Phenotypes And Genotypes How To Know For Sure What Your Breeding

[derkaderk]

Speaking truth to power. Respect @KiLoEleMeNt

 

[KiLoEleMeNt]

Thankyou @derkaderk
I truly appreciate your props and it's rite back at cha bro mad respect for you as well keep farmin on bud And Jah bless:angelic:

ALSO A P.S. To All

I do very much hope everyone has a chance to take a minute and watch the video at the end of the last message, it has touched me in a way I can't explain and has caused me to stand up to actively seek a way to inspire myself, others, and the community in general or even just the US as a people in that we call the human race to better themselves as well as out planets health. It is heart wrenching to think it has come so far in the destruction of our ecosystems and environment that people have to speak so loudly to make a difference and stop what we see destroying our beautiful planet, our people our SOULS in fact in which most of us have already sold for something else long lost. And the cries of the ones who care the cries of the planet itself still can be ignored by most all that hear it.

It is a dam Shame:sorry:

:bag:

 

[KiLoEleMeNt]

So I Was just emailing someone when I noticed that a fellow farmer had sent me an email with this bit of coincidentally similar information titled nearly exact to this thread "I promise i did not see this article before this and the titles are just ironic coincidences altho they did have it first" Really the irony is the only reason I am sharing it with everyone, but also because it is of the same subject matter to an extent and touches some of the things i will for the most part be leaving out of this thread so this will cover it for me as i dont want to say certain things they have claimed are true soooooo..... hope you all find it as funny as I do and enjoy reading it more than I did. GLHF

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabi...pes-and-phenotypes-what-makes-a-strain-unique

 

[MrBelvedere]

@KiLoEleMeNt really a great write up, you are a truly gifted writer- hope you keep at it. Happy Friday

 

[KiLoEleMeNt]

Ok everybody I am going to finally add to the thread again. So i ask you to please 'PLEASE' keep in mind that the information contained within what I have gotten is somewhat incomplete.

Simply put the proper studies have not been done I had plans to do them myself to be positive and show any negative effects then post it here but I have fallen behind on to many other things that I have to get done before next month when school starts up again for me so to ask for a favor from the people who are going to understand the importance and the individual information itself, I still have not finished this essay and I may never be able to which will make me fall below a 3.0 so if you think you can help or have any thoughts, questions, feel free to ask prefer to use PM and if someone, anyone can help me out, to be more complete and accurate with actual experience or even a college student/ Graduate of plant biology or lab testing make this be one of your fun tests at home please I will trade you something for your work if interested pm me I could really use your help if you do not fall into the two categories student/Graduate educated in lab testing as mentioned above I truely appreciate your thoughts but I am only going to be using the information given by a few breeders and if anyone who does fall into the categories mentioned above not that you couldn't have the correct information on it just don't want to get a bad grad when I turn it in to my prof ok here is a bit more than you should be familiar with this and takes time to replace the old information about this did me lmao I'm still lost in the development stages for sure...

 

[KiLoEleMeNt]

Many species have become conscripted for studies in plant biology, with the choices usually driven by considerations such as genetic potential, developmental complexity, or biochemical exclusivity or by a combination of these features. Also, species have been chosen for possessing characteristics of a primarily economic interest, such as the synthesis of storage compounds, for example, and this may be combined with morphological and developmental attributes such as fruit or seed development. Maize (Zea mays) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) may be cited as established models in this category. Many models in plant biology research fall into a category that derives its rationale from commercial value. They have been favored primarily because of the species' nature as an agricultural commodity and therefore possess a bounty of characteristics of primary interest. In no small part, priorities in research funding in plant biology, based on perceived immediate benefits, have led to a concentration on these species. It is remarkable, however, that species with no intrinsic commercial value chosen at least in part for experimental expediency or for unique developmental or phenotypic characters have been indispensable prerequisites for fundamental breakthroughs, providing correlative application potential for the crop-type models. Indeed, expounding the importance of choosing an appropriate organism to facilitate the study of biological phenomena is akin to carrying owls to Athens.

The development of modern concepts of genetics, successful to an extent that a heightened attention to the progress of genetic studies has become part of our everyday culture and political awareness, started with the development of a few models such as Escherichia coli and its phages, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), Drosophila melanogaster, and corn. Interesting is how important Mendel viewed the choice of organisms. While working his way through several plant models, Mendel noted, “The selection of the plant group which is to serve for experiments of this kind must be made with all possible care if it is desired to avoid from the outset every risk of questionable results” (Orel, 1996; Henig, 2000). The advantages of the self-fertilizing pea (Pisum sativum) plants, combined with Mendel's quantitative training in physics, greatly facilitated advancement through scrupulous analysis and visionary interpretation, leading to the hypotheses of inherited “factors” (Lander and Weinberg, 2000). Along this road, plant model organisms have—in the past and continuing to this date—been instrumental in revealing many important principles of genetics. Plant models have seminally aided our knowledge of chromosome structure, division and genome organization, paramutation and gene mimicry, gene silencing, and, certainly, DNA transposition.
ARABIDOPSIS BECOMES THE PREEMINENT MODEL

The earliest Arabidopsis research is associated with the names of Friedrich Laibach (1900s), with pioneering work on chromosome structure and function, and Erna Rheinholz (1940s), with mutational genetic experimentation (Glass, 1951;Rédei, 1992). The latter studies resulted in the first report of Arabidopsis mutants and revealed the wide array of phenotypes that were controlled by single genes. Thus, the foundation was laid for the use of an inconspicuous weed as the primary model for plant genetics and biology research of the future. The adoption of Arabidopsis as a plant genetic model has since played a crucial role in our understanding of plant genes and their biological functions (Somerville, 2000;Meinke et al., 1998). Arabidopsis represents the quintessential model system chosen exclusively for its experimental attributes. Significantly, Arabidopsis possesses no redeeming agricultural features, which might explain the reluctance of its widespread acceptance until the 1980s. Its ascent to glory since has been based on an inspired and visionary interaction, rarely encountered, between scientists and administrators of funding agencies (National Science Foundation, 1990). The features of Arabidopsis that first attracted genetics researchers, comparable with the D. melanogaster model, were small size, high fecundity, and a rapid life cycle. Not unlike D. melanogaster, these qualities have allowed for the compaction of space and the time needed for experiments. After the advent of molecular genetics and the cloning of genes, small genome size became, for some time, another important explicitly helpful attribute of Arabidopsis and pointed the way to its choice as the first plant genome to be completely sequenced. Also, the ability to transform Arabidopsis evolved from stages of considerable difficulty to the present situation that can be described as almost effortless (Bent, 2000), and this ease of transformation has placed Arabidopsis, in this respect, in an advantageous position over many other important model systems including animal models. This has led to the development of large-scale forward and reverse genetic screens to identify the function of unprecedented numbers of genes (Maes et al., 1999; Weigel et al., 2000;Young et al., 2001).
POST-ARABIDOPSIS GENOMICS

We have entered the era of post-Arabidopsis genome sequence research. In essence, this means that we must begin to think about what direction research should take after some functional information is known about all genes in the Arabidopsis ecotype Columbia genome. One rationale for adding new models is now the desire to harness more evolutionary variation and ecological breadth of traits but at the same time retain as many as possible of the advantages that make Arabidopsis so attractive (Pigliucci, 1998). It is becoming increasingly clear that the genetics of some traits are refractive to studies using Arabidopsis, owing to the evolutionary position occupied by the Arabidopsis genome. The evolutionary history of Arabidopsis, reflected in specific genes and alleles and their hardwired interactions, is such that even the vast arsenal of Arabidopsis-based molecular tools cannot be used exclusively on Arabidopsis to fully understand a number of important traits. In other words, critical genes affecting at least some important biological traits may be absent altogether or exist in the Arabidopsis genome in forms that have evolved to function in other ways. For example, genes that are crucial in determining traits such as perennial growth, the development of salt glands, or genes for nodulation may be altogether absent. Also, an Arabidopsis gene that is known to function in resistance to a specific pathogen may still resemble closely a gene from tomato that evolved to control resistance to a very different pathogen. An important future goal will be to identify those critical genes by choosing and utilizing appropriate genomes (plants) that display important traits that are not obvious or easy to measure in the commonly studied ecotypes of Arabidopsis.

Expansion of the genomics tools in other important model species such as rice (Oryza sativa) and maize will facilitate the search for gene functions outside the evolutionary position of the Arabidopsis genome. Certainly, the completion of the sequencing of the rice genome will offer the opportunity to obtain functional information about many genes that have evolved in Arabidopsis beyond our ability to recognize easily in other species, and thereby assign function to them simply by comparison to Arabidopsis sequences (Bevan and Murphy, 1999).

These genomes or expressed sequence tag (EST) databases will facilitate direct comparisons between the phenotypes of gene knockouts of seemingly related or identical genes from different species. Such information will be crucial to the analysis of sequences similar enough to know that they are related, but not similar enough to be confident that they have the same or even similar functions. Comparisons of these knockouts will provide bountiful information on the evolution of biological function and the basis of ecological adaptation of genes that have diverged during the separation of species. The limiting factor in obtaining these important comparisons will be the ability to obtain gene knockouts in specific genes of different plant species that do not have available the molecular genetic tools of Arabidopsis, in particular, ease of transformation and availability of tagged mutant collections for reverse genetic screens. However, RNA interference technology (Citovsky, 1999; Chuang and Meyerowitz, 2000; DiSerio et al., 2001;Vaucheret and Fagard, 2001) should prove very useful for producing specific mutants in various species even when transformation for mutant generation is inefficient. Yet for several species that have served as genetic models such as tomato, maize, barley (Hordeum vulgare), rice, snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus), and others, there are certainly many traits where mutants are already available, and corresponding gene knockouts in Arabidopsis might easily be found for a comparison of phenotypes.

Since emerging EST collections and expression profiles show us already that there is much more variance in expressed genes in the plant world than anticipated, it is becoming increasingly imperative that we tap different genetic resources. Along with EST databases for many more crop plants and even exotic species with important traits that are missing in both crops and Arabidopsis, we will also eventually need gene knockout collections in many of these species. Tomato, rice, and maize knockout collections, for example, will not be sufficient.

Certainly, many of our other model plant systems will continue to serve as sources of important information about the function of unique genes. However, the Arabidopsis model, and the powerful tools associated with it, has presented a sort of “gold standard” for model systems. Our commentary is about Mendel's notion on the choice of models. The immense value of the Arabidopsis model comes with the recognition that Arabidopsis has certain limitations, and the community of plant scientists is certainly aware of these, especially the fact that Arabidopsis overtly lacks many traits of interest. Then what is next? We argue here for models that include as much as possible the well-known advantages of Arabidopsis but have the ecophysiological, developmental and biochemical backgrounds, and lifestyles of interest to many who have not yet fallen under the Arabidopsis spell. In essence, we implore the recruiting of more Arabidopsis ecotypes, which may be found in environments as diverse as possible. Also, we suggest that certain relatives of Arabidopsis in the crucifer family could provide superior models. Searches for such potential models have already begun (), and they should continue in earnest.
FULL USE OF THE ARABIDOPSIS GERMPLASM

The most obvious germplasm that is available to explore for traits absent from the commonly used Arabidopsis ecotypes is, of course, the reservoir of additional Arabidopsis ecotypes, because they carry the important experimental attributes needed for rapid and efficient genetic studies. Alonso-Blanco and Koornneef (2000) have already pointed out the limited availability of traits within the surprisingly narrow genetic diversity of the commonly studied ecotypes. Indeed, almost all studies using Arabidopsis have been restrained to very few ecotypes that are also closely related (Rédei, 1992). Even if genes controlling certain traits are present in the widely studied ecotypes, identifying many of these genes can be hampered by focusing genetic screens on only a few ecotypes because genes in any particular genome may be redundant (have overlapping functions) or may be silent (already nonfunctional). A good example of such a phenomenon is the difference in the induction of early flowering by vernalization of laboratory versus natural ecotypes of Arabidopsis that is controlled by apparent functional and nonfunctional alleles of FLC and FRI loci (Michaels and Amasino, 1999). Therefore, we emphatically agree withAlonso-Blanco and Koornneef (2000), who pointed to the considerable benefit that would accrue from including a broader genetic range of Arabidopsis ecotypes in the search for gene functions. Use of this wider germplasm base for both map-based and insertion mutagenesis-based gene identification will be a task for the near future. One may be certain that there will be great rewards because of the different life styles of many ecotypes. The large potential benefit of such a widening of the genetic base is now being recognized, and even different species of Arabidopsis are gaining attention ().

The question is about which ecotypes and related species could be targeted. Although much more information is needed to help answer this question, some efforts to characterize Arabidopsis-related species are under way. The genus Arabidopsis is composed of approximately 10 diploid species. At least two other genera exist with species that are closely related to Arabidopsis including the Arabis group that is centered in Eurasia and the North AmericanBoecheragroup (previously classified asArabis). Although these relatives of Arabidopsis offer some unusual characteristics, such as a perennial life cycle, many also have undesirable features, from a molecular genetics perspective, notably self-incompatibility. Nevertheless, such germplasm within the Cruciferae are already being exploited and tested for use in the identification of genes controlling characteristics not accessible in Arabidopsis germplasm. Several laboratories are working to establish recombinant inbred lines, linkage maps, and bacteria artificial chromosome clone libraries of Arabidopsis lyrata and other closely related species ().

NOT ARABIDOPSIS BUT STILL “ALL IN THE FAMILY”

We seek genes that control important characteristics for life under stress that may be absent, or at least are functionally challenged, in Arabidopsis. There are no known ecotypes of Arabidopsis with extreme tolerance to any abiotic stresses. Even so, genes that characterize plant “extremophiles” may actually be lurking close to the Arabidopsis home and be more accessible than previously thought. The crucifer (Brassicaceae) family constitutes a large and widely distributed group of plants. Over 3,000 species inhabit all continents except Antarctica. More importantly, crucifers have colonized virtually all types of environments including arctic, subarctic, tropical, subtropical, arid, true desert, temperate, alpine, marsh, aquatic, coastal, and high altitude. In addition, crucifers have colonized many different edaphic environments (Rollins, 1993). Because of this family's extremely wide distribution within vastly different climates and ecological settings, virtually all of the important environmental adaptations made by plants certainly are displayed by family members. In addition, a cornucopia of growth and developmental features are represented. Just the roughly 700 Cruciferae species native to North America display vast differences in both root and shoot architecture, floral and reproductive structure and development, leaf morphology, fruit structure, size and texture, seed number, size, and morphology, as well as numerous other traits (Rollins, 1993). Traits such as requirements for stratification, vernalization, differences in growth patterns including perennialism, and many others with great potential importance to agriculture can be found within this family. The degree of genetic variation can be appreciated by a quick examination of the startling illustrations of trichome diversity given by Rollins (1993)in his treatise on the “Cruciferae of Continental North America”. The varying life styles found within this family imply complex alterations between the genomes and hint at an enormous amount of genetic diversity, not only allelic variability but also evolutionary divergence in terms of sensing and response connectivity. The Cruciferae family thus represents a storehouse of many potential plant models with not only specific traits of interest but also other needed experimental features that would allow rapid experimental progress. The most important experimental features needed would be the crucial traits of Arabidopsis. Many Cruciferae are reasonably small and produce copious amounts of seeds in a relatively short life cycle. However, features that allow a rapid route to identify the genes responsible for natural trait variations or mutation-induced variant genes are of paramount importance in these potential models. The two main routes to connect phenotypes with specific genes are map-based cloning and insertion-tagging mutagenesis.

Map-Based Cloning of Genes in Wild Relatives of Arabidopsis

Crossing even closely related family members with the Columbia ecotype is not very feasible since crucifers that are as closely related as species within the genus Arabidopsis usually vary in chromosome number (Koch et al., 1999;). However, many species with special characteristics within the Cruciferae will probably be represented by a number of sexually compatible ecotypes possessing polymorphic DNA markers. In addition, it is possible that sequence similarity and synteny with the known genome of Arabidopsis would greatly facilitate gene-cloning strategies. Very good colinearity has been found to exist between several Cruciferae members. Even though more variations in microsynteny are common, the high degree of gene sequence identity and general colinearity between Arabidopsis and different Cruciferae species will allow the expedient use of the Arabidopsis genome sequence to aid in mapping loci in other Cruciferae species (Schmidt et al., 2001). Barbarea verna, for example, is being used as a model biennial plant with an absolute vernalization requirement (http://www.wfu.edu/∼taguebw/) in attempts to map genes controlling this trait.

Tagging Genes from Wild Relatives of Arabidopsis

Genes controlling unusual phenotypes in crucifer species could potentially be identified also by an insertional mutagenesis strategy. This would depend primarily on the feasibility of efficient genetic transformation of these species. Bent (2000) has outlined many factors controlling transformation efficiency in Arabidopsis and concluded that ovule structure and development timing are the most crucial. This may actually be a benefit because the structure and development of the fruit and associated tissues have been primary criteria for classification of the Cruciferae (Rollins, 1993). Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the anatomical and developmental characteristics affecting easy transformation have been substantially conserved in many members of the family. In fact, other members of the Cruciferae family have been transformed (Bent, 2000). In addition, Arabidopsis mutants that affect fruit set and maturation, such as Crabclaw (Bent, 2000), greatly influence transformability. These observations suggest that even Cruciferae members that lack highly efficient transformation potential may be sufficiently transformable to introduce genetic changes that will increase this efficiency to an acceptable level. Transposable elements could be used in another strategy to overcome the lack of transformation efficiency by increasing the number of insertion mutations resulting from each primary transformation with an insertion element. This strategy has been used with some success for tomato (Meissner et al., 1997). Several crucifers with important traits of interest may be amenable to insertion mutagenesis, but there is not yet any information available about this possibility (Bent, 2000). We have located two members of the genus Thellungiella, salt cress (T. halophila) and T. parvula, that are extremely salt tolerant, and at least one of these, salt cress, is an excellent candidate to serve as a test case for a trait-specific crucifer model system.

 

[lino]

Dam good stuff! I got a head ache.... what haunts me in these breeding regimes with cannabis is hidden hemizygousity transgender, I call mutant gene , but there not, then so much more work , I start over unless i have something Very special.

my 2 cents in a few lines
Pheno vs Geno - the most incorrectly used terms used on this site.
Phenotype - A plants difference from environmental effects. example -turns purple with cold Colo nites.
Geneotype - Embedded in the DNA of the organism, ie Always Indica. Farmers usually mean geneotype when they're saying phenotype.

Big misUnderstanding in cannabis breeding. If you like the smoke there is very good chance it has hetero or homozygous dom or rec so MOST of the seed sold are NOT breeding stock. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE ARE NOT GOOD TO BREED WITH! I know from experience with any cannabis seeds to test for zygousity of herms traits if they exist -and thats a lot of work without a lab and this has to be done if I'm to release any seed as either breeding stock or F1 or higher hybrids .... Here is a point for new growers that want to throw pollen.
MISCONCEPTION!
These seeds have never thrown a hermie. These seeds have fathered and mother 2 different crosses-generations of seeds with no Hermies. My seeds have no Hermy traits! Not necessarily - if herm are dom or rec and bred for example with and ol skool no hermy at all GENEO than F1, should/could produce NO hermies, but F2 ,F3 and on and on just depends on having the rite father could produce ALL hermies, the bad kind of hermies. Hermies is an ol skool trait but there are kinda dead ones and fertile herms so its gets complicated.

@KiLoEleMeNt your Greg Mendal peas stuff is good stuff. It would be hard to write bout that work and be original as we're all regurgitating shit we happen to remember from horticulture class in college or HS and I just go copy and paste most of my tech crap from college notes or google. No phd here....

 

[KiLoEleMeNt]

Thankyou very much Nicely done I truly appreciate your impute and honesty of sourced matiri.... well that said. Nice Line Lino line lino lmao must be an echo in here just me and you you it would seem......... you alsohave a very valid polarity answer as well. And will be further reviewed. BWe be nerds the best of the best nerds at that :^D the best of luck to you keep on farming on brother, I will be a little while for further information on this page but your always welcome to any of my grows in the farm bud