Clone of a Clone of a... Degredation Experiment

[Microbeman]

Dude when you talk F stuff the accepted understanding is seed generations and nothing to do with clones. F meaning filial and clones are not filials...from what I understand.

Only 7 years? I know peeps indirectly that have held cuts for like 20 years and not Cravenmore...lol. I've also seen cuts basically just crap out and pretty much become useless. Saw that with one cut which was held by a few local indoor growers and within a few month time period they all started having similar problems at different locations.

I think part of all that may have to do with the original genetics, the P1's, involved in a particular cross?

I understand a cultivar to be something that is not a wild child type land race but something that has been selected from land race and farmed a bit. No way to ensure selective pollination in that instance and most likely not happening but still more selective than wild native fields. I dunno...my friend REv works with some Malawi stock that came from a farmer in southern Malawi so I'd consider that a cultivar cause that farmer had some control and different than going out into the woods and finding a patch.

Absolute huh? n bye

 

[Mountain]

Absolute huh? n bye

What? Have fun guys.

 

[hurdy gurdy man]

You have no clue of what your are talking about, and you are totally wrong.

That was really funny. Ha Ha Ha...

 

[hurdy gurdy man]

hurdy: Do a search within the thread for whatever you are looking for. Or take the time to read it. Repeatedly answering the same question is killing the gurus. Have a happy hashy day.

You're absolutely correct. I was being a lazy mofo. Sorry.

 

[AFGHANICA79]

Why?

Why not??

I beleive mother 1 doesnt know whats in store for her offsprings

Mother 2 has an idea whats in store for her offsprings shes been there and wore the t shirt

"YOU GOTTA GO THERE TO COME BACK"

Degredation of a clone- My blues cut was in a bad way for being cloned for nearly 2 centuries and passed about like a porno but i nurtured her back to health and shes sweet.

Does a clone remember/pick up things from its previous enviros.

I have done this experiment for my own needs and obsevations i have the time to do so!!

 

[BlueGrassToker]

A genetic map of a single cultivar *(a cultivar is ANY plant that has been selectively bred for certain characteristics and is basically synonymous with the term cultigen...fwiw) is what it is, and there won't be any genetic map modifications happen from time alone. Only some catalyst such as a viral attack would cause a plant to produce hormones that may weaken or mutate it's patterns. Environments can only trigger the plant to display what it's particular genetic layout has (and has always had) to offer.
If there is an actual drift that sorts the genes out differently (genetic modification) in a single plant, I am certainly unaware of it and would be greatly interested in reading about it.

 

[vStagger Leev]

I have been growing the same multiple strains for years taking clones off of clones off of clones and so on. Never once kept a mother room cause i though that would be useless and take up allot of room. So cloning i went, and no problems here! All of my genetics still do their things 100% Good thread bro, i've had this conversation with a few people and they believe the genetics gradually degrade, i then told them that they were full of shit. The diesel wreck photo shown is from about 10000 clones ago, and still epic.

 

[Microbeman]

A genetic map of a single cultivar *(a cultivar is ANY plant that has been selectively bred for certain characteristics and is basically synonymous with the term cultigen...fwiw) is what it is, and there won't be any genetic map modifications happen from time alone. Only some catalyst such as a viral attack would cause a plant to produce hormones that may weaken or mutate it's patterns. Environments can only trigger the plant to display what it's particular genetic layout has (and has always had) to offer.
If there is an actual drift that sorts the genes out differently (genetic modification) in a single plant, I am certainly unaware of it and would be greatly interested in reading about it.

Here is some reading material about environmental DNA damage for you in addition to what I've already posted in this thread. Now for sure I'm done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469644/pdf/envhper00346-0053.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241569/pdf/ehp0111-001164.pdf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=environmental-dna-damage

http://www.springerlink.com/content/31t0457x7u076k52 $

http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/6/547.full.pdf+html

http://www.ufv.br/dbv/pgfvg/BVE684/...a/pre_transcricional/DNADAMAGE AND REPAIR.pdf

Oxidative Damage
A wide variety of oxidative damage products are induced in DNA by hydroxyl
radicals, superoxide, and nitric oxide (23). Some of these damaged bases,
including thymine glycol and its degradation product, urea, act as blocks to
DNA synthesis but are not particularly mutagenic. Oxidation products of
cytosine undergo an enhanced rate of deamination (via the hydrolytic reaction
discussed above) to form mutagenic uracil derivatives. Perhaps the most significant
premutagenic oxidized base is 8-hydroxyguanine, which base pairs
with equal facility to A and C. In addition, the nucleotide 8-hydroxydGTP can
be used as a substrate for DNA synthesis by DNA polymerase. Both human
and E. coli cells produce an enzyme that specifically degrades this deoxynucleotide
triphosphate to its monophosphate form, thereby preventing its incorporation
into DNA (64, 75). Because bases are easily oxidized in vitro during
standard DNA purification procedures, and because some oxidation products
are inherently unstable, it is difficult to determine the spontaneous rate at
which certain oxidized bases arise, persist, or are repaired in the genome. It
should also be noted that the bases in an intact double helix are shielded from
attack by hydroxyl radicals to a large degree by their stacked, interior conformation.
For this reason, a relatively large fraction of oxidation damage occurs
at the sugar phosphate backbone, leading to single-stranded breaks. Such nicks
are generally repaired in an efficient and error-free fashion. Because the double
helix is more likely to “breathe” (become transiently single-stranded) near
a nick, the bases located near a nick are substantially more accessible to
hydroxyl radical attack.
The major sources of activated oxygen in the cell are almost certainly the
organelles; reactions in both the chloroplast (11) and the mitochondrion (138)
frequently misdirect electrons to oxygen, generating superoxide. The plastid
possesses a number of enzymatic and nonenzymatic defenses against superoxide,
peroxide, singlet oxygen, and hydroxyl radicals (11), designed to capture
free radicals before they can interact with critical cellular components such as
the photosynthetic apparatus or the genome. These defenses can be overwhelmed
during periods of stress when NADP, the electron acceptor for
reduced ferredoxin, becomes limiting (3). Under these “photoinhibitory” (63)
80 BRITT
conditions the production of activated oxygen species may exceed the chloroplast’s
extensive scavenging capacity. In addition, because hydrogen peroxide
can diffuse rapidly across the lipid bilayer, no cellular compartment is completely
isolated from the reactive oxidative species produced during either
respiration or the light reactions of photosynthesis.
Significant extracellular sources of activated oxygen might include air pollutants
such as ozone (50, 68) or perhaps radicals produced by neighboring
cells during the hypersensitive response (57). Very high levels of UV-B radiation
can also induce oxidative damage in DNA (40); however, it is not clear
whether the amount of oxidative damage induced by the relatively low levels
of UV-B radiation in solar radiation is significant in comparison with the
baseline level of oxidative damage produced by normally functioning organelles.
It is important to note, however, that screens for UV-sensitive Arabidopsis
mutants (13, 22, 41, 49) have employed unnaturally intense, brief doses of
UV. A screen performed in this manner may also yield mutants specifically
defective in the repair of oxidative damage.

 

[Honkytonk]

Still, cloning itself does not cause genetic mutations.
There's no doubt that toxins, radiation, viruses, etc. can cause mutations but what has that to do with cloning?
You will be able to mess up a clone and then take a clone of it that seems to be degraded or whatever. Cloning still wasn't the cause.
Wasn't that what the thread was about?
Is it now about if mutations can happen? Yes they can. There you go.

 

[Farang]

Still, cloning itself does not cause genetic mutations.
There's no doubt that toxins, radiation, viruses, etc. can cause mutations but what has that to do with cloning?
You will be able to mess up a clone and then take a clone of it that seems to be degraded or whatever. Cloning still wasn't the cause.
Wasn't that was the thread was about?
Is it now about if mutations can happen? Yes they can. There you go.

/Farang

 

[Scagnetti]

Dude when you talk F stuff the accepted understanding is seed generations and nothing to do with clones. F meaning filial and clones are not filials...from what I understand.

Yeah I think that's right, F... is seed generations. What, if any designation is given to a clone. Don't get to talk nomenclature in person very much due to the paranoia level in a red state. Thanks

 

[beta]

Yeah I think that's right, F... is seed generations. What, if any designation is given to a clone

Because clones are identical, there has never been a need to differentiate which 'generation' they are from.

 

[highonmt]

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.

Dude says: " I would never grow with anything that did not come from the generation of clones from the mother grown from seed "

So his "F1 clones" were the only viable clone. He then gave a bunch of examples of growers that had declining quality with clones. He was solid in his position and believed without a doubt that anything past an "F2" is a shit clone. His method of propagation is to plant a seed, veg the mom and then take clones from the mom and grow those to harvest.

I told him I just could not agree that growing from seed would overall be a better strategy to grow the Sticky Icky Dank. I told him that the laws of probability and statistics were against him with that strategy, and that it was foolish to not grow proven clone only winners.

We held onto the debate for about 20 minutes after we put the Power Kush blunt out. Both sticking to our positions. We both did agree that it is known that seeds have around 25- 30% more growth vigor than their clone counterpart. I claimed though that aside from the 25 % loss, the idea that an "F3" clone and beyond is a shit clone just does not seem true to me. And further that after the initial shift from seeded plant to cloned plant there is no further degradation.

After I made it home the conversation continued to rattle around in my brain. Something to keep in mind is that despite the fact that his idea went against the "truths" I have come to know, He spoke with much experience and was quite knowledgeable in other cannatopics. I wanted to give his ideas a fair subjective chance to change my own.

The conclusion I came too was last night when we got home led me to wonder if we were both ....right???


I just met the guy and may not have a chance to talk to him again. But I would like to ask him some questions. Feel free to answer them if you'd like. I will be grinning if there are people that take both sides of this debate.

Would he consider this to NOT be a generative way to take clones from a seed grown mother If: You grow the mother out continually take clones from it while keeping it in veg. say even for a long time, maybe even years, always growing to harvest his "F1" clones. This method would not go against his theory that a clone is only good that is from the SAME generation. The mother plant would always be a first generation from seed plant and the clones would alway

I will take one of my seedlings (blue satellite 2.2), take both good clones and bad clones, we'll take one of the really crappy slow growers and we'll take one of the excellent clones and we will veg them until we can take clones from them.
Then we will grow out and flower the clone from the excellent clone and the clone from the crappy clone and compare them to see if there has been any degeneration. We could even run this experiment longer, always taking crappy clones from the crappy clones............. and always take excellent clones from excellent clones from excellent clones............I would be willing to run it for a long time as long as the quality of the B.S 2.2 is acceptable.

We could observe and see how many generations it takes for degeneration to occur, and we would also see the difference between a good clone line and a bad clone line.

My hypothesis is that the good clone line will always result in better plants & end result than the bad clone line assuming all conditions between the two stay constant we would give "good" line and the "bad" line everything the exact same.

Crappy clones make crappy plants.. So if my hypothesis is right the Dude and I are both right?

If my hypothesis is correct would it mean that if at anytime the clone line you have, has had one bad clone in the hierarchy the whole downstream clone line is degraded?

So I hope this thread sparks some interest and I hope the experiment is worth doing because it seems like it would be fun.

Lastly I want to say that I have a very thorough knowledge in experimental design and statistics. So the experiment would be done well.

This is a good thread thanks for starting it dave. I think the thing that is missing from this discussion is the question of telomeres and telomerase activity in plants.

The phenomena of telomeric aging is know as the hayflick phenomenon or the Hayflick limit. it is the number of times a given cell line can reproduce before senescence due to telomere shortening occurs.

In animals the hayflick limit is responsible for much of the aging process as cell line after cell line become increasingly senescent and the existing cells die. In plants telomerase enzymes are active at different stages in the lifecycle and allow the plant to repair telomere lengths which thus allows plants like the bristle cone pine to live for millennia. Here is a link to a review on plant telomere studies....http://protein.bio.msu.su/biokhimiya/contents/v62/full/62111432.html

and a quote that relates to this discussion:
"It is also unknown whether telomerase becomes activated during vegetative reproduction as it does during sexual reproduction. Telomerase expression during vegetative reproduction promises to be an interesting area of research. In vegetative tissues of most plants that have been examined, telomerase activity is absent or barely detectable even with the very sensitive TRAP assay. What happens to telomeres in plants derived from such tissues? Do the telomeres continually shorten, resulting in a Hayflick limit on the rounds of propagation, or is there some mechanism for inducing telomerase or an alternative mechanism for maintaining telomeres? Many horticultural crops have been vegetatively propagated for years without appearing to lose their chromosomes, indicating that telomerase or an alternative mechanism for telomere maintenance is activated during vegetative propagation."

I have seen a cannabis cultivar that had been repeatedly cloned for 20yrs lose it's vigor, and it was a truely great strain,super potent tasty and super high yeilding...it became weak, spidly diffuse and with no warning and no unusual events. Perhaps the genetics were such that the telomerase enzyme activity was particularly low. Perhaps not...

More studies on cannabis telomerase activity could be enlightening as to why some strains seem to go on forever and others lose vigor.
One thing that is interesting is that plants develop more telomerase activity during flowering, perhaps that's why I like the way my plants clone when taken in early flowering??
HM

 

[hurdy gurdy man]

I have seen a cannabis cultivar that had been repeatedly cloned for 20yrs lose it's vigor, and it was a truely great strain,super potent tasty and super high yeilding...it became weak, spidly diffuse and with no warning and no unusual events. Perhaps the genetics were such that the telomerase enzyme activity was particularly low. Perhaps not...
HM

Wow!

I wonder if telomerase enzyme activity is responsible for the insane branching that will result from taking a clone from a plant a couple weeks into flowering.

 

[AZClones]

There's no doubt that toxins, radiation, viruses, etc. can cause mutations but what has that to do with cloning?

Just skimmed the thread- interesting stuff- and wanted to make a couple of quick comments.

The first is that propagation by cuttings could very well be the cause of what some have reportedly seen; the cause is very straightforward: introduction of plant viruses. While the virus wouldn't mutate the plant, it may cause debilitation when the plant is stressed. So, if a grower who is a smoker or uses the same cutting tools (or fingers/hands that were used with other infected crops- some of which may be asymptomatic carriers) introduces a virus to the plant, then the subsequent generations may also be infected.

If the virus is sufficiently potent (many are undoubtedly carried asymptomatically) or the plant is stressed, then the virus may manifest in the form of diminished growth.

However, I have personally noticed diminished growth in perpetual subculture of plants in sterile tissue culture; there's one line of plants (not cannabis) that I've subcultured for over 12 years now, and they're just not what they were. This is under the same conditions, same substrates, same everything- and since the tools and media are all sterile, it would seem highly unlikely the cause is due to a pathogen.

Stranger still is how the plants have never been exposed to exogenous hormones; these plants have been grown with nothing more than vitamins, minerals, water, and sugars for the entire time. But when I introduce low levels of hormones (typically IBA, to inspire roots) they regain much- but not all- of their lost vigor. I've only been running these recent experiments for the past 18 months or so, and I suspect if I added more IBA I could get a better response, since I use so little of the stuff.

 

[madliberated]

Clone of a Clone of a... Degredation Experiment

cavendish (regular) bananas
navel oranges

I believe both of these are "clone only". I am positive about the oranges - navel oranges can ALL be traced to just one parent plant.

 

[headband 707]

cavendish (regular) bananas
navel oranges

I believe both of these are "clone only". I am positive about the oranges - navel oranges can ALL be traced to just one parent plant.

bananna's and organges both produce seeds..

 

[madliberated]

bananna's and organges both produce seeds..

navel oranges make seeds? on what planet? A navel orange is a large, seedless, easy to peel mutant. Have you noticed the navel orange is a total freak that has a main fruit and a little secondary fruit tacked on? That's what causes the "navel" to form. Both are sterile. If humans disappear, the navel orange will too, and we will be forced to grow fingernails so we can peel mandarins (oh wait, we already disappeared).

Bananas, for their part, won't breed true from seed. They just won't. If you could get bananas reliably from seed, that would solve a major impending disaster for the global food supply. By the way, ever seen a banana "tree"? You can walk up to it and stick your finger into the trunk. Water dribbles out.

from wiki entry on the cavendish:

Contrary to this notion, in mid-2008, reports from Sumatra and Malaysia suggest Cavendish-like cultivars may be vulnerable to Panama disease.[12] Because cultivated bananas are spread by conventional vegetative reproduction rather than through sexual reproduction, the Cavendish plants are genetically identical and cannot evolve disease resistance.

The Honduras Foundation for Agricultural Research (FHIA) has been cross breeding wild banana types for decades, and has already created new banana varieties that are resistant to the Panama disease. However, the first new varieties have a distinct apple flavor, while otherwise being very similar to the Cavandish in look and handling. The FHIA-01 "Goldfinger" was registered as a patent in 1994 (US Patent PP08983) and the FHIA-03 "Sweetheart" variety is already cultivated in Cuba.

someone brought up apples too. No apple on this planet breeds true from seed, so every MacIntosh, golden rona, or pink lady you have eaten can be traced back to a single parent.

 

[headband 707]

navel oranges make seeds? on what planet? A navel orange is a large, seedless, easy to peel mutant. Have you noticed the navel orange is a total freak that has a main fruit and a little secondary fruit tacked on? That's what causes the "navel" to form. Both are sterile. If humans disappear, the navel orange will too, and we will be forced to grow fingernails so we can peel mandarins (oh wait, we already disappeared).

Bananas, for their part, won't breed true from seed. They just won't. If you could get bananas reliably from seed, that would solve a major impending disaster for the global food supply. By the way, ever seen a banana "tree"? You can walk up to it and stick your finger into the trunk. Water dribbles out.

from wiki entry on the cavendish:





someone brought up apples too. No apple on this planet breeds true from seed, so every MacIntosh, golden rona, or pink lady you have eaten can be traced back to a single parent.

[SIZE=+3]1. [/SIZE]Q. Can I grow an orange tree from the seed of an orange? Will such a tree ever produce good-to-eat oranges and, if so, how long will it be before a tree from seed produces fruit? A. The production of citrus in this marginal hard-freeze areas should be accomplished by planting in a sunny, southern exposure area which can be protected during severe cold or plant in a container which can be moved to a protected area. The main reasons that seed are not used is because the length of citrus seedling juvenility (non-productiveness) can be 7 years or longer. Also, oranges, grapefruit and limes are not cold hardy enough to have a chance of surviving unless protected from below 25 degrees F.. If you want citrus, you should wait until March and purchase a satsuma (mandarin). However, if you insist on planting an orange seed, you should know that citrus seed have the unusual characteristic of producing nucellar seedlings which are vegetative (identical to the mother-tree) rather than genetic in origin. From each seed planted, three sprouts can emerge. Two will be fast growing sprouts which are vegetative in nature and will produce a tree exactly like the one from which the fruit was obtained. The center, weak sprout, if it emerges, is the genetic or different-than-its-parent growth which should be removed.

They might have gotten rid of this type of propagation but you can still grow a bananna tree from seed.

There are two main varieties of bananas, the fruit or sweet banana and the plantain. The fruit banana is eaten raw out of hand when it turns yellow and develops a succulent sweetness with a soft, smooth, creamy, yet firm pulp. The plantain, a cooking banana, is also referred to as the meal, vegetable or horse banana. Plantains have lower water content, making them drier and starchier than fruit bananas. Though the banana plant has the appearance of a sort of palm tree, and is often called a banana palm, it is actually considered a perennial herb. It dies back after each fruiting and produces new growth for the next generation of fruit. Bananas do not grow simply from seed. Man intervened long ago and crossed two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana, got rid of the many seeds that were an unpleasant presence, and improved the flavor and texture from hard and unappetizing to its present soft and irresistibly sweet flavor.

If you were to plant the seeds from an apple all 5 seeds would produce a different type of tree that would not be similar to the apple you just ate. peace out Headband707

 

[madliberated]

If you were to plant the seeds from an apple all 5 seeds would produce a different type of tree that would not be similar to the apple you just ate. peace out Headband707

chance of actually producing an edible apple by sowing 5 seeds is close to zero. Chance of finding a single edible apple by sowing a whole acre is just a bit better than that. It takes many years and many resources to produce a new apple variety. In the old days the demand for cider resulted in great genetic diversity in apple orchards. Once in a while an eating apple shows up and that gets propagated asexually. In the case of the mcintosh, we see what happens when one of these cultivars resists environmental calamity (some very cold winters in the northeast USA), while all others are killed. New York State is just starting to produce a notable quantity of non mcintosh apples. They are usually found in farm markets. Further, because today's apple industry no longer depends on hard cider for income, only edible or juicing apples are grown, and only via asexual propagation (grafts). Any new varieties now have to be developed at great cost and effort.

as for navel oranges, why are you arguing with me over facts? the fact is that all navel oranges come from a single parent, and all cavendish (what you call "fruit banana") are genetically identical. It's also a fact that the navel orange is a seedless mutant with a baby growing out of its head, and that the mutation only happened once in human history and the genes have been reproduced faithfully since These facts are not controverted by any other facts about other types of orange or banana.

The cavendish is not the only "fruit banana" out there. Nor, in my opinion, is it the tastiest. BUT, it is a money maker and any other type of "fruit banana" is seen only in higher end stores. The threat from depending on just this one set of genes for such a huge portion of the global fresh fruit supply is very real and very scary. It's a big enough deal that certain countries feel they need to be prepared for this to protect their very existence.



I only bring these two up because they illustrate both the potential benefits and drawbacks of depending on asexual reproduction to propagate an important crop.

here is some wiki as a starting point:

According to Dorsett, Shamel, and Popenoe (1917) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who conducted a study at first hand, a single mutation in 1810 to 1820 in a Selecta orange tree planted at a monastery near Bahia in Brazil, probably yielded the navel orange, also known as the Washington, Riverside, or Bahia navel.[32] However, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, believes that the parent variety was more likely the Portuguese navel (Umbigo) orange described by Risso and Poiteau (1818–22).[32] The mutation causes the orange to develop a second orange at the base of the original fruit, opposite the stem, as a conjoined twin in a set of smaller segments embedded within the peel of the larger orange. From the outside, it looks similar to the human navel, hence its name.
Because the mutation left the fruit seedless, and therefore sterile, the only means available to cultivate more of this new variety is to graft cuttings onto other varieties of citrus tree. It was introduced into Australia in 1824 and Florida in 1835. Twelve such cuttings of the original tree were transplanted[33] to Riverside, California in 1870, which eventually led to worldwide popularity.[32] The California Citrus State Historic Park preserves this history in Riverside, California, as does the Orcutt Ranch Horticulture Center in Los Angeles County, California.
Today, navel oranges continue to be produced through cutting and grafting. This does not allow for the usual selective breeding methodologies, and so not only do the navel oranges of today have exactly the same genetic makeup as the original tree, and are therefore clones, all navel oranges can be considered to be the fruit of that single nearly two-hundred-year-old tree. This is similar to the common yellow seedless banana, the Cavendish. On rare occasions, however, further mutations can lead to new varieties.[32]