is this how you breed quality genetics?

[devilgoob]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493882

From the article: Can change epigenetic patterns and thereby effect changes in gene activation and cell phenotype.

I have one reading speed.

Maybe you wanted to paint someone as slightly retarded by saying

"Infinitesmal is spelling it out out nice and slowly"

I knew what "out" meant. "Out out" seems much more double-negativish and I have a hard time understanding this.

Spelling it out, means spoon-feeding pretty much.

Because if someone disagrees with you, you're slow and just not getting it.
Maybe condenscending, you are.

Wow, and look at the person explaining what babbling is, in dictionary form. Babbling doesn't make sense, right?

So we are debating on who is right, and of course if you find the other wrong, not making sense, it's "babbling."

Of course anything you don't understand is babbling - it doesn't make sense to you.

So you speak of epigenetics, ALL of you, but you don't know fully the implications, simply because it hasn't been studied enough, but rather you have a conclusion of dismissal.

Again, look at my quote from the paper. Read the paper.

Read about b sheets, primary, loose random coil denatured, secondary (b), tertriary and quaternary structures and metalloid proteins, dimers, entaniomers and oligimers.

I DO understand genetic code doesn't change from these things, though.
That's probably the communication problem we all were having. hahaha.

Of course if a oligomer or dimer attaches, it may fold differently and therefore produce more or less of one protein or the result.

 

[Tonygreen]

Im sorry devil when one posts 20 times about how he feels about another person in a thread about breeding thats babbling, children do it.

We should all just stay on topic and have a decent discussion without going on and on how we feel personally about people.

 

[Weird]

Epigenetic inheritance and plant breeding

Epigenetic changes in chromosomal proteins and DNA methylation (termed
epimutations: Martienssen and Colot 2001) occurring in organisms have impor-
tant phenotypic consequences. Careful observation and study of epigenetic plant
phenotypes directed plant geneticists to recognize the role of epigenetic inheritance
systems in plant evolution (Kalisz and Purugganan 2004), domestication and
breeding (Tsaftaris and Polidoros 2000). The ubiquity and significance of epigenetic inheritance in plants has been gradually recognized over the past 50 years and
has been founded on the grounds of the fundamental discoveries that epigenetic
phenotypes can result from: (1) activation, excision and translocation of transposon
elements (McClintock 1951), (2) allelic interactions known as paramutations
(Brink 1956), (3) transgene silencing in plants (concurrently observed from several
groups working with transgenic plants in the late 1980s; for a review see Matzke
and Matzke 2004) and (4) epialleles of endogenous plant genes that control floral
induction and morphogenesis, seed development and parental imprinting (Jacob-
162TSAFTARIS ET AL.Tsaftaris-4 25-10-2005 16:28 Pagina 162sen and Meyerowitz 1997; Luff et al. 1999; Melquist et al. 1999).

Excellent reviews covering these topics have been recently published (Martienssen 1998; Chandler et
al. 2000; Kakutani 2002) and the reader is referred there for a more detailed analysis. In an attempt to discuss issues more pertinent to plant breeding, the following paragraphs will review reports relevant to the involvement of epigenetic inheritance as a source of polymorphism generating useful variation for plant breeding. The role of methylation in hybrid vigor and stability of performance, and aspects of epigenetic transgene silencing in contemporary elite transgenic varieties will be covered
as well.

Epigenetic mechanisms and genetic variation

Epigenetic states in plants, once established, can be inherited through the trans-
mission of epigenetic alleles (epialleles) over many generations (Kakutani 2002).
Such heritable epigenetic alleles can be considered as a new source of polymor-
phism and may produce novel phenotypes. This could have significant implications
in plant breeding. Heritable phenotypic variation within populations is the basis for
selection and breeding. The genetic causes of phenotypic variation are attributable
to mutations that create allelic variation and recombination that alters the genetic
structure in which alleles are expressed, offering new backgrounds for epistatic
interactions. Now, in addition to mutations that create genetic variation underlying
phenotypic traits, epialleles have been found to produce a new source of variation
for selection. Most importantly, epigenetic alleles can result as a genome response
to stressful environments and enable plants to tolerate stress (Tsaftaris and Poli-
doros 2000; Finnegan 2001; Sherman and Talbert 2002; Steward et al. 2002).
Comparison of these two mechanisms generating polymorphism (mutations and
epialleles) has been presented (Tsaftaris and Polidoros 2000). DNA methylation as
a generator of epialleles, could have important implications for the breeder. Epial-
leles could emerge at high frequency in a single generation, by far exceeding the rate
of mutational events giving rise to new alleles. Their reversion rate is by far higher
and that will interfere in heritability estimation. Their emergence is highly affected
by plant growth conditions while random mutational events are largely considered
independent of growth conditions. DNA methylation, by its mutational role, gives
rise to more permanent mutant alleles at a locus, while mutations only rarely lead
to new epialleles (when, by chance, critical C-residues in methylation sites are elimi-
nated or generated). Assessing the importance of methylated epialleles in plant
breeding requires the determination of: (i) the extent of variation in methylation
patterns among individuals within the selection population; (ii) the degree to which
methylation patterns affect phenotypes; and (iii) the extent to which methylation
variants linked to superior phenotypes are stably inherited. These are challenging
tasks, but the technical potential exists to assess methylation pattern differences
between individuals and thus, estimate the levels of methylation-associated epial-
lelic diversity and its related phenotypic diversity. A better understanding of the role
(TSAFTARIS ET AL.tsaftaris-4 25-10-2005 16:28 Pagina ) and significance of this new source of polymorphism in plants will be achieved as more data accumulate for the role of DNA methylation in plant evolution, domestication and breeding.

http://www.dista.unibo.it/doublehelix/proceedings/SECTION_III/HELIX pp 157-171.pdf

 

[fadetoclear]

i apologize if i created some sort of shit storm. that was in NO way my intention. i have some genuine questions regarding using forced sex reversal as a means to determine desirable traits. i have always respected tom's knowledge regarding breeding so i figured i would ask some questions. i've noticed tom stating a lot lately that forced sex reversal is a sufficient method for determining which plants will produce desirable traits. i'm curious how forced intersexing helps.

it's also been seen in a number of lines that forced intersexing can cause intersexed plants in subsequent generations. just a few examples of this are the chem line, c99, the blueberry line just to name a few lines that more than likely picked up their intersexed trait from having been "selfed". at least that is the common understanding.

tom, can you please explain how one would use intersexing to determine which plants would be desirable in a breeding program and how one can do so and avoid intersexing in subsequent generations of offspring.

i would like to point out, i am NOT trying to start a poo slinging war. i am NOT trying to be facetious. i am genuinely curious and am rather confused being that i thought just a few years ago it was generally accepted that forced sex reversal was sloppy breeding and was generally polluting the gene pool with intersex traits.

 

[MildeStoner]

I have one reading speed.

Maybe you wanted to paint someone as slightly retarded by saying

"Infinitesmal is spelling it out out nice and slowly"

I knew what "out" meant. "Out out" seems much more double-negativish and I have a hard time understanding this.

Spelling it out, means spoon-feeding pretty much.

Because if someone disagrees with you, you're slow and just not getting it.
Maybe condenscending, you are.

Double typing of the word "out" was a typo, don't read to much into it (one speed or no ). Wasn't intended to be condescending, sometimes I have to read Tom's posts twice myself, to see the metaphorical diamonds he is posting in amongst the rough that is his brash teaching style, infinitesmal is quite literally making it easy for everyone to follow his train of thought. Sorry you felt insulted or whatever, but that's not how it was intended to be received, merely an observation of an occurrence I thought was both entertaining and interesting.

i am genuinely curious and am rather confused being that i thought just a few years ago it was generally accepted that forced sex reversal was sloppy breeding and was generally polluting the gene pool with intersex traits.

Unless I am mistaken the key thing here is the genetic potential of the plant that is selfed? The offspring of stable, well bred strains are drastically less likely to throw flowers of both sexes when reversed, the bad name this type of breeding has been prescribed stems from people reversing the wrong things IMHO. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Back to the topic at hand! I'm going to hold back from arguing the merits of epigenics in the interest of preserving this threads integrity, as Mr. Weird and I seem to struggle to agree on topics such as this one, yes?

 

[xmobotx]

selfing a plant you know what you have as a genetic donor ~you dont necessarily have to use the progeny of the selfing in your program {thats if you get a superior individual in the progeny} mostly it tells you what you are working w/

then; you can see what the other donor{s} bring{s} to the program

 

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf, it would be nice if you posted your own thoughts, and then gave references, then you might at least catch the fact that there is no such thing as a single cross onto an F1, it has to be by default a backcross. Further, the recurrent parent must be fixed to a very high degree for any of that to hold water with regards to poly genes affecting yield. It's just that I've known and read you and have noted your seeming clinginess to your current/previous mentors, and I want to make sure others realize the totality of the text you are quite obviously quoting, which you, at least seemingly from time to time, do not.

The best way to determine all of that is to self the recurrent parent before delving into such techniques to prove her genotypic worth.

Lol Carry on Tom your a funny guy, look where this one went it's not like you make it sound any different, just make it more confusing with your analogy of the process.

I lost all respect I once had for you Tom because of your bullshit childish attitude, when your upstaged it comes out which is now on a regular basis due to your seemingly slow advancements in the last decade. On specific topic's you feel challenged or threatened is it that because "you think because your Tom Hill your correct and 2+2+5 in your world".

Single cross hybrids — result from the cross between two true breeding organisms and produces an F1 generation called an F1 hybrid (F1 is short for Filial 1, meaning "first offspring"). The cross between two different homozygous lines produces an F1 hybrid that is heterozygous; having two alleles, one contributed by each parent and typically one is dominant and the other recessive. Typically, the F1 generation is also phenotypically homogeneous, producing offspring that are all similar to each other.

http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informa...rmationmodule=1099683867&topicorder=4&maxto=9

Your one of the biggest looser's Tom with some of the the worlds worst ethics and understandings of the facts that you talk about.

Please further explain yourself Tom, that's all you need you to embarrass yourself again, your own words, nobody need take the piss out of you because you do it for us with your own hand, by all accounts unknowingly due to your lack of or need for an understanding.

Must I pick up on every thing you do that you don't understand fully or are trying to pretend to to others you are some intellect to mislead a large proportion of the community.

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

Lol Carry on Tom your a funny guy, look where this one went it's not like you make it sound any different, just make it more confusing with your analogy of the process.

I lost all respect I once had for you Tom because of your bullshit childish attitude, when your upstaged it comes out which is now on a regular basis due to your seemingly slow advancements in the last decade. On specific topic's you feel challenged or threatened is it that because "you think because your Tom Hill your correct and 2+2+5 in your world".

Single cross hybrids — result from the cross between two true breeding organisms and produces an F1 generation called an F1 hybrid (F1 is short for Filial 1, meaning "first offspring"). The cross between two different homozygous lines produces an F1 hybrid that is heterozygous; having two alleles, one contributed by each parent and typically one is dominant and the other recessive. Typically, the F1 generation is also phenotypically homogeneous, producing offspring that are all similar to each other.

http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informa...rmationmodule=1099683867&topicorder=4&maxto=9

Your one of the biggest looser's Tom with some of the the worlds worst ethics and understandings of the facts that you talk about.

Please further explain yourself Tom, that's all you need you to embarrass yourself again, your own words, nobody need take the piss out of you because you do it for us with your own hand, by all accounts unknowingly due to your lack of or need for an understanding.

Must I pick up on every thing you do that you don't understand fully or are trying to pretend to to others you are some intellect to mislead a large proportion of the community.

Ermm that is how to make a F1 hybrid how does that relate to this that you wrote? (well C & P'd a selected bit)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From the 1980s onwards, all crosses onto selected F1 generations were single cross, backcrosses or top crosses (van Ginkel et al., 2002). Single and top (or three-way) crosses are commonly used among adapted parental lines, while backcrosses are preferred for transferring a few useful genes from donor parents to adapted lines. The single backcrossing approach (one backcross to the adapted parent) was initially aimed at incorporating resistance to rust diseases based on multiple additive genes (Singh and Huerta-Espino, 2004). However, it soon became apparent that the single backcross approach also favored selection of genotypes with higher yield potential.

The reason why single backcrossing shifts the progeny mean toward the higher side is that it favors the retention of most of the desired major additive genes from the recurrent, while simultaneously allowing the incorporation and selection of additional useful small-effect genes from the donor parents.

The breeding efficiency of this strategy compared with other crossing and selection strategies was investigated through computer simulation for many scenarios, such as the number of genes to be transferred, frequency of favorable alleles in donor and recurrent parents etc.

Results indicated this breeding strategy has advantages in retaining or overtaking the adaptation of the recurrent parents and at the same time transferring most of the desired donor genes for a wide range of scenarios (Wang et al., 2009).

Two times of backcrossing has advantages when the adaptation of donor parents is much lower than that of the adapted parents, and the advantage of three times of backcrossing over two times of backcrossing is minimal.

The recommend use of the single backcrossing breeding strategy is based on three assumptions: (1) multiple genes govern the phenotypic traits to be transferred from donor parents to adapted parents, (2) donor parents still have some favorable genes that may contribute to the improvement of adaptation in the recipient parents even under low adaptation, (3) the conventional phenotypic selection is applied or the individual genotypes cannot be precisely identified. [/FONT]

Wang is not talking about making a F1 hybrid !! it might help if you could spell losers correctly before attempting more put downs.

The full chapter is here 2.2.2 on single backcrossing strategy


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intechopen.com%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F25551&ei=B1i8Ube_Koec0QX6pIGICw&usg=AFQjCNGAqt1kPyy-54DhEKX3zhltyAP5cQ

Now do you understand what you have wrote(in the loosest term) about? that's the real question!.

 

[Aardwolf]

You too must learn to read sentences as they are wrote not how you want to read them Jimmy MacElroy. Wang was saying "as you quote"

From the 1980s onwards, all crosses onto selected F1 generations were single cross, backcrosses or top crosses (van Ginkel et al., 2002).

Now, what do you have to say for yourself since you are shown to be incorrect!

He states the single cross applies to many breeding plans.

 

[Tonygreen]

"'that more than likely picked up their intersexed trait from having been "selfed". at least that is the common understanding."

They had their intersex traits from their genes before they were selfed.

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

You too must learn to read sentences as they are wrote not how you want to read them Jimmy MacElroy. Wang was saying "as you quote"

From the 1980s onwards, all crosses onto selected F1 generations were single cross, backcrosses or top crosses (van Ginkel et al., 2002).

Now, what do you have to say for yourself since you are shown to be incorrect!

He states the single cross applies to many breeding plans.

Here is the whole chapter copied and pasted;

2.2.2 Modeling of the single backcrossing breeding strategy
Regarding the crossing strategies in CIMMYT wheat breeding, top (or three-way) crosses
and double (or four-way) crosses were employed to increase the genetic variability of
Plant breeding populations in the early 1970s. By the late 1970s, double crosses were dropped due
to their poor results relative to single cross, top crosses and limited backcrosses. From the
1980s onwards, all crosses onto selected F1 generations were single cross, backcrosses or top
crosses (van Ginkel et al., 2002). Single and top (or three-way) crosses are commonly used
among adapted parental lines, while backcrosses are preferred for transferring a few useful
genes from donor parents to adapted lines. In CIMMYT, the single backcrossing approach
(one backcross to the adapted parent) was initially aimed at incorporating resistance to rust
diseases based on multiple additive genes (Singh and Huerta-Espino, 2004). However, it
soon became apparent that the single backcross approach also favored selection of
genotypes with higher yield potential. The reason why single backcrossing shifts the
progeny mean toward the higher side is that it favors the retention of most of the desired
major additive genes from the recurrent, while simultaneously allowing the incorporation
and selection of additional useful small-effect genes from the donor parents.
The breeding efficiency of this strategy compared with other crossing and selection
strategies was investigated through computer simulation for many scenarios, such as the
number of genes to be transferred, frequency of favorable alleles in donor and recurrent
parents etc. Results indicated this breeding strategy has advantages in retaining or
overtaking the adaptation of the recurrent parents and at the same time transferring most of
the desired donor genes for a wide range of scenarios (Wang et al., 2009). Two times of
backcrossing have advantages when the adaptation of donor parents is much lower than
that of the adapted parents, and the advantage of three times of backcrossing over two times
of backcrossing is minimal. We recommend the use of single backcrossing breeding strategy
based on three assumptions: (1) multiple genes governing the phenotypic traits to be
transferred from donor parents to adapted parents, (2) donor parents still have some
favorable genes that may contribute to the improvement of adaptation in the recipient
parents even under low adaptation, and (3) the conventional phenotypic selection is applied
or the individual genotypes cannot be precisely identified.

You are truly clueless. But carry on as you do trying to point out how superior you are in your own deluded mind. It is also a bit rich to state "You too must learn to read sentences as they are wrote not how you want to read them" especially when you have left parts of the chapter out to try and suit yourself yet still failed.

 

[fadetoclear]

selfing a plant you know what you have as a genetic donor ~you dont necessarily have to use the progeny of the selfing in your program {thats if you get a superior individual in the progeny} mostly it tells you what you are working w/

then; you can see what the other donor{s} bring{s} to the program

thank you. i think this answered part of my question.

so essentially, you would use the selfed plant as an experiment and wouldn't actually use it in the subsequent breeding? am i correct?

it would essentially be used to determine what traits everyone is bringing to the party...correct?

 

[xmobotx]

well i dont have any problem w/ self'n to preserve genetics either

just say'n some folks get their panties all in an uproar over feminising seeds and cant see the forest for the trees when someone says 'you can self to test progeny'

"oh hermie this and hermie that!" ~the plant naturally has monecious individuals in a wild population

 

[Infinitesimal]

thank you. i think this answered part of my question.

so essentially, you would use the selfed plant as an experiment and wouldn't actually use it in the subsequent breeding? am i correct?

it would essentially be used to determine what traits everyone is bringing to the party...correct?

are you correct in that thought?... yes, and no...

yes, the quickest and most efficient way to determine an individuals genetic worth/breeding potential is to self it... that way there is no confusing which trait came from which parent since both the mother and father are essentially the same plant...

no, you are incorrect... in that; you can use it in subsequent breeding, because, by selfing we are increasing the gene frequency and subsequently the rate of individuals that are homozygous "true breeding" for our desired traits... and when those S1 individuals are grown out separated and then each one that contains the desired traits selfed creating different "families" of the same strain, the S2s are then grown out telling us which of the S1s were true breeding and the S2s of those true breeding "families" go on to create the S3s and so on S4s, S5s Etc. Etc. until we have achieved near homogeny of homozygous individuals among the population.

I hope that makes sense,
Peace
Infi

 

[xmobotx]

makes sense to me ~lol

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

@ Aardwolf

He states the single cross applies to many breeding plans.

that it can, a single cross be it at F3 and 2 parents are used then certainly, but YOU decided to define a F1 hybrid to try and point score, that is where you failed.
He and Van Ginkel are describing a backcross program there's no getting away from that. Like TomHill pointed out to yourself a single parent back to the F1 is still a backcross. If you infer an F1 (from 1 line) x F1 (of another line) and thus creating an adapted parental line is great for cannabis breeding then I disagree, perhaps it is for wheat and incorporating a single trait into a line to go forward with. However you should note even when they create these lines they often find the stand out they want to backcross to and then proceed, and by doing this they have to go thru substantial numbers to find the plant they want.
I looked at RIL's a few years back and they are created by the initial adapted line approach (F1xF1) of different lines that will typically take you 5 to 7 years with many many fails and large numbers again required, if you did it as a 3 way at the F1 it would take approx 27 generations and many more fails... you seem to have a semblance of some knowledge by bothering your arse to get to college etc, wtf waste it point scoring?

since you have quite a hard on for both TH and Wang;

http://www.ub.edu/optichinagriculture/data/uploads/workshop2/presentations/jiankang-wang-caas.pdf

 

[Pepe le skunk]

I didn't read the entire thread but one interesting thing I read a while ago about breeding the strain C99 was how Bros Grimm backcrossed to the same mother plant 4 times (bx2 box squared) using the seeds from the next generation (male). I like this style of breeding because the resulting plants will be so close to the original mother plant you already selected as the keeper. (99% mothers genetics)

ex.
Keeper female (lets call her Malawi gold sativa)
X
Male (Mazar) Afghani (Articles I read about bx squaring said should be different than female)
= f1 hybrid seeds (50/50)

second cross same female X f1 hybrid male
= hybrid seeds (75/25)

third cross same female X f2? hybrid male
= hybrid seeds (88/12)

4th cross same female x f3? hybrid male
= 99% genetics of female Malawi keeper in seed form.

This would make the seeds produced very similar to the original female all the time with very little phenotype drift and would result in almost pure breeding seeds like an IBL.

Especially with the multiple hybrids out there or polyhybrids, this form of breeding would give you a very good shot at producing seeds that would resemble the original mother plant the best. (Not saying its not posible in less generations, just more chance they wouldn't breed true)

Using this method above you could then cross two different lines using squard bx2 parents and would than most likely give you the genetics from both keeper plants in seed form.

New BX2 Female Malawi X Bx2 Deep chunk
= Killer hybrid with the choosen genetic phenotype traits of both original parents.

According to something subcool wrote was you could do it in less crosses with select parents, but, you would have more drift if someone tried to breed with that strain later.

Just always made the most sense(lol) to me.
Hope that helps.

 

[JimmyMacElroy]

That is ALL dependent on the recurrent (mother as you put it) in the 1st place.

There's a post in here on backcrossing.


https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=5684602#post5684602

 

[Tonygreen]

Maybe for individual traits, I don't think that works for the plant as a whole?

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/meiosis/main.html

I think yer gonna get different results per trait per male each time, AA male, Aa, male, aa male...

Yer polyhybrid mom can be AA Aa aa for each trait she is expressing too.
So whatever she is for whatever trait x whatever the male is that is used each time is gonna get you different results?

 

[Weird]

well i dont have any problem w/ self'n to preserve genetics either

just say'n some folks get their panties all in an uproar over feminising seeds and cant see the forest for the trees when someone says 'you can self to test progeny'

"oh hermie this and hermie that!" ~the plant naturally has monecious individuals in a wild population

Ironic because you can use that technique to TEST progeny, this does not necessary imply that you should breeding them out using selfing.

I believe Tom mentioned this, as it was his implication that impressed me with that notion