naw it was a commercial about Pace Picante salsa......original goes...New York City?.......Get a rope!
Just tryin to be funny these days...tough times for me lol.
can we talk genetic drift in clones?
- Thread starter greenpinky
- Start date
naw it was a commercial about Pace Picante salsa......original goes...New York City?.......Get a rope!
Just tryin to be funny these days...tough times for me lol.
i think its got alot to do with hormones and stress. for anyone whos had stunted plants due to neglect or stress of some kind, you will know it takes along time for a stunted plant to recover and grow at a normal rate, and thats if it ever returns to normal.
not enough research has been done on cannabis to know these things for sure i guess. but i would guess that in given enviroments particular gene expression is switched on or off and any clones taken from those plants might not be any good.
thats just a wild guess though, ive had a very stressed jtr which was taken from a flowering plant, then the repotted cutting was neglected for a while. after a long time vegging and repotting and proper attention it regained its vigor and the clones taken from this were like exact replicas of the original mothers in potency, yield and overall health and structure etc.
so from being stunted and not growing for months, its original vigor was retained and the cuts from it were back on track.
so thats my take on it.
not enough research has been done on cannabis to know these things for sure i guess. but i would guess that in given enviroments particular gene expression is switched on or off and any clones taken from those plants might not be any good.
thats just a wild guess though, ive had a very stressed jtr which was taken from a flowering plant, then the repotted cutting was neglected for a while. after a long time vegging and repotting and proper attention it regained its vigor and the clones taken from this were like exact replicas of the original mothers in potency, yield and overall health and structure etc.
so from being stunted and not growing for months, its original vigor was retained and the cuts from it were back on track.
so thats my take on it.
InstantKarma
Member
I've had the same experience with clones that seem to have lost vigor being able to be nursed back to their original health over a couple generations of cuttings.
I have a King Louie cut that got stressed out and went to three finger leaf mode for almost two months before it was back to its original leaf pattern.
If this holds true, then I was correct, as the expression in seeds is not phenotypical, rather, they are different in their fundamental assimilation... They are not phenotypes, they are individuals, only clones could from that point become phenotypes, but this supports genetic drift no?
yup, i definately thing taking clones from flowering plants can take its toll aswell. ive herd of people trying to rejuvinating plants by growing them outdoors and taking new cuts. im not sure how reliable that is though.
thats more to do with terminology. a phenotype just means the charateristics expressed by an organism. a phenotype is still an individual.
the issue is that seeds are much like human siblings in that they have a shuffled mix of genes from both parents. So differences between seed grown plants from the same parents can be caused both by outside influences and the genes the individual has in its DNA. i.e. one of the seeds may contain genes for dark purple colouring. But these aren't expressed until the plant experiences the correct conditions (cold). Whereas another seed from the same parents might not contain the genes necessary for purpling and so even when put into cold conditions will not express these genes (because is doesn't have them). This could in theory explain the apparent difference between clone only strains that are supposedly the same but appear different in images/smoke. The trait that the cut was chosen for might only occur when it experiences a particular environment that later growers don't have.
So an individual can show certain traits due to environmental factors. But only if it has the required genes already..they can be there, dormant, until some factor causes them to be expressed. This expression is known as phenotype and can change due to external factors but the genotype is the genes the plant has and is set. So plants with the same exact genotype can appear different..but they have the same DNA. Phenotype is caused by the combination of the individuals genotype and environment etc.
damn that was long lol hope it makes some kinda sence
the issue is that seeds are much like human siblings in that they have a shuffled mix of genes from both parents. So differences between seed grown plants from the same parents can be caused both by outside influences and the genes the individual has in its DNA. i.e. one of the seeds may contain genes for dark purple colouring. But these aren't expressed until the plant experiences the correct conditions (cold). Whereas another seed from the same parents might not contain the genes necessary for purpling and so even when put into cold conditions will not express these genes (because is doesn't have them). This could in theory explain the apparent difference between clone only strains that are supposedly the same but appear different in images/smoke. The trait that the cut was chosen for might only occur when it experiences a particular environment that later growers don't have.
So an individual can show certain traits due to environmental factors. But only if it has the required genes already..they can be there, dormant, until some factor causes them to be expressed. This expression is known as phenotype and can change due to external factors but the genotype is the genes the plant has and is set. So plants with the same exact genotype can appear different..but they have the same DNA. Phenotype is caused by the combination of the individuals genotype and environment etc.
damn that was long lol hope it makes some kinda sence
to keep it short, I agree.. I was suspecting that while they are in fact "brother sister" they can still express themselves differently, say for example, two environments. Im with ya, just never explored this subject really until now, but what really prompted my inquiry was a convo me and a fellow grower in my circle were having over a scotch, you see, we've had chemD in our circle for some time, but the damn thing doesnt yield like it used to.. Now Ive only ran it a few times, but I got different results than he did, his logic was or only could be this "genetic drift", but Its the only cut in question, I run a perfectly dialed environment imvho, and Im wondering if his environment is suspect, tho he is one of the better growers Ive known, I just dont go to his spot, so my mind has less data to form a conclusion.
Otherwise, Ive never seen this in any other strain, and I cant say for sure we are experiencing this, the simplest explanation is more than likely conclusive here, so I dont believe this to be a threat to growers..
By this standard, F1 stock is by nature, expressed in genotype.. With any consequential variances in the genome being represented as phenotypes.. Right?
what do you think?
Keep in mind, if you are savy in genetics, Ive no formal education, I am simply trying to understand.
S
SeaMaiden
This. ^
http://www.nature.com/news/tree-s-leaves-genetically-different-from-its-roots-1.11156
Same story, same trees..?
Either way, I have an oldtimer friend who insists that the reason he uses seed starts every year is due to his observations (the man is extremely diligent about logging all data) that showed that clones lose many phenotypic qualities from the original mother plant. I've tried to find another article that I thought I'd read on the subject this year, but hell if I can find it.
its as simple as this.. any plant wether it be an s1, bx, f1 or whatever will have its own charateristics which describe its phenotype. like say its purple flowered.
genotype is the genetic makeup. its normally written as a capital letter and a lowercase the describe a particular feature, the capital letter being the dominant gene the lowercase being the recessive.
I have had the same clone for probably close to nine years and I got her as a cut, so I don't know when she was from seed but I presume much longer as this clone went around my area for a long time. I have kept her from taking a clone of a clone and have honestly had over twenty or so great crops from her. She still to this day produces the same results exactly as the day I received her.
I did notice something interesting that happened early on in clone ownership. When I was gifted her she was grown outside and the clone came from her. After about the fourth or fifth grow I noticed her leaves went from more think indica type to more narrow Sativa type, also not as many fingers. The difference was not extreme, but noticeable non the less. I think what happened is she adapted to my style of grow and this is what i believe might be considered by some to be genetic drift, which was not the case in my clone.
I have always believed that genetic drift was not likely and that a plant changing to its environment was misunderstood by some to be a change or mutation of its DNA, until recently. My clone that I have been talking about has been showing signs of auto flowering when she gets root bound. She still produces the same exactly, but now does not like a small pot. Is this the genetic drift I thought impossible or is it just the plant telling me to get off my lazy ass and transplant her already?
TGT
I did notice something interesting that happened early on in clone ownership. When I was gifted her she was grown outside and the clone came from her. After about the fourth or fifth grow I noticed her leaves went from more think indica type to more narrow Sativa type, also not as many fingers. The difference was not extreme, but noticeable non the less. I think what happened is she adapted to my style of grow and this is what i believe might be considered by some to be genetic drift, which was not the case in my clone.
I have always believed that genetic drift was not likely and that a plant changing to its environment was misunderstood by some to be a change or mutation of its DNA, until recently. My clone that I have been talking about has been showing signs of auto flowering when she gets root bound. She still produces the same exactly, but now does not like a small pot. Is this the genetic drift I thought impossible or is it just the plant telling me to get off my lazy ass and transplant her already?
TGT
everything you see happening is gonna be an expression of genes whatever the situation. some cuts auto as they get old wether enviroment changes or not.
i know dna degenerates in animals over time. perhaps this might happen in plants? either that or like you say its just gene extression changing due to age/stress etc
That is what I believe my clone is expressing, at least in my case. I will have to see something more than this to believe in genetic drift.
TGT
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110729.html
Why plant 'clones' aren’t identical
Science
29 Jul 11
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.’
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.
Professor Harberd said: ‘Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.’
A report of the research,‘Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes’, is published this week online in Current Biology.
The project is a collaboration between scientists at Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, Oxford University’s Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Saudi Arabia. The research was supported by KAUST and the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
Why plant 'clones' aren’t identical
Science
29 Jul 11
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.
Professor Harberd said: ‘Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.’
A report of the research,‘Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes’, is published this week online in Current Biology.
The project is a collaboration between scientists at Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, Oxford University’s Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Saudi Arabia. The research was supported by KAUST and the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
I
Iron_Lion
Here is an interesting way to think about it.
If you cloned someone like Hitler and raised him in a modern day family, fed him a diet of high fructose corn syrup products and he had different inputs from society, family and environment. Genetically he would be the same but he may think, act and have a different personality all together. He'd probably be a lot fatter, with health issues and have no signature mustache, hell he might even be gay.
If you cloned someone like Hitler and raised him in a modern day family, fed him a diet of high fructose corn syrup products and he had different inputs from society, family and environment. Genetically he would be the same but he may think, act and have a different personality all together. He'd probably be a lot fatter, with health issues and have no signature mustache, hell he might even be gay.
As far as cuttings are concerned, want an extreme example? Every variety of apple, including all the crabapples, are ALL cuttings taken from one original tree that showed those characteristics. If you toss some apple seeds in the ground, what comes up bears little resemblance to the original because apple trees don't run true to type. How long do you suppose granny smith, fuji or red delicious apples have been around, cut and grafted over and over again, without the mythical 'genetic drift'? Longer than any of us, and then some...
There are plenty of varieties of cannabis out there that are available as a 'cutting only' for a reason; that was the only pheno the Original Grower thought was worth saving, and so that's how they get passed around. OK, i'm done.
There are plenty of varieties of cannabis out there that are available as a 'cutting only' for a reason; that was the only pheno the Original Grower thought was worth saving, and so that's how they get passed around. OK, i'm done.
Wow! Great find storm. fascinating. I would guess that this ability allowed plants to develop a varied gene pool back before they could sexually reproduce..pretty likely that this would also apply to mj. Wonder if its related to how old the cut is from when it was originally germinated..perhaps after a certain point the cuts start mutating and becomes more prone to autoing or herming in an attempt to pass on its genes/procreate-obvs not consciously, rather these would be survival mechanisms evolved over time which have allowed plants to inhabit every continent..like all it takes is one seed/leaf/branch to wash ashore on some island. Be interesting to know whether it applys to all plants, and whether its to the same extent. Bananas i thought were meant to all be clones for e.g. remember reading if there was a diesease they'd all be wiped out- maybe not so?
