What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

High CBD strain Lists and Descriptions

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
Always best to self to reduce heterozygosity. 25% will be high CBD (type III), 50% will be 1:1 (type II), and 25% will be high THC (type I). Where:
Unfortunately, the alleles for THC and CBD are physically closely located on the chromosome and hence don't separate like shown in your graph. That's why it's been believed that CBD and THC even share the same allele and it also makes it difficult to breed for and fix certain THC/CBD ratios.
 
Unfortunately, the alleles for THC and CBD are physically closely located on the chromosome and hence don't separate like shown in your graph. That's why it's been believed that CBD and THC even share the same allele and it also makes it difficult to breed for and fix certain THC/CBD ratios.

Bullshit. Yes, they are 8 centromeres apart on the same chromosome, but they readily segregate. You usually post good stuff OO, but it sounds like you haven't done much breeding?
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
First, it's centimorgan (cM), not centromeres (that's the junction point of the two chromatids in each chromosome). Can't remember if it's 8 cM, though.
Yes, they segregate but why do you think did science believe for decades that Bd and Bt are two alleles on the same locus? Did you try to breed let's say a true breeding THC/CBD 1:1 line? The easy way is an F1 cross but that's not true breeding and the subsequent segregation usually seen in the F2 of crosses between pure THC and CBD chemotypes is according to Mendel's 1:2:1 rule as you posted before. This is a pattern seen for a single locus and not for 2 unlinked alleles like on the square graph in your post. Such a short distance between loci results in a very different percentage closer to the 1:2:1 but showing a few 'outliers'. IIRC even de Meijer thought at first that it's a single locus and so did everyone before him. Fortunately, it's comparatively easy to breed huge numbers with cannabis and hence to catch the few desired 'exceptions' plus the now available high-throughput tools for early testing.
And yes, you are correct, I haven't done much breeding. It's still on the to do list and had unfortunately to be postponed. I'm still at the F1 stage and have some untested F2 seeds. Prohibition sucks ;( .
 
First, it's centimorgan (cM), not centromeres (that's the junction point of the two chromatids in each chromosome). Can't remember if it's 8 cM, though.
Yes, they segregate but why do you think did science believe for decades that Bd and Bt are two alleles on the same locus? Did you try to breed let's say a true breeding THC/CBD 1:1 line? The easy way is an F1 cross but that's not true breeding and the subsequent segregation usually seen in the F2 of crosses between pure THC and CBD chemotypes is according to Mendel's 1:2:1 rule as you posted before. This is a pattern seen for a single locus and not for 2 unlinked alleles like on the square graph in your post. Such a short distance between loci results in a very different percentage closer to the 1:2:1 but showing a few 'outliers'. IIRC even de Meijer thought at first that it's a single locus and so did everyone before him. Fortunately, it's comparatively easy to breed huge numbers with cannabis and hence to catch the few desired 'exceptions' plus the now available high-throughput tools for early testing.
And yes, you are correct, I haven't done much breeding. It's still on the to do list and had unfortunately to be postponed. I'm still at the F1 stage and have some untested F2 seeds. Prohibition sucks ;( .

Apologies for the mix-up in cellular distance terminology. Find me a homozygous 1:1 being sold by "breeders" and I'll give you one of our pure CBG plants as a prize. For all practical purposes, the Punnet above is accurate. Yes, I have encountered some varieties that refuse to conform statistically in their segregation, but it's true almost all the time. Your first follow up to my model inheritance chart specifically claimed that the alleles "don't separate like shown in your graph". You are simply wrong. I would prefer that people who are interested in the breeding get correct information rather than nebulous claims from someone who unabashedly doesn't have experience with the practical application of said chart.
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
Suppose we have a misunderstanding here? You and I aren't stupid so... gotta go, TTYL about this.
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
Read THIS ARTICLE by de Meijer et al. speaks of one locus
And THAT ONE by Staginnus et al.: 2014 and it's still believed to be one B locus
THE ONE by van Bakel et al. addresses the B locus/loci only vaguely as possibly/likely two linked ones
And the MOST IMPORTANT ONE by Weiblen et al. showing really two linked loci (i.e. phenotypically/chemotypically not distinguishable from one locus)

Guess these publications suffice to prove my point ;) . Else, there's really some sort of misunderstanding going on here.
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
...Find me a homozygous 1:1 being sold by "breeders" and I'll give you one of our pure CBG plants as a prize...
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Were the BT and BD loci not linked, then this sort of genotype would be encountered here and there but it's not. Why? Because the two loci are linked and usually do not segregate. Well, they might but with the short distance it's less than one in thousand or even in a million? There's a formula with which you could calculate chances for a crossing over based on distance in cM. Crossing over is the only way the two loci segregate and that's why chance for crossing over equals chance for a single plant which shows segregation of the two loci.
This segregation might be the reason for high CBG plants such as Santhica, a variety based on one single individual found by coincidence during a mutagenesis trial. Or it simply was the mutagen treatment which did the trick.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Were the BT and BD loci not linked, then this sort of genotype would be encountered here and there but it's not. Why? Because the two loci are linked and usually do not segregate. Well, they might but with the short distance it's less than one in thousand or even in a million? There's a formula with which you could calculate chances for a crossing over based on distance in cM. Crossing over is the only way the two loci segregate and that's why chance for crossing over equals chance for a single plant which shows segregation of the two loci.
This segregation might be the reason for high CBG plants such as Santhica, a variety based on one single individual found by coincidence during a mutagenesis trial. Or it simply was the mutagen treatment which did the trick.

Totally, both the TTDD and ttdd fail to emerge from TTdd x ttDD crosses. I see the miscommunication now, 12.6% of a standard Punnett sample with independent assortment is missing in this scenario. Sorry, I always overlook that; the missing are usually proportionally distributed (1:2:1)--though some strange outliers do not.
 
Last edited:

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
I was referring to something else :) .
At the current state of scientific error, talking of TTdd and ttDD in case of drug type cannabis and hemp, respectively, is correct but using a 4x4 Punnett square isn't. The Td and tD alleles are linked and hence a simple 2x2 square with simplified TD x TD suffices.

THCA and CBDA are of (co-)dominant and not intermediate inheritance (one bell shaped distribution of cannabinoid quantity in the F2 generation, as shown in several publications) and therefore cannabinoid amount is rather due to other traits (available precursors, trichome density etc.). This means that chemotype testing (e.g. chromatography) won't tell genotype ergo distinguish between homo- and heterozygous plants: TTdd and Ttdd will both have THC and no CBD whereas TTDd, TtDd, TtDD, and TTDD all have THC and CBD and that probably at a similar ratio.
Furthermore, your Punnett square not only breaks down to each 3 plants with only THC or CBD and 9 with both cannabinoids (i.e. 1:3:1) but there's also 1 plant with neither THC nor CBD and hence high CBG. That's not what's commonly seen in cross-breeding drug type cannabis with hemp or simply breeding with intermediate types such as charas or hash varieties. Supposedly, there's never been even an indication in any of the germplasm analyses and cross-breeding experiments for the appearance of a double homozygous individual neither of the TTDD nor the ttdd type. Treating the BT and BD loci as one single B locus (i.e. 1:2:1) is closer to reality. Although, none of the publications I've read really hit it spot on. There's always some discrepancy especially the slight shift towards a higher CBD/THC ratio and a loss in overall cannabinoid content but that's the normal discrepancies between biology and statistics.

Taking your CBG variety as an example: chemotype testing won't tell you if it's a ttdd double homozygous plant, a loss of function mutation (either of the BT or BD allele), or the postulated B0 allele. Gene sequencing would be the only way to tell... Talking of which: the Phylos project might already hold the answer to that question.
 
R

Rubber Chicken

Always best to self to reduce heterozygosity. 25% will be high CBD (type III), 50% will be 1:1 (type II), and 25% will be high THC (type I). Where:

T = active THC allele
t = inactive THC allele
D = active CBD allele
d = inactive CBD allele

Thanks for the info and chart. I appreciate it. :)

OK, so, it's best to reverse sex and self pollinate, and then 50% of the offspring will be the same as the parent, which should be 1:1.

Correct?

(When i mentioned that the CBD Crew seeds were 'high CBD' i actually meant 1:1 CDB:THC, were you aware that's what i meant?)

I just want offspring that is the same as the parent.

I think i read somewhere that we could easily test for CBD levels at home somehow, is this just a false memory i have?

Thanks again for any help.
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
...they are 8 centromeres apart on the same chromosome, but they readily segregate...
I re-read the publication with the genetic map: They published 1.1 cM which corresponds to a hypothetical 1.1% uncoupling/segregation rate although at <7 cM segregation is fairly unlikely. Stupid thing is that there are hotspots where crossovers occur and where not. The chance of segregation derived from breeding experiments is given as LOD value: If I'm reading the graph correctly, the LOD for THCA/CBDA is 40 which means that segregation occurs only in 1 of '1 followed by 40 zeroes' meiosis. Hence, chances to obtain a double homozygous plant either of the BT/BD or Bt/Bd type in the F2 is at 10^40 times 10^40 or simply said never. But all the genes on the chromosome LG6 have values greater than 3 which means that there basically never occurs any crossing over on the whole chromosome! Or I'm reading something wrong (I admit, I never really learned how to used/read gene maps and only did/do it for fun)???
 
I was referring to something else :) .
At the current state of scientific error, talking of TTdd and ttDD in case of drug type cannabis and hemp, respectively, is correct but using a 4x4 Punnett square isn't. The Td and tD alleles are linked and hence a simple 2x2 square with simplified TD x TD suffices.

THCA and CBDA are of (co-)dominant and not intermediate inheritance (one bell shaped distribution of cannabinoid quantity in the F2 generation, as shown in several publications) and therefore cannabinoid amount is rather due to other traits (available precursors, trichome density etc.). This means that chemotype testing (e.g. chromatography) won't tell genotype ergo distinguish between homo- and heterozygous plants: TTdd and Ttdd will both have THC and no CBD whereas TTDd, TtDd, TtDD, and TTDD all have THC and CBD and that probably at a similar ratio.
Furthermore, your Punnett square not only breaks down to each 3 plants with only THC or CBD and 9 with both cannabinoids (i.e. 1:3:1) but there's also 1 plant with neither THC nor CBD and hence high CBG. That's not what's commonly seen in cross-breeding drug type cannabis with hemp or simply breeding with intermediate types such as charas or hash varieties. Supposedly, there's never been even an indication in any of the germplasm analyses and cross-breeding experiments for the appearance of a double homozygous individual neither of the TTDD nor the ttdd type. Treating the BT and BD loci as one single B locus (i.e. 1:2:1) is closer to reality. Although, none of the publications I've read really hit it spot on. There's always some discrepancy especially the slight shift towards a higher CBD/THC ratio and a loss in overall cannabinoid content but that's the normal discrepancies between biology and statistics.

Taking your CBG variety as an example: chemotype testing won't tell you if it's a ttdd double homozygous plant, a loss of function mutation (either of the BT or BD allele), or the postulated B0 allele. Gene sequencing would be the only way to tell... Talking of which: the Phylos project might already hold the answer to that question.

Thanks OO for being a good sport, more-than-competent scientist, and gracefully putting up with a moment of acerbity from me. I appreciate your attention to detail and the effort you have exerted to dig into the truth here. This is a topic that I have been actively investigating for 3 years now from both academic and on-the-ground production perspectives. We are both wrong and both right, but the beauty of the exchange is that it is pushing forward our collective understanding of how reality is organized--that's the best part about "science"!

I was wrong above to say that the alleles "readily segregate". That's simply not true. However, they do, in fact, segregate and it is not 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 odds. You are correct that it is based on distance, but the rate of recombination is 1% per map unit (cM). It's not exceedingly rare for these events to occur when you are working with large populations. Take a look at page 1247 of the Weiblen et al. paper.; it happened in their n=62 sample.

Genotyping also identified a single recombinant individual that was homozygous for the hemp-type THCA synthase and homozygous for the marijuana-type nonfunctional CBDA synthase.

I emailed George about this gem in Nov. 2016, as we were searching for pure CBG plants via ttdd (or more appropriately, td / td) and I inquired about the cannabinoid data on that individual plant. His data manager's response:

Across 62 F2 individuals analyzed in the study, the CBG values ranged from 0.005 to 0.45; total cannabinoids ranged from 1.24 to 8.09. Respective values for CT132 do not seem to stand out in that regard. Among drug-type F2s in the study, log(%THC/%CBD) ranged from 1.09 to 3.13 putting CT132 towards the lower end of the range.

To clarify, CT132 is putatively recombinant in that it lacked detectable THCA1 synthase sequence whilst also being homozygous for non-functional CBDA synthase. However, it did exhibit full-length hemp-type THCA sequence bearing non-synonymous mutations with respect to THCA1 synthase. Lacking a detectable functional CBDA synthase, we wouldn't necessarily expect any expressed (truncated) CBDA synthase-like proteins in CT132 to functionally out compete an intact (full-length) THCA synthase even though the latter would be divergent in AA sequence from THCA1. Reiterating the statement in our paper, we interpret CT132's putative recombinant genotype to imply that in the absence of functional CBDA synthase competing for available CBGA, the AA-divergent but full-length hemp-type THCA synthase is a functional enzyme yielding the drug phenotype.

So no, it didn't lead to CBG--it was, technically, a type I phenotype with a type IV genotype. We run into similar plants in our CBG breeding program, though our alleles have been selected for their relative inefficiency at converting CBGa, so ratios of CBG to THC for these types range from 4:1 to 20:1. We are convinced that to get "pure" CBG (> 100:1) requires the presence of an additional gene. If I'm wrong about that, in my defense, it's data-driven (inductive) rather than theoretical (deductive). Oh, and phuck Phylos. :).

The last bit I would like to offer is that, yes, in fact, ratios of CBD to THC (and vice versa) can be used as predictors of underlying genotype. It's not perfect due relative precursor conversion efficiency differences between allele variants, but it's damn obvious when combing through F2 progeny. For type III breeding we toss everything that is less than 20:1 CBD to THC...and do so for a very specific reason that is backed up with a lot of data.
 

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist
Veteran
Pleasure's all mine!
Thanks for pointing out the page 1247 part, completely zapped it. First, I was all excited that it's 1% (which is quite a lot, considering) and then I got all disappointed when looking at the LOD...

VERY interesting quote too! New hope awakens.

Besides, I'm all yours: Science or experience alone have only a friction of the power they unfold when put together. We as a human race aren't strong because some individuals piss further, have deeper pockets, or a bigger whatsoever, no, it's because we can work and talk together, learn from one another, and contribute with our strength where others have weaknesses. Nobody's perfect but when we take the good parts of each one of us and put them together instead of bickering about mistakes, we as a community could well be. But not all are willing to go the extra mile, let alone for free...
 

Nexus7

Well-known member
Interesting discussion guys. Is that what they call "linkage disequilibrium"?

Do you ever do any functional research on how efficiently each of the many BT/BD alleles are able to catalyze the reaction? Affinity to substrate (CBG) and enzyme kinetics and what not.
 
Interesting discussion guys. Is that what they call "linkage disequilibrium"?

Do you ever do any functional research on how efficiently each of the many BT/BD alleles are able to catalyze the reaction? Affinity to substrate (CBG) and enzyme kinetics and what not.

Yes we do. That's what most people are referring to when they get hyped up about the "ratio" of a particular type III or type IV plant.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top