Basic genetics explained

[mofeta]

ola k ase

Mercilessly hijacking a guy's thread, it seems. Que ondas?


Hey Tom I have to go now, but sometime later tonight or tomorrow I am going to start a "Good Weed Breeding Practices According To Tom Hill" (or something like that) thread. I would like to help you with the exposition of your thoughts on breeding pot. I'll post what I think you would like people to know on this subject, and then you can correct and refine the parts that are not in harmony with your views.

So, I won't be posting in this thread anymore, and I apologize to Padre CH for the hijack.

 

[Tom Hill]

it reads like a book,, but i am in love with the effort. however the things i spoke of are real. If u lose the respect of the upper level you are lost and homeless OP. Folks are still getting away with it in this industry but that leaves somewhat a sour taste in many a mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLIerfXuZ4&feature=kp

 

[Tom Hill]

biglove mofeta, i'll ask the question of myself when you propose it..

 

[Tom Hill]

My favorite author is still Robert Clarke, big love brother..

He makes his humble truths known from the git (none of us makes our living as a scientist),, and then he moves on.. Where the OP and Rob are grossly different,, is Rob is careful not only to avoid insulting the upper echelon (Sam lol), but he also takes the time (short) necessary to have that be the case for many decades to come literally. Get that down,, and then i'll not have the twitch currently residing in my eyeball.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I haven't read the OP or most of the comments in this thread, but Only Ornamental brings up something that has been bugging me:




Here are some quotes from the paper:



I haven't had the time to really scrutinize the paper properly yet. Usually when I read a technical article in a peer-reviewed journal, I assume what seem to be errors are really a lack of understanding on my part- scientists are generally very careful, and the peer review process is supposed to catch anything the authors miss.

So, I thought maybe they were talking about two different types of size- actual physical length vs. information (bp) size. But no, the X is both longer, and by virtue of it's heterochromatic (dense) arm, more bp.

I am really having a difficult time reconciling the incongruity of the statements from the paper that I quoted above. I will give the paper proper reading when I can, but that might be a while. Maybe someone who actually knows about this stuff can save me the time. *cough cough Chimera cough cough*

It is not impossible that these are actually the glaring errors they seem to be on the face of it, (language barrier maybe, but peer review should have caught that, even in a cursory skimming this just pops right out) but I find that unlikely. If I can't get a satisfactory explanation after further study and input from you guys I will email the authors and ask them.

Part of what you were quoting was them referencing early work from 1943. Stuff that they disprove in the paper. The X is about the size of the autosomes but the Y is the largest.

 

[Tonygreen]

whole lot of junk dna hmmm?

 

[Tonygreen]

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/multilevel/majors_bio/Genetics/Question9/index.html

 

[Tonygreen]

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/multilevel/majors_bio/Genetics/Question11R/index.html

 

[Tom Hill]

rotflmao,, i love you.. :

Learnig tree

 

[harry74]

This thread reminds me to....

This thread reminds me to....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqlXbJOpYiI

 

[Only Ornamental]

...Usually when I read a technical article in a peer-reviewed journal, I assume what seem to be errors are really a lack of understanding on my part- scientists are generally very careful, and the peer review process is supposed to catch anything the authors miss.

So, I thought maybe they were talking about two different types of size- actual physical length vs. information (bp) size. But no, the X is both longer, and by virtue of it's heterochromatic (dense) arm, more bp.

I am really having a difficult time reconciling the incongruity of the statements from the paper that I quoted above. I will give the paper proper reading when I can, but that might be a while. Maybe someone who actually knows about this stuff can save me the time. *cough cough Chimera cough cough*

It is not impossible that these are actually the glaring errors they seem to be on the face of it, (language barrier maybe, but peer review should have caught that, even in a cursory skimming this just pops right out) but I find that unlikely. If I can't get a satisfactory explanation after further study and input from you guys I will email the authors and ask them.

Got to read it thoroughly first, too .
BTW Reading this sort of papers is part of my job, so believe me when I tell you that peer reviewing doesn't make things better (more often worse). There was even a publication about a fake paper used to test that and even some of the best accepted that piece of crap really wrong on so many levels . There's even a Wikipedia page about that (CLICK ME)!

 

[Yard dog]

Hi Tom

It is good to see you back. I hope things are good in your part of the universe.

Like usual I am in complete agreement with your position on this. The massively multifactorial traits that separate fire from hay yeild only to large numbers. Polygenic quantitative qualities=needle in haystack.

I've stated on here in the past that I thought there was one big stumbling block in this kind of breeding. Most people usually boggle at the growing of such large numbers of plants. This aspect is actually trivial though, as shown by a number of the members of this very site.

The actual problem is evaluating the individuals. What good is growing a million plants if you can't check every one of them? Even if you had the massive budget to hire and expertly train the equivalent of sommeliers for weed, the individual differences in neurochemistry would make standardized results impossible.

The only answer to this one non-trivial problem is the sharpening of our analytical tools. There is a LOT of work to be done to realize the goal of accurate machine testing so necessary to find the truly transgressive individuals that will parent the next generation of weed.

It really is good to see you back! You seem bright-eyed and bushy-tailed too.

Do you see many in the so called cannabis community doing the likes of dunnetts testing? I don't. hmmm hopeful monsters or hopeless ? I'd of thought the easiest way would be to take the elites and do wide crosses on them? the main stumbling block to that is actually knowing what ancestors that line has. But since most drug pool cannabis is closely related I can see the point in crossing the known closely related lines and going from there. But like you've pointed out it takes numbers and a bit of work, that is surely too much for most!.
it's known that transgressive segregation will occur more in crossed selfed lines, and thus the closer the parental starting lines the better especially if you are to start looking in the F2's.

 

[rhinoman 1]

Hey Padre, yer thread's blowin up. hey Tom Hill good to see ya back.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

My favorite author is still Robert Clarke, big love brother..

He makes his humble truths known from the git (none of us makes our living as a scientist),, and then he moves on.. Where the OP and Rob are grossly different,, is Rob is careful not only to avoid insulting the upper echelon (Sam lol), but he also takes the time (short) necessary to have that be the case for many decades to come literally. Get that down,, and then i'll not have the twitch currently residing in my eyeball.

Hello Tom,
Sitting here with RCC reading your post, he says "one love bro", but did not quite understand all the post.
Later,
-SamS

 

[KiefSweat]

Cannabis -medicinal cannabis anyway- is too complicated of an organism to be treated in the same way as hemp or other much less complicated organisms. And that elephant has been in the room so to speak ever since the very first elite clone rooted.

Wouldn't hemp that is required to be grown from seed every year be a more complicated organism? Not to mention actual breeding involved to create populations with traits that we may not want with medical cannabis?

 

[Only Ornamental]

Wouldn't hemp that is required to be grown from seed every year be a more complicated organism? Not to mention actual breeding involved to create populations with traits that we may not want with medical cannabis?

I was also wondering why the distinction between medicinal cannabis and fibre hemp.

Maybe Tom means that hemp breeding 'only' focusses on a few traits like size, fibre quantity and quality, low branching (strong apical dominance), disease resistance, and a certain flowering onset and crop maturity as major ones. Size, fibre content and quality, and health show a high correlation with hybrid vigour, low branching is and has always (?) been part of industrial/agricultural hemp and flowering time isn't that much of a trouble; hence hemp require neither special breeding skills nor too much luck .
A good seed hemp variety is defined by what? A lot of seeds... and which cannabis variety doesn't tend to have that? One of the advantages as a kid from the sinsemilla generation, LoL!

I understand that hemp/cannabis with roughly twice as many chromosomes as most crop species has limitations and certainly doesn't makes the breeder's life easy.
I always wondered why there's such a difference between nowadays crop breeding and cannabis breeding... Many techniques and approaches used in the canna world are an old hat in agriculture and have been used when... 100 years ago?
Sure, without genetic engineering and biotechnology à la Syngenta and Monsanto it gets more difficult to remain up-to-date and maintain a certain throughput but where in 'our field of interest' are those meticulously planned breeding schedules and sophisticated whatsoever folks use in nowadays agronomy and flower industry? Are the big and holy breeders just keeping their trade secrets secret or is there no 'hightech thingamajig'? Some seed banks remind me of the cosmetic industries: As soon as there is the mention 'science' in the add (and we know that this 'science' doesn't do anything in the final product), people stop thinking and start 'Ohhh!' and 'Ahhh!'.
Who does need that low level to sell his things if not those who have nothing tangible? (That isn't meant as an offence and I'm not saying GC-MS or HPLC are useless, it's just a line of thoughts...)

I only have a certain experience with animal breeding like bearded dragons and hamster (and dogs mainly in theory). Therefore, I know how difficult it gets even with a small number of well known 'Mendelian' traits when just one or two additional polygenetic ones join the equation. And even without those, the usually lacking genealogy makes things really tedious when starting a small breeding program. The easiest and often only way to get a wanted or at least 'saleable' individual in the first few generations is by breeding two parents both already showing what you need. Doing so with or without inbreeding is an ethical question although bearded dragons and hamster kept in captivity come both from a very limited amount of wild ancestors and only show all these colours (and health issues) because of massive inbreeding. Bottom line is, that this strategy is no real breeding and certainly needs no skill (but also results seldom in something outstanding).
Amongst other things, that's why I ceased animal breeding... for now.

 

[Tonygreen]

Mankind has guided the evolution of drug cannabis for so long... Maybe its like comparing modern human dna to a cavemans...

 

[Only Ornamental]

Mankind has guided the evolution of drug cannabis for so long... Maybe its like comparing modern human dna to a cavemans...

If you mean Neanderthal... you'd be either disappointed or not astounded at all: Although not our direct ancestors, they have/had only 0.12% genetic difference compared to modern humans (I picked that from Wiki). Guess you could be right with your statement .

 

[mofeta]

Part of what you were quoting was them referencing early work from 1943. Stuff that they disprove in the paper. The X is about the size of the autosomes but the Y is the largest.

Hi GitT

Thanks for taking the time to take a look at that.

Yeah I see that the body of the paper shows that there are 9 pairs of autosomes that are very similar, the X looks like the autosomes but if measured carefully can be distinguished from them as it is slightly larger, and that the Y basically sticks out like a sore thumb with its heterochromatic arm and yet larger size than the X. It is just that in the abstract and in the body of the paper at least once, they flatly state that the X is the largest.

I remember the reference to the 1943 paper (had something to do with visible light microscopy techniques, no?), do you really think that explains it? I haven't had time to read it again, but I don't think that is the case. I'll keep your comment in mind when I re-read it. Thanks.

By the way, I would be interested to know more about your work with synthetic seeds.

 

[mofeta]

if we solved this actual problem sir,, i believe we will only be confronted with another. namely,, the horrendous maths involved in the recombination of 200+ inputs that actually matter.

I dig that you used that word transgressive,, i love even more that i know what u mean..

but until technologies eg reverse breeding are borne out,, i think we'll be propagating and capturing said transgression asexually.

Ha Ha! What happened to the "Self the dogshit out of it and its progeny, lots of them!!" Tom we all know and love?