybe more like susceptibility to an illness {anthropomorphising}

 

[fadetoclear]

here's the thing; if you self to TEST progeny and find the progeny to be stable females after the self'n well; there you have it

what my experience leads me to believe is that in certain lines or certain expressions of hermaphroditism; the trait is passed as a recessive trait while in other instances; it passes as incomplete dominant ~i.e. many of the offspring will express hermaphroditism

oiw; it depends on the reason you are seeing hermaphrodite progeny

there's likely more to it than that because we are talking about a trait which is a tendency to express ~not like brown eyes or blonde hair maybe more like susceptibility to an illness {anthropomorphising}

i think the reason people believe that stress induced sex reversal causes hermaphrodites is that the lines that have proliferated that we know came from some form of stress induced sex reversal (i'm implicitly talking about c99 and the chem lines) have produced lines of intersexed progency.

then again, in saying that, i have to admit that both c99 and the chem line have some...rather mythical beginnings. it is just as probable the intersex traits came simply from sloppy breeding and the whole story about them coming from bagseed could very well be marketing BS.

i'm very much curious about this current push involving selfing. curious being the imperative. i still have one question. is it better to use forced selfing as a means of test to determine traits or are breeders now using this as general practice for producing commercial seed?

 

[xmobotx]

marketing BS

the main reason these discussions turn into arguments

 

[Weird]

here's the thing; if you self to TEST progeny and find the progeny to be stable females after the self'n well; there you have it

what my experience leads me to believe is that in certain lines or certain expressions of hermaphroditism; the trait is passed as a recessive trait while in other instances; it passes as incomplete dominant ~i.e. many of the offspring will express hermaphroditism

oiw; it depends on the reason you are seeing hermaphrodite progeny

there's likely more to it than that because we are talking about a trait which is a tendency to express ~not like brown eyes or blonde hair maybe more like susceptibility to an illness {anthropomorphising}

are there additional genes that are intersex expression triggers, that is genetic code that dictates triggering itself and the sensitivity to that triggering?

if so this is where i wonder if epigenetics dont come into play as well

a breeder exposing a plant to very negative environmental could be (as per the references i posted a page or so ago) effecting those environmental "triggers"

 

[xmobotx]

weird i wonder about epigenetics as it may apply here

the thing is; IF there are people who do understand this at a applicable level, they will know how to spell, cut/paste applicable info, use paragraphs, and explain the situation in relevant language that we as lay-people can understand

what it will do is probably not revolutionize our understanding of utilizing intersex individuals {or reversed FTM} so much as hone our understanding of what we can 'get away w/' and why

let's assume a 'breeder' exposing a plant to environmental triggers would be doing it for testing. the real issue would be a grower/farmer exposing to those kinds of environmental factors and blaming the breeder

 

[Weird]

Researchers Find Novel Way Plants Pass Traits to Next Generation



nheritance Behavior in Corn Breaks Accepted Rules of Genetics

COLUMBUS, Ohio – New research explains how certain traits can pass down from one generation to the next – at least in plants – without following the accepted rules of genetics.
Scientists have shown that an enzyme in corn responsible for reading information from DNA can prompt unexpected changes in gene activity – an example of epigenetics.



Epigenetics refers to modifications in the genome that don’t directly affect DNA sequences. Though some evidence has suggested that epigenetic changes can bypass DNA’s influence to carry on from one generation to the next, this is the first study to show that this epigenetic heritability can be subject to selective breeding.


Researchers bred 10 generations of corn and found that one particular gene’s activity persisted from one generation to the next whether the enzyme was functioning or not – meaning typical genetic behavior was not required for the gene’s trait to come through.

And that, the scientists determined, was because the enzyme targets a tiny piece of DNA – previously thought of as “junk DNA” – that had jumped from one area of the genome to another, giving that little fragment power to unexpectedly turn on the gene.
The gene in question affects pigmentation in the corn plant. As a result of these experiments, the researchers were able to change yellow kernel corn to a blue kernel variety by compromising the activity of the enzyme in each male parent.


“This is the first example where somebody has been able to take an epigenetic source of variation and, through selective breeding, move it from an inactive state to an active state,” said Jay Hollick, associate professor of molecular genetics at The Ohio State University and lead author of the study. “The gene changes its expression in an epigenetic fashion and it doesn’t follow standard inheritance behaviors. Those two factors alone have pretty profound implications not only for breeding but also for evolution.”
The study appears online in the journal The Plant Cell.


Plant breeders tend to expect to generate desired traits according to what is known as Mendelian principles of inheritance: Offspring receive one copy of genes from each parental plant, and the characteristics of the alleles, or alternative forms of genes, help predict which traits will show up in the next plant generation.
However, epigenetic variations that change the predictability of gene behavior have complicated those expectations.



“The breeding community searches for novel traits that will have commercial interest and they really don’t care what the basis is as long as they can capture it and breed it. Epigenetic heritability throws a kink in the expectations, but our findings also provide an opportunity – if they recognize the variation they’re looking for is the result of epigenetics, they could use that to their advantage,” said Hollick, also an investigator in Ohio State’s centers for RNA Biology and Applied Plant Sciences.



“Just by knowing that this allele behaves in this epigenetic fashion, I can breed plants that either have full coloration or no coloration or anything in between, because I am manipulating epigenetic variation and not genetic variation. And color, of course, is only one trait that could be affected.”

With a longtime specialization in the molecular basis for unexpected gene activity in plants, Hollick had zeroed in on an enzyme called RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV). Multiple types of RNA polymerases are responsible for setting gene expression in motion in all cells, and Pol IV is an enigmatic RNA polymerase that is known in plants to produce small RNA molecules.

Pol IV has puzzled scientists because despite its strong conservation in all plants, it appears to have no discernible impact on the development of Arabidopsis, a common model organism in plant biology. For example, when it is deleted from these plants, they show no signs of distress.
In corn, however, Hollick’s lab had discovered previously that the absence of Pol IV creates clear problems in the plants, such as growing seeds in the tassel.

Hollick and colleagues observed that plants deficient in Pol IV also showed pigmentation in kernels of ears expected not to make any color at all – meaning they were expected to be yellow.
“Since we knew the misplaced tassel-seed trait was due to misexpression of a gene, we hypothesized that this pigment trait might be due to a pigment regulator being expressed in a tissue where it normally is never expressed. Molecular analysis showed that that was in fact the case,” Hollick said.
The researchers selected dark kernels and light kernels from multiple generations of plants and crossed the plants derived form these different kernel classes to create additional new generations of corn.
“We found that the ears developed from those plants had even more darkly colored kernels and fewer lightly colored kernels. We could segregate the extreme types and cross them together and get this continued intensification of the pigmentation over many generations,” he said. “We generated more progeny that had increasing amounts of pigment. This is taking a gene that is genetically null, that doesn’t have any function in this part of the plant, and turning it from a complete null to a completely dominant form that produces full coloration.


“Essentially we were breeding a novel trait, but not by selecting for any particular gene. We were just continually altering the epigenetic status of one of the two parental genomes every time.”
This led the scientists to question why the affected alleles of the pigmentation gene would behave in this way. An investigation of the affected alleles revealed the nearby presence of a transposon, or transposable element: a tiny piece of DNA that has leapt from one area of the genome to another.
Because the sequence of some small RNA fragments that come from Pol IV’s activity are identical to the sequence of these transposons, the finding made sense to the scientists.
“Now that we know that Pol IV is involved in regulating transposons, it’s not surprising that genes that are near transposons are now regulated by Pol IV,” Hollick said.



This work was supported by the National Research Initiative of the USDA Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service and the National Science Foundation.


Hollick conducted this work at the University of California, Berkeley, before he joined Ohio State’s faculty. Co-authors are former Berkeley colleagues Karl Erhard Jr., Susan Parkinson, Stephen Gross, Joy-El Barbour and Jana Lim.

 

[Weird]

there was a reference not sure if I posted it or not that stated that pollen was observed to be sustainable to epigentic effect

 

[Infinitesimal]

are there additional genes that are intersex expression triggers, that is genetic code that dictates triggering itself and the sensitivity to that triggering?

if so this is where i wonder if epigenetics dont come into play as well

a breeder exposing a plant to very negative environmental could be (as per the references i posted a page or so ago) effecting those environmental "triggers"

weird i wonder about epigenetics as it may apply here

the thing is; IF there are people who do understand this at a applicable level, they will know how to spell, cut/paste applicable info, use paragraphs, and explain the situation in relevant language that we as lay-people can understand

what it will do is probably not revolutionize our understanding of utilizing intersex individuals {or reversed FTM} so much as hone our understanding of what we can 'get away w/' and why

let's assume a 'breeder' exposing a plant to environmental triggers would be doing it for testing. the real issue would be a grower/farmer exposing to those kinds of environmental factors and blaming the breeder

there is a thread called... "the determinator of sex", where I try to postulate and explain that very possibility, that herm traits can be brought forth by genetic conditions, epigenetic triggers and arise from random mutations as well ...

but I eventually gave up trying after all the off topic, out of context logic and circular arguments given by people with admittedly no knowledge on the subject

NOT that I am some accomplished geneticist in the field of Epigenetics, rather a normal guy with innate ability to grasp and understand concepts