Feminised F1 hybrids both ways

[VerdantGreen]

double post

 

[VerdantGreen]

Exactly, the mtdna is responsible for the ATP, so the most vigorous female should always be the mother in a fem cross.

** goes off to look up ATP **


Right, so ATP is adenosine triphosphate and is the form of energy that the cells use, which is converted by the mtDNA, which is inherited from the mother ?


so using the WR as the mother, because it is more vigorous than the Bubba, is the better way round (which is coincidentally the way i've already done it)


VG

 

[djonkoman]

Would this apply only to the vigour trait?What about potency for example?

it might not even apply to vigour, but for vigour it's most likely there's an effect.

so we're talking about mitochondrial and chloroplast dna here. both of those don't have that many genes, even for stuff that actually happens in the mitochondria or chloroplasts you often see that the genes to make it work are still in the nucleus, and then the product just gets shipped to the mitochobdria/chloroplasts. over evolutionary time more genes moved to the nucleus that way.

so safe bet is that the mitochondrial/chloroplast won't make a huge difference, but ofcourse every once in a while a gene is actually from there, so it's a good exception to keep in mind.

so if you do have to make a guess what trait might have a mt/cp component, best bet is vigour, since something different in the core functions of the mt/cp(and since it's a core function, more likely the genes are still there in the mt/cp) would likely impact vigour.

I know of one specific example I heard of of a specific arabidopsis accession where vigour was clearly linked to the mt/cp dna, kind of a special case since this arrabidopsis was gathered from a railway track, it had resistance against some herbicide that was regularly sprayed there, and the low vigour was a side-effect from that mutation. swapping the mt/cp dna around with other lines showed that that low vigour was inherent to the mt/cp dna.

potency on the other hand would be a much more evolutionary recent trait, since only cannabis makes thc. with such a recent thing it's not likely the genes ended up in the cp/mt dna.


(btw, it is technically also possible to have an effect where it matters whether a gene comes from mother or father without it being related to mt or cp dna. but those are kind of weird cases, and often pretty specific to certain organisms for example, so I have no idea if and how much that would be going on with weed)

 

[El Timbo]

Perhaps a daft question but wouldn't they both be contributing mtdna?

 

[VerdantGreen]

No

Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular ​

chromosome

found inside mitochondria. The mitochondria are organelles found in cells that are the sites of energy production. The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed from mother to offspring.​

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mitochondrial-DNA
​

 

[El Timbo]

No

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mitochondrial-DNA
​

ok got it

 

[djonkoman]

technically, it's not totally impossible they both contribute it, it can vary by different species. I'm also just assuming that in cannabis the mt dna(and cp dna, don't forget about that, some simple genetics sites may not mention it since humans don't have chloroplasts, but plants do) comes completely from mother, but I am not aware of actual proof specific for cannabis.
for a lot of species it's the case through, so it's the most logical option.

it's also pretty logical if you think about it:
eggs are much bigger as sperm(in the case of plants you have pollen instead, which is a bit different from sperm, still the egg cell is the bigger one). so when those 2 fuse, the sperm side is basically a dressed down version, stripped to the bare bones, mostly just the nucleus of the cell and excluding the stuff outside that.
while the egg is the bigger stationary thing that waits for the sperm/pollen to join it, and it has the full machinery of a full cell, including all those things like mitochondria and chloroplasts which are located outside the nucleus.

 

[Guest]

Love the infos guys!

So , theoretically speaking, there shouldn't be any issues with female breeding right?

Just today I read in the auto flower section that the male plays a big role in potency(it was claimed that rna is tied with potency and is passed by the male) so fem bred seeds are by default weaker...

I call bull, what do you think?

 

[GMT]

Yeah, bull

 

[GMT]

I should expand but pushed for time. 70% of the genome is replication of 30%. Potency will be determined not by individual genes, but rather the number of those genes that plant has.

 

[djonkoman]

Love the infos guys!

So , theoretically speaking, there shouldn't be any issues with female breeding right?

Just today I read in the auto flower section that the male plays a big role in potency(it was claimed that rna is tied with potency and is passed by the male) so fem bred seeds are by default weaker...

I call bull, what do you think?

nah, personally I think you're stupid if you do NOT take advantage of female breeding. it solves some issues inherent to cannabis:

-allows selfing(which has a whole host of uses in breeding, it's a very usefull tool)

-gets around the inability to see female traits in a male father.


although there are some specifics geneticswise regarding differences in mutation rate and recombination rate between mothers and fathers, however part of that is not really aplicable to weed but only to humans. mammals, and for the rest it should apply just as well to a reversed female as to a natural male(for example for the recombination rate, I assume a reversed female, since it just forms male flowers+pollen like a natural male, behaves the same as a natural male)


also that 'explanation' is pretty bull, you don't really pass on rna(well, some may be in the cytoplasm of the eggcell on fertlisation).
basically dna is the recipebook, then rna is the piece of paper you quickly scribble your ingredients on before you head to the supermarket. if you want to share your recipe, you give the book, not your shopping list.
there are some different forms of rna, and there are also virusses which do use rna as their 'recipebook', but generally if you're speaking about passing stuff on to the next generation, you're talking dna, not rna. then on top of that you can have epigenetics, which is regulation of dna(think of putting ducttape around the cookbook so no one can read it), but that stll goes back to dna, not rna.

now what you can do with rna is that you measure the rna to get an idea of what genes are actually being used in a certain tissue/situation(to continuee with the cookbook analogy since I'm doing that analogy now anyways: let's say you hang out at the supermarket, then steal everyone's shopping lists. then from those shopping lists you could deduce what kind of recipes people are cooking, and maybe you could see correlations in there like 'people here like baking, but with rainy weather they bake more apple pies, but when it's sunny they bake more cheesecakes).

 

[The_Skunkist]

nah, personally I think you're stupid if you do NOT take advantage of female breeding.

 

[Guest]

Thanks a lot djonkoman!That's what I thought ,cheers!

Your notes might be of some help for some wannabe pro's... I mean really help,I'm not just pulling a leg here

 

[aridbud]

Love the infos guys!

So , theoretically speaking, there shouldn't be any issues with female breeding right?

Just today I read in the auto flower section that the male plays a big role in potency(it was claimed that rna is tied with potency and is passed by the male) so fem bred seeds are by default weaker...

I call bull, what do you think?

You're out of context, Sid. Was talking RNA....

 

[Guest]

You're out of context, Sid. Was talking RNA....

Some of you may not be aware, by feminizing, it strips valuable RNA in the plant and potency is part of the RNA code. While it's simpler (or lazier) given that autos show their sex 3-4 weeks into grows, regular seeds have all the rewards awaiting!

Just today I read in the auto flower section that the male plays a big role in potency(it was claimed that rna is tied with potency and is passed by the male) so fem bred seeds are by default weaker...

I call bull, what do you think?

Yeah, bull

nah, personally I think you're stupid if you do NOT take advantage of female breeding. it solves some issues inherent to cannabis:


also that 'explanation' is pretty bull, you don't really pass on rna(well, some may be in the cytoplasm of the eggcell on fertlisation).
basically dna is the recipebook, then rna is the piece of paper you quickly scribble your ingredients on before you head to the supermarket. if you want to share your recipe, you give the book, not your shopping list.

there are some different forms of rna, and there are also virusses which do use rna as their 'recipebook', but generally if you're speaking about passing stuff on to the next generation, you're talking dna, not rna. then on top of that you can have epigenetics, which is regulation of dna(think of putting ducttape around the cookbook so no one can read it), but that stll goes back to dna, not rna.

now what you can do with rna is that you measure the rna to get an idea of what genes are actually being used in a certain tissue/situation(to continuee with the cookbook analogy since I'm doing that analogy now anyways: let's say you hang out at the supermarket, then steal everyone's shopping lists. then from those shopping lists you could deduce what kind of recipes people are cooking, and maybe you could see correlations in there like 'people here like baking, but with rainy weather they bake more apple pies, but when it's sunny they bake more cheesecakes).

Since you cared enough to answer read better please...And then if you like answer me why am I out of context and to other posters why they are wrong.