-
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!
Inheritance In Seeds Question
- Thread starter Sam_Skunkman
- Start date
Gram Paw smurf
Member
I would've voted mom, hell still can lol but once the answers already out as a number it's meaningless cause I've already seen the answer.
Came across the thread late myself or would've just participated in the vote n chat.
still an interesting question in a lot of other ways though.
Like any other traits locked up by 1 sex or the other as it kinda goes towards the looks of the seed being all mom maybe other traits are locked up up by 1 or the other too.
Or use as a breeding tool for losing undesirable traits, "just send 'em into the males." if that's possible, I personally think it maybe just like ppl we have some traits only passed down from males n others only passed on by females in a lineage etc.
I personally think we don't know much of fuck all about plants in general never mind weed itself. To me that just says how much we still have to learn though, n how it's really most likely a lot that's even beyond our imagination, can't complain about how much fun it can be trying to figure any of it out though. lol
Ppl can have their roses, n orchids, n agricultural crops n veggie gardens etc. I think we're some of the luckiest on the planet all working with cannabis myself.
Maybe not as traditionally as used to be but a lot more interesting imo. lol
cheers,..............................................................gps
Came across the thread late myself or would've just participated in the vote n chat.
still an interesting question in a lot of other ways though.
Like any other traits locked up by 1 sex or the other as it kinda goes towards the looks of the seed being all mom maybe other traits are locked up up by 1 or the other too.
Or use as a breeding tool for losing undesirable traits, "just send 'em into the males." if that's possible, I personally think it maybe just like ppl we have some traits only passed down from males n others only passed on by females in a lineage etc.
I personally think we don't know much of fuck all about plants in general never mind weed itself. To me that just says how much we still have to learn though, n how it's really most likely a lot that's even beyond our imagination, can't complain about how much fun it can be trying to figure any of it out though. lol
Ppl can have their roses, n orchids, n agricultural crops n veggie gardens etc. I think we're some of the luckiest on the planet all working with cannabis myself.
Maybe not as traditionally as used to be but a lot more interesting imo. lol
cheers,..............................................................gps
I vote option #5, the father and mom.... Of the mom
However...
I crossed one male with females of 4 different strains, the female of the strain with the most swollen calyxes resulted in significantly larger seeds (P-F1), like the family of the female parent indeed.
In P-F2 and P-F3 plants I got only regular size seeds. Then I crossed another of those 4 F1 crosses (Late Night female normally producing small seeds in F1 and a bc) with a P-F2 male, got normal seeds again.
The F2 seeds in those (P-F2 x LateNight) plants I got exceptional large seeds again. It sure seemed to be a trait from the P cross as none of the other crosses including their original parents produced large seeds in F1 and F2. Small plant too, small buds, small calyxes, but huge seeds bursting out early.
The original large female was a "chunk", skunky strain with huge calyxes/bracts, and there seemed to be a direct relation with the seed size.
I tried:
chunk SS (large)
CHaze ss (small)
P-F1 Ss (large)
P-F2 typical F2 ratio.
L8N8xCHaze=Late Night, ss x ss = ss =small.
Late Night x P-F2 = one of the following:
ss x Ss = 50% Ss, 50% ss
ss x SS = all SS
ss x ss = all ss
In those plants, the F2 seeds were large (pic above).
... But if completely dominant I should have had large seeds in the P-F2 plant I used for that last cross. If additive they would not have had large seeds in F1, and likely would have had some in F2.
Need more data...larger plant counts...
In any case, it's obviously the mom that produces the seeds, based on the genes she inherited from her mom and dad.
If additive in a combination from genes from more than the chunk female I used for P-F1, ie. If the original male passed on a required half, I would have likely noticed it in the inbred line of that male already, but given low plant count I can't exclude it either.
I prefer large seeds simply for being larg but see no relation with germ rates.
However...
I crossed one male with females of 4 different strains, the female of the strain with the most swollen calyxes resulted in significantly larger seeds (P-F1), like the family of the female parent indeed.
In P-F2 and P-F3 plants I got only regular size seeds. Then I crossed another of those 4 F1 crosses (Late Night female normally producing small seeds in F1 and a bc) with a P-F2 male, got normal seeds again.
The F2 seeds in those (P-F2 x LateNight) plants I got exceptional large seeds again. It sure seemed to be a trait from the P cross as none of the other crosses including their original parents produced large seeds in F1 and F2. Small plant too, small buds, small calyxes, but huge seeds bursting out early.
The original large female was a "chunk", skunky strain with huge calyxes/bracts, and there seemed to be a direct relation with the seed size.
I tried:
chunk SS (large)
CHaze ss (small)
P-F1 Ss (large)
P-F2 typical F2 ratio.
L8N8xCHaze=Late Night, ss x ss = ss =small.
Late Night x P-F2 = one of the following:
ss x Ss = 50% Ss, 50% ss
ss x SS = all SS
ss x ss = all ss
In those plants, the F2 seeds were large (pic above).
... But if completely dominant I should have had large seeds in the P-F2 plant I used for that last cross. If additive they would not have had large seeds in F1, and likely would have had some in F2.
Need more data...larger plant counts...
In any case, it's obviously the mom that produces the seeds, based on the genes she inherited from her mom and dad.
If additive in a combination from genes from more than the chunk female I used for P-F1, ie. If the original male passed on a required half, I would have likely noticed it in the inbred line of that male already, but given low plant count I can't exclude it either.
I prefer large seeds simply for being larg but see no relation with germ rates.
pastor
Member
Sativied said:
AFAIK,
not from dad, but only mom.
seeds size isn't inherited through nuclear genes, so the dad has absolutely no influence on that trait because it doesn't carry any non-nuclear gene to the progeny.
if you see any variation of this trait into further generations, it due to recombination of the genes of the original mother (or, of course, environmental conditions).
it's non-nuclear inheritance like mitochondrias or chloroplasts.
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks. I did assume whether the genes for seed size were on the X or autosomes males they could still carry the genes and pass it on. So extranuclear / cytoplasmic inheritance. I was going to ask for a reference but it's easy to grab a few based on your comments.
"Nonnuclear Inheritance and Mendelian Patterns - [...] It turns out that nonnuclear inheritance does not follow patterns of independent assortment and segregation, because these patterns are the consequence of nuclear chromosome lineup during gametogenesis."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/non-nuclear-genes-and-their-inheritance-589
From a pdf:
"
It was found that:
(1) Maternal effects predominated in the determination of progeny seed size size and germination characteristics;
(2) Maternal environment during seed development was less important than maternal genotype;
(3) Small but significant variation within maternal families could be observed among individuals sired by different fathers;
(4) Additive genetic variance was significant for seedling size 4 weeks after germination.
"
Still... the Late Night and its parents and offspring have small seeds, the original chunk has large. In the F1s I used Late Night female x Chaze male, and chunk female x chaze male. The first resulted in small, from the late night female, and the second resulted in large, from the chunk female. Chunk x Chaze F2, F3, and F4 seeds are small. A male from that F2 x a Late Night female resulted in small seeds. Breeding that cross in to the next gen however resulted in the same exceptional large seeds I had in chunk and the F1. While it's possible it's a recombination of an older grandmother, I should have encountered larger seeds in other lines too then. The large seeds in the pic I posted sure seem to be crossed into that cross through the male grandparent.
Hi pastor
+1 for knowing about cytoplasmic inheritance.
However, seed size is determined, for the most part, by good old genetic inheritance (nuclear DNA). Standard breeding techniques are quite effective in developing varieties with seeds of a desired size, or oil content, protein content, lack of toxins etc.
If you want to know more about this, do a search on the following string:
QTL (quantitative trait loci) seed size
If you look into this, I think it is interesting to think about how much of the heritability is due to linear, additive effects as opposed to non-linear effects like epistasis.
As to Sam's original question, I don't fully agree with the conclusion he draws (mom only). In general, I think for weed that that tends to be fairly true, but not totally.
If it was the case (mom only), you could pollinate the different branches of an individual female with different males, and all the seeds would be the same. In my experience this is not so.
There are a number of things that influence the seed characteristics of angiosperms, but there are three main things. The three things are all genetic, but different sets of genes:
- the genome of the mom
- the genome of the endosperm
- the genome of the embryo
I don't have the time to go into detail now, but here are some interesting things to look up:
double fertilization
ARRGH-phone ringing with important call, got to go right now, sorry, I'll come back later to add more.
Mofeta,
I too have gotten different seed from one mother using different fathers. Size, density, overall looks were extremely similar but seduction coats were different colors.
With one cross to one father, seed coats were very dark & mottled. Same mother different father seed coat was more tan & slightly mottled/spotted.
It really makes one wonder...
What, really, is going on?
I too have gotten different seed from one mother using different fathers. Size, density, overall looks were extremely similar but seduction coats were different colors.
With one cross to one father, seed coats were very dark & mottled. Same mother different father seed coat was more tan & slightly mottled/spotted.
It really makes one wonder...
What, really, is going on?
I read a paper where the results suggested seed size in chick peas is controlled or affected by 2 separate loci and seemed to follow simple Mendelian rules. What aided this research is the fact that the chick pea genome has been mapped (known markers).
It sure seems to be a combination of all, regular/direct, extranuclair, maternal and paternal genotype and environment.
"Apr 27, 2015 - (3) Seed weight was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype, with little or no xenia and cytoplasmic effects". -Rapeseed
"Cytoplasmic inheritance also may be important in determining seed size in Oryza sativa (Chandraratna and Sakai, 1960)." - From "Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and, Evolution of Dormancy and Germination", which also covers examples of both maternal and paternal as well as biparental influences.
"Index selection on seed traits under direct, cytoplasmic and maternal effects in multiple environments"
http://www.cab.zju.edu.cn/ics/faculty/zhuj/paper/E85.pdf
"Zhu and Weir (1994a, 1994b) investigated the cyto- plasmic and maternal effects for plant seeds containing diploid embryos or triploid endosperms. They proposed genetic models based on the Willham (1963) method by including seed direct genetic effect (GO), cytoplasmic effect (C), and maternal nuclear genetic effect (Gm). Zhu (1996) further extended these seed models by including environ- mental effect (E) and genotype by environment interaction effect (GE)."
"Maternal and nonmaternal genetic factors were involved in the seed size variation"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC16397/
"The effect of maternal and paternal environments on seed characters in the herbaceous plant Campanula Americana (Campanulaceae)"
http://www.amjbot.org/content/88/5/832.full
Apparently it differs per species and more research into cannabis sativa is required for a definitive answer.
"Apr 27, 2015 - (3) Seed weight was mainly controlled by the maternal genotype, with little or no xenia and cytoplasmic effects". -Rapeseed
"Cytoplasmic inheritance also may be important in determining seed size in Oryza sativa (Chandraratna and Sakai, 1960)." - From "Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and, Evolution of Dormancy and Germination", which also covers examples of both maternal and paternal as well as biparental influences.
"Index selection on seed traits under direct, cytoplasmic and maternal effects in multiple environments"
http://www.cab.zju.edu.cn/ics/faculty/zhuj/paper/E85.pdf
"Zhu and Weir (1994a, 1994b) investigated the cyto- plasmic and maternal effects for plant seeds containing diploid embryos or triploid endosperms. They proposed genetic models based on the Willham (1963) method by including seed direct genetic effect (GO), cytoplasmic effect (C), and maternal nuclear genetic effect (Gm). Zhu (1996) further extended these seed models by including environ- mental effect (E) and genotype by environment interaction effect (GE)."
"Maternal and nonmaternal genetic factors were involved in the seed size variation"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC16397/
"The effect of maternal and paternal environments on seed characters in the herbaceous plant Campanula Americana (Campanulaceae)"
http://www.amjbot.org/content/88/5/832.full
Apparently it differs per species and more research into cannabis sativa is required for a definitive answer.
we must give the traits assumed by wild types a dominant tag more than contrary, as wild things left alone favor the dominant allele? Recessive traits fixed or not within loci or multiple loci, are at risk of being altered within any given population - by outside influence, traits controlled by fixed dominant loci are not. Therefore, wild types are chock full of traits with a fixed dominant loci condition sir, or will be,, it is the eventual inevitable result when favors are given. Or something like that..
lol,,, not to give any credence to the oh so many folk who wrongfully so take the word dominant much much too literally.. None the less, it should be pointed out i guess that the word was not chosen at random. There is an advantage,, and advantages in the end (eg, in wild types) usually get pushed over the top and end up winning..
The advantage is that it's dominant in expressing, the phenotype. The word dominant is specifically about the relation with the other allele in the genotype, it does not mean it has better chances of survival or will increase the gene frequency in a population, merely that it wins from its recessive counterpart. On it's own an allele is not dominant, and an allele that is dominant over another can be recessive to a third.
If that would be the case the whole concept of dominant-recessive would no longer apply eventually. No, without artificial/natural selection for desired/useful genes there will be little variation in gene frequency and genotype frequency across generations in a population (hardie-weinberg principle). Wild things that mate randomly favor phenotypes that happened to help the population to survive, not alleles that happen to dominate if in a heterozygous genotype. Fortunately, for the polar bears and swedish blue eyed blonde chicks with dimples.
it's dominant in being the genotype nobody said anything about growing anything. Dominance is specifically about the relation with the other allele in on the locus. yes,, it means it has a better cance of survival and will increase in gene frequency within the population. it does not matter to a third an advantage is an advantage and advantage wins over dissadvantage everytime.
that is the case, that is the concept, and it is going nowhere, it will always apply. Phenotype that happen to help a population survive are hard pressed to exist over the long term in a homozygous recessive condition.
sweeds and blonde chicks and dimples are a perfect example they get eaten for lunch when they venture out into the wild blue yonder genepool and everybody knows this..
that is the case, that is the concept, and it is going nowhere, it will always apply. Phenotype that happen to help a population survive are hard pressed to exist over the long term in a homozygous recessive condition.
sweeds and blonde chicks and dimples are a perfect example they get eaten for lunch when they venture out into the wild blue yonder genepool and everybody knows this..
lol…maybe that’s why they make blond hair dye. Sorry girls, no offense intended.
No, that's a common misconception. Dominant does not mean more common or having an advantage in surviving.
No, like I said, with random mating without selecting for desired genes there will be little variation across generations. Or see polar bears. Recessive genes do not dissappear automatically from a population, frequency wise they behave the same as dominant genes. I'm not interested in what everynody thinks to know, or what one thinks everyone knows, ask any genetisist. Dominant does not equal advantage nor common. http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist
Heck, even the most basal source addresses that common misconception:
"Addressing common misconceptions
Dominance is not inherent. One allele can be dominant to a second allele, recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth.
Dominance is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, that is, whether it is regarded as "normal" or "abnormal," "standard" or "nonstandard," "healthy" or "diseased," "stronger" or "weaker," or more or less extreme. A dominant allele may account for any of these trait types.
Dominance does not determine whether an allele is deleterious, neutral or advantageous. [...] Dominance is also unrelated to the distribution of alleles in the population. Some dominant alleles are extremely common, while others are extremely rare. The most common allele in a population may be recessive when combined with some rare variants.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)#Addressing_common_misconceptions
Every reputable resource on the matter addresses it specfically, specifically because it's such a common misconception of the dominance-recessive concept.
And again, the Hardie-Weinberg principle, "They showed that the frequency of genotypes in a population depends on the frequency of genes in the preceding generation, not on the frequency of the genotypes."
"Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding" - THE book.
And dominance does not increase the gene nor genotype frequency unless you or nature selects for it, which is not done because it's dominant but because it's desired (by breeder) or useful (in the wild).
