Mother from seed vs clone turned mother?

[gmanwho]

Was wondering if there is any info on possible benefits of having a mother from seed, to make clones an flower out. Verse taking a clone and making that a mother to pull clones off of. the standard practice is usually taking clones of the plant from seed. then flowering that plant from seed. What if one was to take clones off of the plant from seed. then grow those clones out. would the from seed clones have more vigor as i would think? b-safe

 

[rubberducky]

When I go pheno hunting with seed. I germ them and grow the seeds out. Right before I throw them in flower I take a couple cuts from the lower shoots. So if any of those seeds were keepers I got a clone in veg that I would then grow into a mommy plant.

 

[stoneybud2]

It's a lot easier to do as stated above.
Grow out the seeds take a few clones n mark them to the plants.
And as time goes on you will cull any males that pop in. And start paying attention the the females. How the grow and what not. N mark it down even. Then you can start to toss the clones you don't feel stand up to your standards.
SB

 

[gloryoskie]

The seeded plant as mum is no different than her cuttings.

The seeded plant in your example is just older than her
cuttings.

Many keep mums only from seed stock, some, like me,
choose to keep cuttings of cuttings.

And try to keep males for breeding, at least one anyway.

Keep us posted on your choice.

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

It's too big of a bitch keeping old plants alive, I perpetually clone my moms every month or two.

 

[Kindest]

It's too big of a bitch keeping old plants alive, I perpetually clone my moms every month or two.

Pretty sure this is BOGs premise as well. "No such thing as genetic drift."

I shouldn't speak for the man, but this basically means taking clones of clones of clones is just as effective as (and easier than) keeping the same old mother for years.

 

[EclipseFour20]

In theory, a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone....(times 100 generations) should be equal in all respects to the original donor/"seed-plant"...of course that assumes that all generations will experience identical environments. Every year my environment changes...as does most of ours.

As growers, we respond to Root Aphids, Spider Mites, Broad Mites, Fungus Gnats, etc with pesticides (some more excessive than others), remedies and magic potions to trick the plant to activate its Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR). The plant's SAR response (either induced by nature or from magic potion) has an effect on future generations of clones...which means, "all clones are not equal".

These handful of abstracts should quash any thoughts that clones of different generations remain "genetically pure". Examining how SAR effects subsequent generations is easy to understand...without getting into the scientific details of genetics.

Next-generation systemic acquired resistance--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22147520
Herbivory in the previous generation primes plants for enhanced insect resistance--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209873
Descendants of primed Arabidopsis plants exhibit resistance to biotic stress--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209872

If SAR response of one generation can effect subsequent generations--then what other things are effected?...Potency? We don't know.

Cheers!

BTW...I do not discriminate, as I make mamas from seeds and from cuttings/clones.

 

[gmanwho]

Thank you for the responses, i've done the take clone from seed plant an make that a mother lots of times. then you flower the from seed plant. I just felt that the original clones from the seed mother plant had more vigor the first clone time around vs the clone mother. Maybe its in my head. but as eclipse420 said after time the clones will change due to environment, but so will the orginal mom from seed.

just something i wanted to try, dedicate a hood of clones from seed cuts , then the same conditions etc for running the clones off the cloned mother ....

thanks for the responses

b-safe

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

I notice with old moms they become hard to root when the stems get too thick and woody.

Fresh green vegetation always roots the best. Also over all health aids in rooting ability. This is why I keep cloning my mothers, so they never get old and unhealthy.

I have lost crucial moms because I let them go too long, the health just suddenly dropped off and despite my best efforts I could not revive them much less get cuts to root.

I honestly don't believe in genetic drift as most people think of it, I think any drift in genetic characteristics of a clone is due to epigenetics caused by environment factors altering the DNA.

"Genetic drift" is what happens to a population between breeding generations. Like if you grow a field of 50% red roses and 50% white roses, but in each generations only 25% of the white roses are able to successfully breed, over time that rose population will be dominated by red roses.

 

[Phaeton]

An example from my garden is a Northern Lights clone taken in the '90s and subsequent clones taken from each plant before putting in the budroom. Fairly popular clone in this area, used by several growers including the original gardener.
Personally, I do a clone every two weeks in a perpetual grow. 25 generations of clones per year for 14 years. If a problem was going to come up, 350 cycles should have shown some variance. None yet.

Not set in stone, just my experience with a single plant. Other clones I get tired of within three or four years.

An exception is my Bagsativa, developed as "clone only" it is still in other growrooms six years since seed. Special made for those without a green thumb, it clones easier and roots faster than any plant I have come across and smokes OK. I expect it to remain a staple in the area for many years ahead, even though I no longer keep it. I come across it now and then and it still smokes identical to the first mom.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Just a little thing about the quote

epigenetics caused by environment factors altering the DNA

from hidinginthehaze: Epigenetic factors don't alter DNA, they alter the way DNA is transcribed/translated .
Although, it's known from long-lived trees that mutations happen progressively causing sometimes different branches of the very same tree to look different. One publication about that is the following Padovan et al. BMC Plant. Biol., 2013. Meaning, with some chance and a loooot of time a clone as well as the mother plant may become "something new". The difference is, that the mother likely grows branches with new genetics whereas a clone (as it is such a branch) will be completely different (homogeneous in itself until the next mutation).

 

[EclipseFour20]

Just a little thing about the quote from hidinginthehaze: Epigenetic factors don't alter DNA, they alter the way DNA is transcribed/translated .
Although, it's known from long-lived trees that mutations happen progressively causing sometimes different branches of the very same tree to look different. One publication about that is the following Padovan et al. BMC Plant. Biol., 2013. Meaning, with some chance and a loooot of time a clone as well as the mother plant may become "something new". The difference is, that the mother likely grows branches with new genetics whereas a clone (as it is such a branch) will be completely different (homogeneous in itself until the next mutation).

Only--

The studies I cited concluded things a bit differently. The time frame was rather instant since a plant's "stress memories" were transferred to subsequent generations.

Most of us are aware of the plant's Systemic Acquired Resistance and how it can be our friend. So I researched this question, "if a mother plant's SAR is activated...then do the SAR attributes transfer to the new cutting/clone?" The answer I found is YES.

This transgenerational SAR was sustained over one stress-free generation, indicating an epigenetic basis of the phenomenon. (1st doc)

Here, we show that induced resistance was associated with transgenerational priming of jasmonic acid-dependent defense responses in both species, caused caterpillars to grow up to 50% smaller than on control plants, and persisted for two generations in Arabidopsis. (2nd doc )

When transgenerationally primed plants were subjected to an additional priming treatment, their descendants displayed an even stronger primed phenotype, suggesting that plants can inherit a sensitization for the priming phenomenon. (3rd doc)


So if SAR attributes are transferred (environment) then what other attributes are transferred from donor plant to clone? Probably more than we suspect...is my guess.

I am not a geneticist but I kinda understand the following conclusion:

Stress-induced changes in histone variants, histone N-tail modifications, and DNA methylation have been shown to regulate stress-responsive gene expression and plant development under stress. Transient chromatin modifications mediate acclimation response. Heritable, epigenetic modifications may provide within-generation and transgenerational stress memory (Figure 1). It is unclear how much of the stress-induced histone and DNA modification changes that have been observed to date may be epigenetic in nature because little is known about their mitotic or meiotic heritability. Abiotic stress-induced epigenetic changes might have an adaptive advantage. However, stress memory could have a negative impact on crop yield by preventing the plant from growing to its full potential. Thus, stress memory has implications for the use of seeds from stressed crop to raise ensuing crops by the farmers, breeding for stress environments and in situ conservation of plant species. Recent progress in understanding DNA methylation and demethylation, histone modifications, small RNAs and in developing powerful and versatile tools to study these epigenetic processes makes it possible to critically analyze epigenetic stress memory and harness it for crop management and improvement.

Source: Conclusion paragraph--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139470/

It appears, that some "stress memories" kinda have a life of their own.

Cheers!

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hi Eclipse

I know .

I was just nitpicking on the statement 'epigenetic factors alter DNA' (they don't change DNA but change the way DNA is 'read'). So I wrote something about real genetic modifications (mutations) in plants regarding clones being different than the mom .

Was writing a long reply yesterday when the site logged me out automatically and all was lost ;( . Maybe I find the time to re-write my comment on epigenetics...

May I ask you how familiar you are with genetics and whether you know what epigenetics really means? May be easier for me (not that I explain too much into detail or too trivially).

Till later

 

[Only Ornamental]

P.S. Nice review you cited above .

You said:

So if SAR attributes are transferred (environment) then what other attributes are transferred from donor plant to clone? Probably more than we suspect...is my guess.

Principally, the donor (mother) and the clone are the same. Changes in the mother also affecting a branch you cut will obviously be in the clone; question is, how long will they remain? Likely as long as they remain in the mother (grown under similar conditions). On contrary, taking seeds will reset more of the changes acquired by the mother plant. On one side, forming a branch (or a clone if you cut that branch) involves only mitosis ('easy' cell division of differentiated and maybe epigenetically 'changed' cells) whereas seed formation involves meiosis ('harsh' cell division of often 'untouched' stem cells followed by a lot of cell differentiation and epigenetically controlled changes and alike) and furthermore introduces one set of chromosomes from the father (although that may be the sex inverted mother itself). Therefore, chances are higher that you find persistent modifications (on the protein level or under epigenetic control) in a clone than in a seed whereas the pure gene code will differ in the seed but less (if ever) in the clone.
Both strategies have their advantages... Just remember, epigenetic modifications can and likely will be reverted/changed one day back to the original state (ok, there seem to be modifications which stay permanently and the unmodified state is the exception). On contrary, changes in the DNA sequence (introduced by crossing, viral infections or UV irradiation etc.) will usually remain.