GMT speaks excellent English and is one of the most Knowledgeable people about breeding and genetics at IC.
If you'd been here more than 5 minutes then you would already know that
VG
-
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!
IBL vigor
- Thread starter Atom
- Start date
If you'd been here more than 5 minutes then you would already know that
VG
Mudballs2.0
Active member
Oh i have no doubt of his breeding knowledge and did not question it did i?
You accused him of 'poor English', which is laughable.
Vigor is a pretty broad term and will be influenced by a number of alleles i'm sure... but Mitochondria are the energy factories of cells so they are going to play a large part in overall vigor.
The fact we know that MtDNA is passed soley from the female, and doesn't get the same recombination as all the alleles, is very useful.
VG
Mudballs2.0
Active member
Yep...cuz he has poor english.
Try speakers' corner. People like to argue there.
One must admit to, on occasions, becoming somewhat less than obsessive when it comes to English grammar. I type responses to this site on my telephone, which has a rather small screen, and an even smaller keypad. This increases the dexterity required to generate a written response. I therefore am guilty, of using an economical sub set of commonly used English phrases, or abbreviations of words. I apologise for any confusion this may cause to our members overseas. I would like to point out however, that this is the first time in 18 years of being a member of this site, that I've been criticised for it.
Thank V.G. got my back mate.
Thank V.G. got my back mate.
Mudballs2.0
Active member
Mudballs, to get a truly homozygous plant, you would need to start with a haploid and use the same techniques as with creating tetraploids from diploids, first thing that comes to my mind would be colchicine. That would create a plant with two identical strands of DNA in each new cell. Let's overlook mitosis generated errors down the line for now. The rest of the post was spot on, just pointing out that classical breeding won't create that type of plant at any Fn.
This was poorly contrived given the lead context from my post. I never implied identical strands are needed...he deduced that, why? Idk cuz he wanted to sound grandeous is my guess. Homozygous is just same sequence for a given gene or set of genes. That's why plants look the same, smell the same after after f6...not cuz they have the exact duplicate dna strands. Why would someone educated in this subject matter deduce that? Perhaps it's a language barrier thing. I started by backing him and his post...now im vilified and attacked cuz i said something you dont like. You will never see me or this thread the same again...that saddens me. Humans suck
This was poorly contrived given the lead context from my post. I never implied identical strands are needed...he deduced that, why? Idk cuz he wanted to sound grandeous is my guess. Homozygous is just same sequence for a given gene or set of genes. That's why plants look the same, smell the same after after f6...not cuz they have the exact duplicate dna strands. Why would someone educated in this subject matter deduce that? Perhaps it's a language barrier thing. I started by backing him and his post...now im vilified and attacked cuz i said something you dont like. You will never see me or this thread the same again...that saddens me. Humans suck
Please allow me to expand my response, I clearly assumed too much was already understood. I apologise, it's a common failing of mine.
In post 24, you said:
"That's the heterozygous and homozygous part...an IBL(f6+) is homozygous, yes? Same DNA in each one...then anything NOT of the seed family will be introducing new DNA strand...yes"
This is what I responded to.
The point that I was making is this. You were wrong. I tried to say it in a nice way, but that's the bottom line. At f6, or any f number (Fn), you will still have genetic variance, both within the line and in the two strands of DNA, that each cell in every plant, has.
In post 24, you said:
"That's the heterozygous and homozygous part...an IBL(f6+) is homozygous, yes? Same DNA in each one...then anything NOT of the seed family will be introducing new DNA strand...yes"
This is what I responded to.
The point that I was making is this. You were wrong. I tried to say it in a nice way, but that's the bottom line. At f6, or any f number (Fn), you will still have genetic variance, both within the line and in the two strands of DNA, that each cell in every plant, has.
Mudballs2.0
Active member
How am i wrong? That is what a homozygous population is...the same alleles, the same "sequence". You will have genetic variance...but the same dna is in each plant...the make up may vary slightly, but its the same dna. That's how you got to fkn f6!...from the same P1's...and new dna is needed for vigor. you have inserted a complication that isnt there, isnt implied in any way by me or my sentences. Furthermore the accusations about me editing my posts to make you look bad? That in such extremely poor taste i wish i never met you.
There is no escaping that what you said here is wrong. No big deal but you seem to be desperate to have an argument about it and see yourself as some kind of victim. Call me selfish but i'd prefer knowledgeable people like GMT to be able to teach me stuff rather than be engaged in a pointless argument.
Nothing personal. You should chill out and move on.
VG
Mudballs2.0
Active member
...are you fkn kidding me?...is he fkn kidding me? Im not desperate for an argument you are you keep attacking me when it's not incorrect...you two are fkn mental and just creating reality...i never said it wouldn't have variance...did i? Ur fkn nutcases looking for any reason to be a noisy prick
No, not kidding you. If F6 was homozygous then we would be growing seeds and not bothering with elite cones.
I'm off out to a party now so that's it for me. No one has attacked you, just corrected you and informed you. Stop digging.
VG
I'm off out to a party now so that's it for me. No one has attacked you, just corrected you and informed you. Stop digging.
VG
Mudballs2.0
Active member
...that mind breaking stupidity really happened to me...jesus fkn christ
Mithridate
Well-known member
I'm not up to speed on this subject and cannot offer a bridge between the two concepts unfortunately..
@Mudballs2.0 hey man, how you doing? Didn't know you were also on here. The babies must be a couple nodes tall, did you start to savagely cull already
You know... GMT is a good man, one of the few members who still bother to participate in breeding chat. I know you also know about this stuff. This could be the beginning of a great discussion
After a brief look into plant mtDNA, i understand that the chloroplast can also contain mitochondria. So...does that mean that the chloroplast has the same mitochondria, or could it be different than the 'regular' plant cells? If different, and we are looking at two inheritable mitochondria...that could complicate the matter of maintaining a vigorous line?
Mudballs: "How am i wrong? That is what a homozygous population is...the same alleles, the same "sequence". You will have genetic variance...but the same dna is in each plant"
How can there be variance in that which is the same? This is the sticking point.
cpDNA is transmitted maternally in most flowering plants, biparentally in a few, and paternally in gymnosperms. cpDNA genes have been shown to transpose to the nucleus and there is good evidence that mtDNA, cpDNA, and nuclear genomes exchange genes. The rate of cpDNA evolution generally appears slow both in terms of primary nucleotide sequence and in terms of gene rearrangement.
I would suggest the same selection tools as mtdna, but also that since it's evolution (alteration) is slow, that it's of far lower concern.
How can there be variance in that which is the same? This is the sticking point.
cpDNA is transmitted maternally in most flowering plants, biparentally in a few, and paternally in gymnosperms. cpDNA genes have been shown to transpose to the nucleus and there is good evidence that mtDNA, cpDNA, and nuclear genomes exchange genes. The rate of cpDNA evolution generally appears slow both in terms of primary nucleotide sequence and in terms of gene rearrangement.
I would suggest the same selection tools as mtdna, but also that since it's evolution (alteration) is slow, that it's of far lower concern.
Mudballs2.0
Active member
Hi mithri,View attachment 18749235
I'm not up to speed on this subject and cannot offer a bridge between the two concepts unfortunately..
@Mudballs2.0 hey man, how you doing? Didn't know you were also on here. The babies must be a couple nodes tall, did you start to savagely cull already
You know... GMT is a good man, one of the few members who still bother to participate in breeding chat. I know you also know about this stuff. This could be the beginning of a great discussion
...yeah im on here too...im an idiot looking for his village.
Mithridate
Well-known member
@Mudballs2.0
We'll ask the next passerby, in the meantime.. we can sit on this log and have a chat and a toke
We'll ask the next passerby, in the meantime.. we can sit on this log and have a chat and a toke
