Is low potency a recessive trait?

[bubbl3r]

The Null genotypes are most likely the result of mutations that have occurred resulting in the related enzymes being non-functional, resulting in none of the end products being produced.

inbreeding increases the frequency of mutations and other genetic abnormalities in a population.

Bubbl3r - I think you will find your answers in population genetics.

Thank you Scoobs, do you have any info, on how the enzymes are produced, and governed internally?


cheers


Bubbl3r

 

[Scoobs]

The roman numerals represent the different synthase enzymes. Each enzyme is made according to the recipe (genes) on the DNA.

This is the original thread of the pathway picture. http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=46396&page=7&pp=15&highlight=cannibinoid+synthesis

 

[bubbl3r]

Scoobs, what do you think the result would be if a tailored mutagen, where to consistantly "null" the synthase enzymes II and IV?



Bubbl3r

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Btw, I can't find anything, when I follow the link to your H3ad Seeds!

Have you given up on breeding/selling now?



Bubbl3r

Too much demand... stock doesn't stay up long...
No worries I'll get around to making more.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Grat3fulh3ad, I try not to rely on studies, or quote other so called experts....unlike you!

I read the study a couple of hours ago, as stated in a previous post...and to be honest, that study couldn't have made more sense to me, if I wrote it myself...lmao

Anway, do you or Sam feel confident enough to have a go, at guessing the 1:2:1 ratio of CBD/THC in that graph of the F2's......Ooops, oh no I gave it away didn't I, ah well never mind.

lol... I guess you've discovered what we've all missed.... lmao... You're telling no-one anything, bro... and your every comment indicates that you do not understand nearly as well as you think you do...

Ok lets try another one...what can you conclude from this passage:-

"The existence of a single locus determining the chemotype, with at least two alleles, gives a clear genetic meaning to the tripartite distribution of the chemotypes within populations, as observed by several authors when CBD vs. THC content plots are considered "...

...actually that may be a bit difficult for you, let me get back to you when I find an easier one...


Bubbl3r

No... that's difficult for you... There is a locus that determines TCH production... there is a locus that determines CBD production... The same would be true for the majority of the terpinoids and flavinoids produced... All of which come together to produce the quality known as potency... One thing affected by many different alleles...

Get back to me when you find one you don't need explained to you...
Get back to me when you find something you're not going to completely misinterpret...
Get back to me when the conclusions you draw follow logically from the available data...

Until then, all you have are sugar plum fairies dancing in your head.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

G
Anway, do you or Sam feel confident enough to have a go, at guessing the 1:2:1 ratio of CBD/THC in that graph of the F2's......Ooops, oh no I gave it away didn't I, ah well never mind.

No need to guess, being completely familiar with the use of a punnet square, I could have told you exactly what the ratio was going to be...

Do you really think that neither Sam nor I have ever studied Gregor Mendel?

LMAO... I know the science of genetics is exciting and inspiring, but you need to get over your enthusiasm and discover how things are already known to work, before making yourself look too foolish by insisting that pre-disproven theories are somehow suddenly viable....

 

[bubbl3r]

Grat3fulh3ad, I think its time you gave someone else a chance to respond. If I was an onlooker, I would feel a bit intimidated by your approach, and this could be restricting other people from joining in on the discussion, and debating this subject.



Low THC = Low Potency....is low potency a recessive trait?



Bubbl3r

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Grat3fulh3ad, I think its time you gave someone else a chance to respond. If I was an onlooker, I would feel a bit intimidated by your approach, and this could be restricting other people from joining in on the discussion, and debating this subject.



Low THC = Low Potency....is low potency a recessive trait?



Bubbl3r

1. My participation in a discussion is not going to keep anyone from posting.

2. Your question has been answered correctly, by those who know for sure. Just because you're not satisfied with the way things actually work, does not change them.

Once more, just because you seem particularly thick skulled in your refusal to look at the way things actually work.

NO... low potency is NOT a recessive trait....

Your posts and questions show how little you really understand. Why don't you learn everything that has already been discovered before asking questions using terms and concepts you barely grasp?

Sam should close this nonsense thread... You don't want to learn.

 

[BigRedBud]

"but you need to get over your enthusiasm and discover how things are already known to work, before making yourself look too foolish by insisting that pre-disproven theories are somehow suddenly viable...."

i dont mind h3ad posting this much bubbler i think your the only one bothered by it because it looks as if hes writing about things that he seems to have ACTUAL knowledge about

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Maybe this will help you bubbl3r...

Mendelian genetics is based on the observation that each trait or phenotype is the result of two copies of a gene (or set of genes) called alleles. Often, alleles are identical, sometimes they are not. If they are different, the two copies of a gene affect a trait differently, because they both can contribute in different ways, or only one of them has an effect, overriding the effect of the other allele. An allele that overrides the effect of an other version of the same gene is called a dominant allele. An allele that cannot exert an effect in the presence of a dominant allele is called a recessive gene. In this case, only the trait of the dominant version can be seen (=phenotype). The individual is said to be heterozygous because the two alleles differ. If both alleles are identical, the individual is homozygous. A recessive allele can only exert its effect if two copies are present, i.e., in a homozygous individual. Homozygous individuals in animal and plant breeding are known as true-breeders. The combination of two alleles in an individual is called the genotype. The genotype (combination of actual genes) is inherited and determines the phenotype or trait.

The term 'recessive' says that while the effect cannot be seen in some individuals, the allele itself is still present (only in one copy) and can thus be passed on the next generation. If a child inherits two copies of a recessive allele, the dominant version is absent and the trait of the recessive allele appears. Thus, the trait receded for a generation, but reappeared. This observation of two alleles controlling the phenotype of a characteristics and the existence of dominant and recessive alleles was the single most important contribution of Mendel to genetics.

 

[bubbl3r]

Grat3fulh3ad, I feel I'm having to respond to you every time, like a naughty child, constantly pulling on my jacket for sweets....its quite annoying.

You replies or should I say responses, are not conducive to a discussion, and your more focused on shouting down my knowledge on this subject, dispite me giving you more than enough opportunity to progress.

I've posed quite a few questions now, and you answer with a red herring type reply, followed by an insult of some discription.

You said "Sam should close this nonsense thread... You don't want to learn."


Well firstly, whether or not I'm "here to learn" has quite frankly nothing at all to do with you! ... So you should keep those comments to yourself.

Secondly, this particular thread is a discussion set by me, and I'm interested in everyones opinions, where they are related to the subject.....and I'm not interested in "personal remarks" that are just uncalled for.

If you don't feel your input is being appreciated enough, stop whining to the powers that be, and just don't comment at all, like you say, you have the choice whether or not to post, as much as anyone else.

Sam has already made his position clear, and I'm sure he will only now post, when he feels it's relevent.

Hopefully this will clear the air, and you feel its better to move on, and maybe start your own thread/discussion.

Now, can we get back to the topic.

Reading back a few posts, the study previously mentioned explained ....."However, there is evidence for the existence of "null" genotypes at the A locus, leading to plants devoid of any cannabinoids; such phenotypes have indeed been observed (V. G. VIROVETS and G. GRASSI)"...

...which clearly states that there are recessive traits, that can lead to NO potency!

So the question is....Is low potency a recessive trait also.





Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

Btw, my last post was in response to all Grat3fulh3ad's previous posts, with the exception of his last post, which I actually found quite informative.......





Bubbl3r

 

[3dDream]

In three out of the four F1 progenies, the CBD content was higher than in the CBD parental (Fig 2). This can be explained by the fact that CBD parental lines, usually derived from fiber strains, have low values for Pflor and Ctot (see Equation 1). These components, polygenic in nature, show a strong heterotic effect; therefore, the BD allele of F1 plants is active in a much more productive genetic environment than that in the parental lines. This does not hold true for the BT allele, which already comes from drug strains with high Pflor and Ctot values.

The problem with this study is that they crossed drug cannabis with hemp.

 

[knna]

The problem with this study is that they crossed drug cannabis with hemp.

Agree, i bet same experiment carried with 2 IBLs drug strains result on an still higher homogeneous distribution along the half line in the graph. But then CBD levels would be so small that stadistic analysis would be unpractical and more prone to errors due to measurement margin of error.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Grat3fulh3ad, I feel I'm having to respond to you every time, like a naughty child, constantly pulling on my jacket for sweets....its quite annoying.

Only, in reality it is more like you are the kid who continues to incessantly repeat "why" no matter how correctly and completely your initial 'Why" has been answered... Or the kid who constantly asks "are we there yet?" even though the car is obviously still moving down some highway...

You replies or should I say responses, are not conducive to a discussion, and your more focused on shouting down my knowledge on this subject, dispite me giving you more than enough opportunity to progress.

Not really... If you would bother to try and understand what has been presented, you'd realize there in really NO discussion to be had... There seems to need to be some teaching, but not every question that can be posited in a classroom is worthy of discussion.

This discussion has clearly defined already discovered answers. Sam gave them to you in post #3. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts does not mean there is discussion to be had.

I don't have to "shout down" your Knowledge on the subject... Your posts do that clearly enough... Every question indicating a complete lack of understanding of how the basic mechanisms related to your subject matter actually have been shown to work. When your questions and comments are from a perspective of misunderstanding, they have no real meaning. Your initial misunderstandings of biological mechanisms needs to be cleared up first.

It's funny that the only post of mine you found useful and informative, is the one which explains the most elementary concepts of inheritance.

Btw, my last post was in response to all Grat3fulh3ad's previous posts, with the exception of his last post, which I actually found quite informative.......

It is very telling. I simply kept working backward providing simpler and simpler explanations of concepts you clearly misunderstand, until I discovered your "level of expertise" in the field (elementary... Maybe middle school).

I've posed quite a few questions now, and you answer with a red herring type reply, followed by an insult of some discription.

You said "Sam should close this nonsense thread... You don't want to learn."

Nope. When you ask questions based on a misunderstanding of terms and concepts and mechanisms, then the repeating of the facts in the answering may seem like a red herring to you. It is not. It is merely an attempt to work backwards from the level of understanding you think you have, to discern what your actual level of understanding is. Sorry if your confusion made it seem like your questions were not being answered.

Well firstly, whether or not I'm "here to learn" has quite frankly nothing at all to do with you! ... So you should keep those comments to yourself.

I'm sorry, I just assumed that you would like to understand things as they are. If you prefer not to learn, it is your business... but asking questions like you do, it was easy for me to assume that your motive for asking is to learn... If not to learn, why ask elementary questions like the one starting this thread?

Secondly, this particular thread is a discussion set by me, and I'm interested in everyones opinions, where they are related to the subject.....and I'm not interested in "personal remarks" that are just uncalled for.

Provable FACT always trumps imagination and opinion. Sorry it angers you that your opinions and the facts differ, but just because they differ does not make it a valid discussion... unless you are seeking knowledge... :wink:

If you don't feel your input is being appreciated enough, stop whining to the powers that be, and just don't comment at all, like you say, you have the choice whether or not to post, as much as anyone else.

I could care less wether or not you choose to ignore reality... I'm not going to let you confuse others... Neither is Sam...

I don't have to whine to the powers that be, BTW... that's funny that you see things that way, you obviously haven't been around long =].

Sam has already made his position clear, and I'm sure he will only now post, when he feels it's relevent.

Funny how you call facts "opinions" or "positions". Yes, the correct answer to your questions has been made clear... Why won't you open your eyes yet?

Hopefully this will clear the air, and you feel its better to move on, and maybe start your own thread/discussion.

Now, can we get back to the topic.

Reading back a few posts, the study previously mentioned explained ....."However, there is evidence for the existence of "null" genotypes at the A locus, leading to plants devoid of any cannabinoids; such phenotypes have indeed been observed (V. G. VIROVETS and G. GRASSI)"...

...which clearly states that there are recessive traits, that can lead to NO potency!

NO IT DOES NOT CLEARLY STATE THAT! You thinking it does clearly shows your misunderstanding of the mechanisms at work.

So the question is....Is low potency a rescessive trait also.





Bubbl3r

PLEASE, study up on the background knowledge necessary to understand the question you are asking.

Like my kid, you seem...
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.
"Is low potency a rescessive trait? "
NO.

lmao...

 

[suzycremecheese]

So, reading between the lines, aren't you suggesting that low potency is more likely, as a result of a combination of recessive traits?

If I could put my lines closer together I would. Please don't try to read between them. I'm saying that potency is not a recessive or a dominant trait. If it was, manipulating potency via breeding, would be a much easier task and someone would probably have a complete understanding of the inheritance of potency by now.

Potency is the result of numerous genes interacting with each other, as well as the environment, in very complex ways.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The problem with this study is that they crossed drug cannabis with hemp.

Why is it a problem? That made the illustration of the processes at work easier to see, with results that follow either extreme...

One of the things that interested me initially upon reading the article years ago, was that the F2 generation's cannabinoid content quite often excedeed the cannabinoid content of either the P generation or the F1 generation. Indicative that there is more at work determining potency than the two loci responsible for THC and CBD production... with other locii (perhaps the one affecting trichome density, or the one affecting trichome distribution, or the one affecting the amount of resin a capitate trichome makes, or the ones affecting the production of the other hundred constituents of the resins, etc) playing as great a role in determining potency as the loci responsible for the production of the various flavinoids, terpinoids, and cannabinoids.

High or low potency is the outcome of the combination of MANY alleles at many loci. Each allele at each locus has a dominant and recessive trait possible, and potency is the result of the entire combination.

Think of things this way, Bubbl3r...
Potency is a combination of a series of pairs of coin flips.
Each coin flip has 2 possible outcomes. Heads dominant, tails recessive.
No single coinflip is responsible for the combination of traits which equals potency.

Illustrated based on the coin model, "potency" could be shown like this.

hh
ht
tt
th
ht
hh
tt
hh

Each pair responsible for one of the different aspects of potency I mentioned above in parenthesis. Any pair containing an h displays the dominant trait for that aspect of the potency equation. Only the pairs containing 2 t's will display the recessive trait.

Since potency is affected by many alleles at many loci, the only possible answer to your initial question is NO.

 

[suzycremecheese]

The problem with this study is that they crossed drug cannabis with hemp.

I disagree. The only way you can be sure that you have a true F1 and F2 is if you use two unrelated IBLs as the original parents. They can be sure that the hemp is unrelated to the high potency variety. They're using both ends of the spectrum in order to see where the middle ground is in the F1 and then in the F2 they get all the possibilities because they did it this way. The F2 should show every possible combination of alleles if enough plants are grown out... as well as which the frequency of the different possibilities.

 

[suzycremecheese]

Think of things this way, Bubbl3r...
Potency is a combination of a series of pairs of coin flips.
Each coin flip has 2 possible outcomes. Heads dominant, tails recessive.
No single coinflip is responsible for the combination of traits which equals potency.

I agree with your analogy but considering the direction this thread has gone I would have left out the part about heads being dominant and tails being recessive...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I disagree. The only way you can be sure that you have a true F1 and F2 is if you use two unrelated IBLs as the original parents. They can be sure that the hemp is unrelated to the high potency variety. They're using both ends of the spectrum in order to see where the middle ground is in the F1 and then in the F2 they get all the possibilities because they did it this way. The F2 should show every possible combination of alleles if enough plants are grown out... as well as which the frequency of the different possibilities.

I concur