Clone of a Clone of a... Degredation Experiment

[MrFista]

WTF Headband. That stuff you posted just proves you don't know what you are saying. Mendel examined sexual reproduction cloning is asexual.

You posted this - read it "the origin of any particular one will be randomly selected from paternal or maternal chromosomes".

RANDOM SELECTION.

Can mods kick that idiot out to some area designated sandbox or something.

 

[ganjasuiteseat]

Not sure what work you are referring to my work or the work I posted showing that clones of clones of clones do not really change in vigor or potency?

Anyone have studies that show damage from clones of clones of clones?
Here are a few papers all saying they can't find damage from cloning:


http://home.olemiss.edu/~suman/Geneticstability.pdf

Assessment of the Genetic Stability of Micropropagated Plants of Cannabis sativa by ISSR Markers.
Lata H, Chandra S, Techen N, Khan IA, Elsohly MA
National Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Planta Med 2009 Jul 27.
Inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to evaluate the genetic stability of the micropropagated plants of CANNABIS SATIVA over 30 passages in culture and hardening in soil for 8 months. A total of 15 ISSR primers resulted in 115 distinct and reproducible bands. All the ISSR profiles from micropropagated plants were monomorphic and comparable to mother plants, confirming the genetic stability among clones and mother plants. Chemical analysis of cannabinoids, using gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID), was done to further confirm whether the qualitative and quantitative differences in the major secondary metabolites exist between the mother plant and micropropagated plants. Six major cannabinoids - Delta(9)-THC, THCV, CBD, CBC, CBG, and CBN - were identified and compared with the mother plant. Our results clearly showed a similar cannabinoid profile and insignificant differences in THC content between the two types of plants. These results suggest that the micropropagation protocol developed by us for rapid IN VITRO multiplication is appropriate and applicable for clonal mass propagation of C. SATIVA.

https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejourn...s-0029-1240628



Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Original Papers Planta Med 2010; 76(7): 743-750
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1240628

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York



Assessment of Cannabinoids Content in Micropropagated Plants of Cannabis sativa and Their Comparison with Conventionally Propagated Plants and Mother Plant during Developmental Stages of Growth

Suman Chandra1, Hemant Lata1, Zlatko Mehmedic1, Ikhlas A. Khan1,2, Mahmoud A. ElSohly1,3
1 National Center for Natural Product Research, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
2 Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
3 Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
Abstract

Gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC‐FID) was used to assess the chemical profile and quantification of cannabinoids to identify the differences, if existing, in the chemical constituents of in vitro propagated plants (IVP), conventionally grown plants (VP) and indoor grown mother plants (MP-Indoor) of a high THC yielding variety of Cannabis sativa L. during different developmental stages of growth. In general, THC content in all groups increased with plant age up to a highest level during the budding stage where the THC content reached a plateau before the onset of senescence. The pattern of changes observed in the concentration of other cannabinoids content with plants age has followed a similar trend in all groups of plants. Qualitatively, cannabinoids profiles obtained using GC‐FID, in MP-indoor, VP and IVP plants were found to be similar to each other and to that of the field grown mother plant (MP field) of C. sativa. Minor differences observed in cannabinoids concentration within and among the groups were not found to be statistically significant. Our results confirm the clonal fidelity of IVP plants of C. sativa and suggest that the biochemical mechanism used in this study to produce the micropropagated plants does not affect the metabolic content and can be used for the mass propagation of true to type plants of this species for commercial pharmaceutical use.

Key words

Cannabis sativa - Cannabaceae - cannabinoids - Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol - gas chromatography‐flame ionization detection - micropropagation


https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejourn...s-0030-1249773


Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Original Papers Planta Med 2010; 76(14): 1629-1633
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1249773

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York



High Frequency Plant Regeneration from Leaf Derived Callus of High Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Yielding Cannabis sativa L.

Hemant Lata1, Suman Chandra1, Ikhlas A. Khan1,2, Mahmoud A. ElSohly1,3
1 National Center for Natural Products Research, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
2 Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
3 Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
Abstract

An efficient in vitro propagation protocol for rapidly producing Cannabis sativa plantlets from young leaf tissue was developed. Using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC‐FID), high THC yielding elite female clone of a drug-type Cannabis variety (MX) was screened and its vegetatively propagated clones were used for micropropagation. Calli were induced from leaf explant on Murashige and Skoog medium supplemented with different concentrations (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 µM) of indole- 3-acetic acid (IAA), indole- 3- butyric acid (IBA), naphthalene acetic acid (NAA), and 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid (2,4-D) in combination with 1.0 µM of thidiazuron (TDZ) for the production of callus. The optimum callus growth and maintenance was in 0.5 µM NAA plus 1.0 µM TDZ. The two-month-old calli were subcultured to MS media containing different concentrations of cytokinins (BAP, KN, TDZ). The rate of shoot induction and proliferation was highest in 0.5 µM TDZ. Of the various auxins (IAA, IBA, and NAA) tested, regenerated shoots rooted best on half strength MS medium (1/2 - MS) supplemented with 2.5 µM IBA. The rooted plantlets were successfully established in soil and grown to maturity with no gross variations in morphology and cannabinoids content at a survival rate of 95 % in the indoor growroom.

Key words

Cannabis sativa - Cannabaceae - callus induction - Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol - GC‐FID - organogenesis

Here is another paper I find interesting, (SCAR) markers were used to ID males and females prior to flowering:

https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejourn...s-0030-1249978



headband 707,
I know I have strains you know nothing about, I have made well over 10,000 strains in my life, some simple F1 hybrids, some much more complicated and involved, even I have not had time to test grow them all, not yet anyway...
As for my methods, for sure I must have a few I have not posted, yet...
Maybe you could start by finding and reading the articles I list above, if you have any interest in reading the opposite view that you seem to have? They are referenced science articles, not just opinions.
Do you have any science articles that back your opinion that clones of clones of clones cause degradation?
-SamS

danm ssm!!!!!!!loving it.peace and a peaceful harvest

 

[MrFista]

Those links are down Sam.

 

[spurr]

Not sure what work you are referring to my work or the work I posted showing that clones of clones of clones do not really change in vigor or potency?

Anyone have studies that show damage from clones of clones of clones?

I have a few papers about clonal propagation of cannabis I can upload, they don't show degradation IIRC, but they are good reads.

 

[spurr]

Those links are down Sam.

The links Sam posted are broken because they are not full URLs, also, I believe they are not links to full text (ex. High Frequency Plant Regeneration from Leaf Derived Callus of High Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Yielding Cannabis sativa L.; link to paper but not in full text)

Here are the full text versions, except the paper above, I can't get that until tomorrow. I uploaded these a few weeks ago to the "Full Text Thread", plus a few extra ones:

"Assessment of cannabinoids content in micropropagated plants of Cannabis sativa and their comparison with conventionally propagated plants and mother plant during developmental stages of growth"

"Assessment of the Genetic Stability of Micropropagated Plants of Cannabis sativa by ISSR Markers"

• https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4051350&postcount=21

 

[spurr]

Holy shit batman, this thread blew up!

I haven't read pages 1-12 yet, I will try to later. I thought I could upload a few papers people might find interesting...but then I noticed Cannabologist already upload the papers I was going to upload in this thread. I see no need to upload papers that have already been uploaded, so, see his/her thread below:

"A Temporal Study of Cannabinoid Composition in Continual Clones of Cannabis Sativa"

"Greenhouse Propagation of Cannabis by Vegatative Cuttings"

• https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=198130

Here is one study I don't think has been uploaded yet, sorry if it has already been uploaded. I uploaded it to the "Full Text" thread earlier today:

"Plant Breeding: Clonality – A Concept for Stability and Variability During Vegetative Propagation"
Astrid Fornec
Progress in Botany (2005), Vol. 66

• https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4094364&postcount=51

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Seriously guys...you're fucking up my printer at work. Keep 'em coming spurr. You're my new favorite member!

 

[REZDOG]

I've had clones that were over twenty years old that were vigorous as hell-William's Wonder. My Killer Queen Mom and my C99 Mom are closing on a decade old,and they still root in five days and veg as robustly as they did from seed-day-one.
In my twenty years of growing,I have found this to be consistently So.
(So,I concur with Sam.)
In closing,I'd say,
"There's no such thing as Clone Degradation,only Grower Cloning Skills Degradation." LOL!!

My .o2.

Happy Holidays!

 

[spurr]

So I was having a debate with an experienced grower about clone degradation. I'll tell you first about the debate we were having so anybody can weigh in.

The debate: Regulator Dave (RD) vs. The dude

The dude called first generation clones "F1" , 2nd generation "F2" and third "F3" and so on. He was very adamant about the idea that clone stalk is only for commercial growers and that all clones grow shitty herb.

I do not know if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, if so, forgive me for being redundant: using the Filial generation breeding nomenclature (i.e. F1; aka Filial-1) for clones is not a good idea. It would only serve to make 'the dude' look silly and/or ignorant, and it could confuse your debate with him. E.g., what if you suggest F3 plants might have a different clonal longevity than F1 plants?

If I were you I would suggest to 'the dude' that he call the clones something like C1, C2, C3, etc. I am not sure if there is a proper term for multi-generational clones (e.g. clone of a clone of a clone), but using "C" (standing for "clone") seems to be the obvious solution (to me at least).

Also, it would be good to note the strain whence came the clone. For example, say you are growing the cultivar NL#5, and you have 5 plants (i.e., strains) of that cultivar growing. You would name each of those five strains (i.e. plants) of the cultivar NL#5 a unique name. For example, strains 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. That means you would have strains #1-5 of the cultivar NL#5. Then when you take clones you should note the cultivar and strain they came from (for the sake of good record keeping).

As an example, if you took a first generation clone from cultivar NL#5, strain 1, the clone would be called C1, as so: cv. NL#5 '1' C1. And if you took a first generation clone from cultivar NL#5, strain 2, it would be called C1 also, as so: cv. NL#5 '2' C1.

The "cv." stands for "cultivar" (which stands for "cultivated variety"), the strain name is enclosed in single quotation marks (e.g., '1') and the clone generation is after the strain (e.g., C1).

Continuing with that line of reasoning; if you took a clone of cv. NL#5 '1' C1, you could write it as so (just an example): cv. NL#5 '1' C2. That way you would know that the clone generation "C2" came from "C1", which came from the cultivar NL#5, strain 1 (i.e., cv. NL#5 '1').

For much in depth info about why we shouldn't call NL#5 a strain, or Skunk #1 a strain, or Haze a strain, and why we should call them either cultivars or varieties, see this post of mine:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4090225&postcount=61

I hope that made sense

 

[REZDOG]

I think this thread has concluded its' usefulness.
The question has been answered,anything more is redundant.

~RD~

 

[spurr]

Sorry I couldn't explain it any simpler. "Cloning" is on a cellular/tissue level in a sterile environment. "Cutting" is simply put, (no xerox, ok) taking a piece of a plant and getting it to grow roots. As I explained earlier, the mericloning process, NOT THE SAME!

Great point! I think the use of the term "cloning" as used by cannabis growers confuses debate. When cannabis growers "clone" they are using "vegetative propagation". But "clonal propagation" (aka micropropagation), e.g., mericloning, is what you are describing.

It would probably be best to call the processes of taking clones as done by most all cannabis growers, what it really is: "vegetative propagation", not "cloning" by the strict definition of the term. Just like it's best to call NL#5, Haze, etc., "cultivars" (or "varieties"), and not "strains", because they are not strains.


Here is a good example of the process you are describing:

http://www.molecular-plant-biotechn...re/clonal-propagation-or-micropropagation.htm

Clonal Propagation OR Micropropagation -

It has been demonstrated that a variety of plant species can be conveniently propagated through the techniques of cell, tissue or organ culture. This is popularly described as clonal propagation or micropropagation. The major benefits of this method include the following;

(i) rapid multiplication of superior clones and maintenance of uniformity;

(ii) multiplication of disease free plants and

(iii) multiplication of sexually derived sterile hybrids.

In most cases, clonal propagation is achieved by placing sterilized shoot tips or axillary buds onto a culture medium that is sufficient to induce formation of multiple buds. This method has already been used to propagate a large number of marketable ornamentals.

Following stages are involved in the method of clonal propagation:

(i) Stage I involves establishment of tissue in vitro.

(ii) Stage II involves multiplication of shoots (often media are not changed between stage I and stage II).

(iii) Stage III concerns root formation and conditioning of propagules prior to transfer to the green house; this stage requires high intensity and alteration of media for promotion of root formation.

(iv) Stage IV involves growth in pots followed by field trials. The number of steps in micropropagation may sometimes be reduced to three or two.

A wide range of plants have now been regenerated through technique of tissue culture. This has been found particularly useful for propagation of tree species, .so that a large number of plant species have been successfully grown by tissue culture.

 

[spurr]

Let this be the end of the debate right here.

If more scientific studies are required to prove no type of degradation takes place please let me know and I will dig through the biology departments stack of books which all state similar stuff.

READ THE ENTIRE PAGE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetative_reproduction

FWIW, citing Wikipedia as an authority is never a good idea. Wikipedia is the bane of academia and legit references.

 

[headband 707]

I think I already concluded that PERHAPS it's lack of UV here in BC but hey keep talkin .... LOL.. Your truth is still NOT MINE so what do you want me to say??
Where is all the old great strains that have lasted 20+ years??? DO Tell EVERYONE that has all these fantastic strains that NO ONE else has LOL>>> DO FUCKING TELLLLLLL???????Seriously if you have these strains to die for then ,,where the fuck are they?? SERIOUSLY??? NO MORE BULLSHIT HERE???? please it is getting fucking old here!!!LOL..As we all know that nothing can go wrong with the DNA double helix in clones right ?LOL peace out Headband707

BIG fat PS here.... I have had 100's of growers go on and on about how good their cuts were and again ..I Beg to differ...lol

http://101science.com/dna.html

 

[beta]

.

 

[headband 707]

If you'd spent as much time listening as you do talking, you'd have noticed multiple folks in this thread who have shared their experiences with clones that are 10-20 years old.

On that same note, can somebody tell me where the 'ignore user' button is?

Okay guys YOUR RIGHT I'm wrong lol .. Thats what you want to hear right LOL.. There you go you got it >>> YOUR RIGHT I"M WRONG ..
Seriously I really find this whole conversation funny and let me tell you why..
Why would it even matter to anyone here how it works here in BC?
If this works out for you and I'm sure it does then stick by your guns but please stop trying to shove YOUR truth down my throat okay??? really nothing anyone here is going to do to change my mind or even show me data to support any claims won't change my mind one bit.. The only thing that would do that is if I had a cut that did exactly what your saying and so far that hasn't happened so lets just leave it at that and MOVE ON lol lol..
Bring me "Road Kill Skunk " the exact same shit I had back in the day and we will talk,,,as everyone knows TALK is cheap LOL.. peace out Headband707

 

[Microbeman]

As far as I can tell those links posted by Sam are a repeat of post #139 which I managed to open and read just fine. My comment at the time was and still is;

I could find nowhere in these studies which outlines any chromosomal/environmental stressers applied which might reveal that 'they can't find damage from cloning'. I did read quickly so I may have missed it.

The one paper (review) which does reflect on the plausibility/possibility of mutation in successive vegetative propagation (rooted cuttings) is the one discussing propagation of grapevines. [Clonality – A Concept for Stability and Variability During Vegetative Propagation] However, these are woody perrenials and Cannabis as an annual can be a different story. It occurrs to me that even abnormal light provision/sequencing could have mutational potential.

In the [Temporal study....Cannabis Sativa L.] the varying measurements of CBD and THC perhaps could be attributed to light manipulation and un-natural vegetative extension....?? Could it then follow that this sort of manipulation could potentially cause chromosomal mutation? I do not know the answer and I've seen no articles presented yet which adequately answer the question. I'm interested to hear the results of the proposed experiment. I believe one should use a group of vegetated cuttings which are stressed in some manner (eg. chemically as in the method I posted earlier in the thread)

Please anyone, if I'm reading this all wrong, kick me in the butt.

As to what I have informally observed; for outdoor every season we would take approximately 5000 cuttings which were rooted. Of those, the best 3000 were planted. [On the subject of potential poor skill in making cuttings perhaps the person who mentioned that possibilty could clarify, as it is pretty difficult to screw up] In the beginning mothers were maintained but we gave that up and resorted to taking cuttings of cuttings during the vegetative cycle. As noted previously over a period of approximately 10 years, I noticed some leaf and flower deformities which seemed passed on. I formed a hypothesis that this may be caused by chromosomal damage (genetic drift). All of the harvest was delivered to a medicinal distribution facility over at least the 10 years and we never had complaints of loss of potency and the particular race out sold all other races from all other sources. However the flower deformity did result in a lower yield. Other races which we grew in identical fashion but over a shorter duration did not exhibit similar deformities.

It should be noted that over the time period the plants were subjected to occaisonal hardships including cold and extended power outages.

This is just an informal observation and no theories are presented.

 

[kstampy]

Okay guys YOUR RIGHT I'm wrong lol .. Thats what you want to hear right LOL.. There you go you got it >>> YOUR RIGHT I"M WRONG ..(no one said you were flat out wrong they ONLY asked for evidence and you present none)
Seriously I really find this whole conversation funny and let me tell you why.. (your ignorance has been the majority of the laughs here - that's right, you're not the only one that tells it how it is around here )
Why would it even matter to anyone here how it works here in BC? (it doesn't, specifically. are there some sort of secret crazy indoor environments in BC that differ from average housing/grows?)
If this works out for you and I'm sure it does then stick by your guns but please stop trying to shove YOUR truth down my throat (lol hypocrite, took the words straight from my previous post - ppl were asking for evidence not shoving anything down your throat, why get so defensive every time a smart question is presented to you? not to mention people did start out trying to understand you and you basically turned them against you with arrogance followed by no evidence.) okay???really nothing anyone here is going to do to change my mind (for someone who says they work in science that is sad you have such a closed mind - keep farming those worms, maybe one day you will save the world) or even show me data to support any claims won't change my mind one bit.. The only thing that would do that is if I had a cut that did exactly what your saying and so far that hasn't happened so lets just leave it at that and MOVE ON lol lol.. (please, move along as you suggest and let everyone get to a constructive discussion)
Bring me "Road Kill Skunk " the exact same shit I had back in the day and we will talk,,,as everyone knows TALK is cheap LOL..(please take your own advice) peace out Headband707

Pot calls the kettle black much, eh? lol. You are the most difficult person I have seen around this board so far it's pretty ridiculous lol. Literally 3+ people have given details about their 10-15-20+ year old cuts here (i'm starting to believe the cuts are older than you, mentally at the very least), one from REZ and one from SAM. Which is at the Very least worth taking in for consideration from their huge amounts of experience. Are you blind or do you just selectively read the small words and leave out the big ones?

As far as getting old/rare cuts it takes friends and luck to get them at most places in the world. A 20 year old illegal item of any form is going to be difficult to acquire Anywhere in the world but I'm sure you are overflowing with friends with your AWESOME personality!!! You should have no trouble finding it at all!


Here you go anyways, I felt bad. Ive got your RKS right here buddy ->

I'm done here, thanks to the people who linked a lot of very good information of studies performed, it was interesting until it turned into 707 needing attention.

 

[Gooey]

Thanks for all the thoughts guys....seems to me that the experience of people over many years is our best bet at getting a grip on this...thanks for sharing your intelligent thoughts....puff puff pass

 

[spurr]

The one paper (review) which does reflect on the plausibility/possibility of mutation in successive vegetative propagation (rooted cuttings) is the one discussing propagation of grapevines. [Clonality – A Concept for Stability and Variability During Vegetative Propagation] However, these are woody perrenials and Cannabis as an annual can be a different story. It occurrs to me that even abnormal light provision/sequencing could have mutational potential.

I tend to place cannabis as an "annual/perennial", not strictly an annual because it can be grown and flowered again after its first flowering (i.e. "re-vegged"). In nature cannabis would be an annual, I fully agree, but cannabis (as a genus) when grown by humans seems to be an annual/perennial if we choose to re-veg it (which is a separate classification than annual or perennial).

I agree that environmental factors can cause strain senescence when taking a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone (either via vegetative propagation or clonal prorogation); however, that is only my opinion, for what it's worth.

In the [Temporal study....Cannabis Sativa L.] the varying measurements of CBD and THC perhaps could be attributed to light manipulation and un-natural vegetative extension....??

Yes, fully. Cannabinoid amounts (quantitative) is a phenotype that is greatly affected by the growing environment, fertilizers, etc. And cannabinoid ratios to other cannabinoids (i.e. chemotype; normally qualitative) is a genotype that is not greatly affected by the growing environment, fertilizers, etc.

Could it then follow that this sort of manipulation could potentially cause chromosomal mutation? I do not know the answer and I've seen no articles presented yet which adequately answer the question.

I believe so, yes. I found a few papers on that topic, not cannabis specific but still very useful. I am reviewing them now.

I'm interested to hear the results of the proposed experiment. I believe one should use a group of vegetated cuttings which are stressed in some manner (eg. chemically as in the method I posted earlier in the thread).

Ditto.

As to what I have informally observed; for outdoor every season we would take approximately 5000 cuttings which were rooted. Of those, the best 3000 were planted. [On the subject of potential poor skill in making cuttings perhaps the person who mentioned that possibilty could clarify, as it is pretty difficult to screw up] In the beginning mothers were maintained but we gave that up and resorted to taking cuttings of cuttings during the vegetative cycle. As noted previously over a period of approximately 10 years, I noticed some leaf and flower deformities which seemed passed on. I formed a hypothesis that this may be caused by chromosomal damage (genetic drift). All of the harvest was delivered to a medicinal distribution facility over at least the 10 years and we never had complaints of loss of potency and the particular race out sold all other races from all other sources. However the flower deformity did result in a lower yield. Other races which we grew in identical fashion but over a shorter duration did not exhibit similar deformities.

It should be noted that over the time period the plants were subjected to occaisonal hardships including cold and extended power outages.

This is just an informal observation and no theories are presented.

I am not sure who is correct, REZ and Sam, or MicorbeMan. I respect all of them very much, but I have a much better understating of MicrobeMan's methodology in a scientific sense. So I respectfully do not have an opinion at this point, but if I did, I would most likely side with MicroMan on this one.

The reason I would most likely side with MicrobeMan is due to the study I posted ("Plant Breeding: Clonality – A Concept for Stability and Variability During Vegetative Propagation") that does cite some possible 'issues'. I found a few more studies I think will also agree with MicrobeMan's position that I am now reviewing, I will post them soon.

The other reason I would most likely side with MicrobeMan is due to studies on other organisms, most notably upon mycelial cultures of fungi perfecti. It is well known and proven that strain* "senescence" (i.e. genetic senescence) of mycelial cultures is an issue to worry about. That is why a "master culture" of a first generation strain (ex. from a "multi-spore" germination) is kept for long term clonal propagation of said strain; analogous to a mother plant that is a first generation strain of cannabis from a multi-seed germination of a specific cutlivar like NL#5.

* my usage of the term "strain" is the proper usage, not the common usage of the term by cananbis growers, which is improper usage of the term strain. I.e,. a strain is an individual organism from a population of related and similar organisms.
​

The issue with mycelium strains is such that if a clone of a first generation strain (i.e. master culture; ex., call it strain '1') was used to make a second generation clone of stain '1' (e.g. "C1" from my example in this post), and then use C1 was to make a third generation clone of strain '1' (e.g. "C2"), and then C2 was used to make a fourth generation clone of stain '1' (e.g. "C3"), and so on. By the time you reach > C10 (or thereabouts) of strain '1', it will have reduced genetic stability (due to genetic senescence) verses strain '1' master culture, and from strain '1' C1.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I formed a hypothesis that this may be caused by chromosomal damage (genetic drift).

Chromosomal damage isn't the same thing as genetic drift. Without a doubt your experiences are not the result of genetic drift.