IBLs, Phylos results vs phenos?

[flyontoast]

My question may be more a misunderstanding or problem with Phylos testing than a breeding question/issues. I want to understand In-Bred Lines and pheno results better. I'd like to use Blueberry Muffin as an example because it claims to be a pretty stable IBL at F4 but also has some relevant new Phylos results.


For BM #4 the closest relatives doesn't even show the parent line (but I don't think razzleberry is in the galaxy yet), and the genetic profile is all "hemp, skunk, CBD."

https://phylos.bio/sims/variety/PGT-161666/humboldt-seed-company/blueberry-muffin-4


For BM #10 the closest relatives only shows 1 of the parents (that is in the galaxy), and genetic profile is "skunk, hemp, OG, CBD, berry".
https://phylos.bio/sims/variety/PGT-54054/humboldt-seed-company/blueberry-muffin-10


The BM 2018 test shows the one parents and has a totally different genetic profile with "skunk, hemp, OG, CBD."
https://phylos.bio/sims/variety/PGT-115342/humboldt-seed-company/blueberry-muffin-2018


So I likely don't understand what these things mean at all. I would have thought that the genetics of an IBL would not sometimes show berry, sometimes show OG and then sometimes neither.


The "novelty" score is also pretty common despite it having ONLY other BM and it's parent Panty Dropper as close relatives. I would think that makes it rare?

Further more, if it's actually a stable IBL, it is rated as having a mid-level amount of genetic variation.


My goal is to practice making seeds for myself with an IBL. Is Phylos just leading me astray? Is there anything useful in Phylos profiles to aid me in selecting IBLs?

 

[Dog Star]

Stable IBL at F4... LOL

Somebody plays with your mind bro..

IBLs in Fgen become around F7,F8 if job was done proper...


Also why you use Phylos... here we have lot bigger minds that also dont understand
what a heck is all about.. dont bother your mind with those shit,its not usefull at all..


There is some IBL lines on market but you need to google some other sites,not thru Phylos..

 

[MJPassion]

Problem with Phylos is that none of the samples are fact checked!


If somebody sent in a mislabeled sample that would screw with the galaxy and how varieties are related to one another.

 

[bigtacofarmer]

It would be interesting to see the galaxy with all the unverifiable samples taken out. As well as any of the extreme polyhybrid stuff that just blurs the view. Seems like everytime I use it to try and learn something it raises as many questions as it answers.

 

[jaypopnseeds]

Stable IBL at F4... LOL

Somebody plays with your mind bro..

IBLs in Fgen become around F7,F8 if job was done proper...


Also why you use Phylos... here we have lot bigger minds that also dont understand
what a heck is all about.. dont bother your mind with those shit,its not usefull at all..


There is some IBL lines on market but you need to google some other sites,not thru Phylos..

F4 === pretty fucking inbred. For every filial generation beyond 1, on average 50% of heterozygous sites in the parents become homozygous. So by F4, 87.5% of the sites heterozygous in the F1 are now homozygous. That’s pretty damn inbred. Going from F4 to F7 is having a pretty minimal effect.

For the OP - I used to do evolutionary genomics research. There’s a lot I don’t trust about Phylos results. The skunk vs hemp vs whatever results they have are particularly problematic. Those sort of results are only meaningful if they’ve identified markers that are specific to those populations. The issue is, those populations aren’t even distinct. OG is a polyhybrid. Skunk is a polyhybrid. So any markers they’ve identified are going to be found in other populations and are indicative of literally nothing. Ignore them. They mean nothing.

 

[browntrout]

F4 === pretty fucking inbred. For every filial generation beyond 1, on average 50% of heterozygous sites in the parents become homozygous. So by F4, 87.5% of the sites heterozygous in the F1 are now homozygous. That’s pretty damn inbred. Going from F4 to F7 is having a pretty minimal effect.

For the OP - I used to do evolutionary genomics research. There’s a lot I don’t trust about Phylos results. The skunk vs hemp vs whatever results they have are particularly problematic. Those sort of results are only meaningful if they’ve identified markers that are specific to those populations. The issue is, those populations aren’t even distinct. OG is a polyhybrid. Skunk is a polyhybrid. So any markers they’ve identified are going to be found in other populations and are indicative of literally nothing. Ignore them. They mean nothing.

Agreed.

 

[Dog Star]

So 87.5% made them IBLs...??


then try Karma OG F4 and then come back with personal experienced feedback.. LOL


by your claim there are more IBLs on market but a true is that 87.5% doesnt made them
IBL genetics.. there is so much phenos in F4 that anyone who claim this are IBLs
have big problem with own eye sight and mental capabilities for a good selection..

 

[browntrout]

So 87.5% made them IBLs...??


then try Karma OG F4 and then come back with personal experienced feedback.. LOL


by your claim there are more IBLs on market but a true is that 87.5% doesnt made them
IBL genetics.. there is so much phenos in F4 that anyone who claim this are IBLs
have big problem with own eye sight and mental capabilities for a good selection..

87.5% of sites should be homozygous at F4... meaning that it doesn't mean that no variation exists in my small understanding.

Looking at the phylos research if we can take anything from it, it shows most strains share a lot of traits (and are closer linked than we might want to believe?) and likely the majority of the traits at F4 are just common cannabis/hemp traits and some strain specific?

 

[zif]

F4 === pretty fucking inbred. For every filial generation beyond 1, on average 50% of heterozygous sites in the parents become homozygous. So by F4, 87.5% of the sites heterozygous in the F1 are now homozygous. That’s pretty damn inbred. Going from F4 to F7 is having a pretty minimal effect.

This is not true in cannabis. And misleading in general.

If cannabis were strictly self-pollinating, you'd be interested in the percentage of progeny homozygous at a locus in a given generation. That series goes to 87.5% at a single locus by S4. If you think 100 loci might contribute to interesting traits, it takes until S11. That might qualify as pretty inbred, but in-the-wild selfing species could easily be 10s, 100s, or 1000s of generations further along in selfing.

Cannabis, though, is an obligate outcrosser, with selfing being tricky beyond S4 or S5 due to deleterious recessive traits. So, for instance, even if you're using full sib mating, F10 or F11 would not be outrageously inbred.

Skunk #1, for example, is F10+ and yet I can't remember anyone complaining that it is hellaciously inbred.

Everything interesting in cannabis breeding follows from three facts:
- it's an obligate outcrosser
- but selfing is possible under certain circumstances (e.g., STS)
- and clonal propagation allows specific plants (i.e., favorable combinations of alleles) to be exactly revisited in subsequent breeding.

Pretending that it's a selfing species misses everything cool about it!

 

[flyontoast]

This is not true in cannabis. And misleading in general.

If cannabis were strictly self-pollinating, you'd be interested in the percentage of progeny homozygous at a locus in a given generation. That series goes to 87.5% at a single locus by S4. If you think 100 loci might contribute to interesting traits, it takes until S11. That might qualify as pretty inbred, but in-the-wild selfing species could easily be 10s, 100s, or 1000s of generations further along in selfing.

Cannabis, though, is an obligate outcrosser, with selfing being tricky beyond S4 or S5 due to deleterious recessive traits. So, for instance, even if you're using full sib mating, F10 or F11 would not be outrageously inbred.

Skunk #1, for example, is F10+ and yet I can't remember anyone complaining that it is hellaciously inbred.

Everything interesting in cannabis breeding follows from three facts:
- it's an obligate outcrosser
- but selfing is possible under certain circumstances (e.g., STS)
- and clonal propagation allows specific plants (i.e., favorable combinations of alleles) to be exactly revisited in subsequent breeding.

Pretending that it's a selfing species misses everything cool about it!

Why are you talking about selfing? Jaypopnseeds was talking about hetro- and homezygous site, not species. What you say "That series goes to 87.5% at a single locus by S4", you are saying that would not be true for F4? Are saying that in-bred has to be F10?



I didn't intend to use in-bred as derogatory term. I used in-bred in the sense of "stabilized line" or "predictable traits." Predictable plants from seed is desirable in all other horticulture/agriculture industries. So, for example, when a breeder's seed catalogue says something like "two phenos should be expected, a tall one with nd a more squat one, but effects are identical." That to me sounds like a well "in-bred" line that a breeder has worked on and you should be able to breed the best female and male from a package to continue the lineage (assuming no huge environmental influences). If an in-bred line ends up worse than the parental stock, that is a selection error by the breeder (and I don't mean selfing obviously). Are disagreeing with that part?



Humboldt Seed Company claims that farms do/could germinate their 2017 seed stock of Blueberry Muffin and harvest an entire greenhouse of plants from seed and market it all under the same name. While the grower may notice some plants with slightly different structure and hues of purple, the customer would get the same smell and effects from the cure buds, no matter which plants was in their bag. So they are claiming they have stabilized the distinct Blueberry Muffin smell and effects: that they will almost always be true from seed. That sounds like a pretty big accomplishment, is it not? Should that not be called stable and/or properly in-bred?

 

[Mengsk]

There is something that happens here, I am not entirely sure how to articulate it but that is also my point. It isn't always necessary to drag out the details. Some smart people can write a book on the subject. And some smart people realize that you do not need a book every time. Sometimes one sentence or one photograph is enough to tell a plain clear complete story that anyone can understand. Not convoluted for some specialized technical argument between self-identified experts to take place.

When things become increasingly complex sometimes it is necessary to take a step back. When I say "we don't know," it isn't so much of a humble statement that others or myself aren't smart or capable of understanding. It is only meant as a counterbalance. If one guy is touting how genius a new thing is with lots of big words and technical jargon. Then someone should be the voice of reason, in other words you don't know what you are talking about. Just hyping up your story with fancy words to sell more copies. Add advertising or charm hire a motivational speaker when substance is lacking.

Many things come into play with plant breeding. This goes back to my original point - even if we are able to discuss numerous details at length and with accuracy, we aren't always actually helping the big picture. Just because I can draw out a six page diagram of P numbers and percentages, doesn't mean that I need to or that I should.

Something I don't hear repeated too often, is that genetics (even cannabis plant genetics! especially plant genetics, let alone human!) is far more complex than anyone understands. Some braggart wants to be the first one to boast they've modified a gene or created a new strain. But the Frankenstein movie has a moral to the story. You may not hear it from the guy who is doing CRISPR right now, but you will hear it from me. Most if not every single one of these people hasn't a clue what they are actually doing. Just throwing darts in the dark and then pretending like they are a genius when something happens. The people with their hands on that stuff has more to do with where they were born and how much money their parents have than any plant science or intelligence. If you follow the money then you can see it is in fact all about money, what a surprise.

The pharma and biotech industries lead the way in poisoning both the ground water via toxification (so pharma and biotech #1 causes of cancer and lupus) and the ground surface with the tech pharma gentrification axis. Nobody will hire "racial profiles" for scam-gentrification centred jobs. I have discovered this. The hiring and the rental or housing units are a starting point for social engineers. Tech jobs don't actually have to be anything of substance, they can exist as 100% front or excuse to displace residents and move other residents into an area. My evidence of this is many new transplants who do not possess any real value over the people they displaced. I've seen it first hand much too close for comfort.

3 plants x 3 plants which is then taken to an F4 generation, is not the same genetic pool as 300 plants x 300 plants taken to F4. Both may have "an average of" 87.5% shared DNA but what exactly is that telling you? This may not be the best comparison but it has also been noted that 96% of DNA is shared between chimpanzees and humans. Perhaps I could suggest that 99.95% is a threshold for "inbred." In that case F4 would need at least ten more generations to make it over the 1/2 way point to being an "IBL."

 

[Gaslit]

Gonna need genomes not DNA

 

[mexweed]

reading about skunk #1 was how I learned about IBL strains, thought it was the most inbred next to NL

 

[djonkoman]

Why are you talking about selfing? Jaypopnseeds was talking about hetro- and homezygous site, not species. What you say "That series goes to 87.5% at a single locus by S4", you are saying that would not be true for F4? Are saying that in-bred has to be F10?

I'm not who you were replying to, but I can answer that.

the thing is, those numbers only works if both parents are identical. like with selfing, or the f1 of 2 completely homozygous lines, but not F-generations after that. it goes back to those punnet squares(with AA, Aa and aa). in case both parents are heterozygous for a certain gene(Aa), there is a 50% chance that a random plant of it's offspring will be homozygous for it(both the AA and aa plants).

however, instead of talking about 1 single gene, you can extrapolate that to all genes: if 1 gene has 50% chance to become homozygous, each generation about 50% of all the genes that are heterozygous become homozygous.

however, with f-generations you don't know wether the parentplants are identical. for example you may 'lose' already homozygous genes again, because one plant is AA and the other aa, so the offspring is heterozygous again there. so your progress towards homozygosity will be less as those 50% each generation you get with selfing.

 

[jaypopnseeds]

I'm not who you were replying to, but I can answer that.

the thing is, those numbers only works if both parents are identical. like with selfing, or the f1 of 2 completely homozygous lines, but not F-generations after that. it goes back to those punnet squares(with AA, Aa and aa). in case both parents are heterozygous for a certain gene(Aa), there is a 50% chance that a random plant of it's offspring will be homozygous for it(both the AA and aa plants).

however, instead of talking about 1 single gene, you can extrapolate that to all genes: if 1 gene has 50% chance to become homozygous, each generation about 50% of all the genes that are heterozygous become homozygous.

however, with f-generations you don't know wether the parentplants are identical. for example you may 'lose' already homozygous genes again, because one plant is AA and the other aa, so the offspring is heterozygous again there. so your progress towards homozygosity will be less as those 50% each generation you get with selfing.

This is true. I’m assuming someone is selecting well and is picking like phenotypes, roughly half of the heterozygous sites should become homozygous. If someone’s doing shoddy selection, it’ll take longer.

 

[Somatek]

Humboldt Seed Company claims that farms do/could germinate their 2017 seed stock of Blueberry Muffin and harvest an entire greenhouse of plants from seed and market it all under the same name. While the grower may notice some plants with slightly different structure and hues of purple, the customer would get the same smell and effects from the cure buds, no matter which plants was in their bag. So they are claiming they have stabilized the distinct Blueberry Muffin smell and effects: that they will almost always be true from seed. That sounds like a pretty big accomplishment, is it not? Should that not be called stable and/or properly in-bred?

Until it's independently verified there's no value in their claim as it's marketing and companies have been saying strains are "stable, IBL" for years while ignoring the huge variation shown in their packs. When I grow black plum tomato seeds I know what to expect as it's a stable, heritage IBL that produces consistent plants. I haven't seen that in any pot seeds yet so I tend to be very skeptical and assume any claims are just marketing hype.