Plant Weakening Using Clones Of Clones… Of Clones

[Theassbandit]

Go to minute 12:00 on this youtube link and Consider it, "Laid down" #theassbandit

 

[Wisher619]

This isnt the reference I spoke of but gives you the idea its nolonger myth.


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...evolution-through-genetic-mutation-in-plants/

the problem is they dont go into detail on what mutation is.....this is not spontaneous mutation as in the plant changes during its growth.....what they mean is the mutation occurs in the passing from parent to child....next generation mutation
kinda sorta like the Delta32 mutation in humans rendering them immune to HIV.....all living things "mutate" for the survival of the species......rhino virus mutates constantly.....a built in mechanism to advance

"genetic drift" that people are talking about....is not this......only under pathogen attack/chemical/radiation do alleles actually mutate....with pathogen attack....the pathogen itself disrupts the frequency of the alleles effected causing what looks to be a mutation....once the pathogen is eradicated....the frequency disruption ceases and the alleles bend back to baseline.....think of it as a radio disruptor turn it on and all you here is fuzz or better yet a differ channel....turn it off and the original channel is back.

Wisher

 

[ziplock]

I GOTTA CLEAN MY SHIT UP! That make you happy?

:D

 

[Seamaiden]

OK, I'm getting dizzy now. If I get you right, I take my epigenically-challenged mutations and expose them to my local x-ray source, then plant them in a little DNA boat and let them drift until they find the golden shore. Is that about it?

No! Punctuated equilibrium! (Go read Darwin's Radio) :p

:D

 

[azmmjadvocates]

Thanks for the reply Wisher and will have to read your previous posts as you appear to be well versed. The article im trying to find was related to rising atmosphyric Co2 and plant adaption relating to DNA imprinting as you cover here. There must be some mechanism to store that environmental mutation imprint before copied to seed?

Parent to offspring DNA is a given what is the need for a scientific publication if its common knowlwdge?

 

[Wisher619]

@azmmjadvocates
the scientific study was on the generational genetic change "mutation" for a species to exist or deal with change.....but how it isnt as darwinesqe as we thought.....more over instanly from one gen to the next aka spontanious mutation when certain factors are presented....it would be as if Co2 levels went up signaficantly and then I had a child and the child was born adapted to said levels where the rest of us had to use oxygen masks......a percentage of the scientific community is starting to realize more and more life on this planet is more like computers then we thing or.....visa versa ......when creating a child we rewrite code to better our offspring chance of survival...... kinda like a software patch

 

[azmmjadvocates]

I cannot argue with what you say as apparently im saying the same thing. Ive cloned from Veg without mothers for years without issue. Id like to revisit this topic we led into relating to Co2 on a seperate post, on in which their was disagreement years ago. Id like to get your input on the effects of high Co2 dna imprint on seedstock currently being sold and its possible negative impact.

 

[Wisher619]

@azmmjadvocates
absolutely....I would be more then willing to discuss this topic further

 

[Seamaiden]

For the gentlemen who are arguing that it's impossible for the actual genetics of a plant to change through cloning, please explain this article from Science Daily.

A new study of plants that are reproduced by 'cloning' has shown why cloned plants are not identical.

Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.

Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.

The team report their findings in this week's Current Biology.

'Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,' said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University's Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. 'But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.'

Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called 'whole genome sequencing') the researchers analysed 'clones' of the small flowering plant 'thalecress' (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.

'Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,' said Professor Harberd. 'They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a 'cloning' process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.'

The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals -- where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.

Professor Harberd said: 'Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.'


Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Oxford.Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Caifu Jiang, Aziz Mithani, Xiangchao Gan, Eric J. Belfield, John P. Klingler, Jian-Kang Zhu, Jiannis Ragoussis, Richard Mott, Nicholas P. Harberd.Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes. Current Biology, 2011; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.002

Well?

 

[Hayfork wave]

Awesome info. Thanks for the post.

 

[Wisher619]

I am wondering why the article in question never stated the "Scientific Evidence" that it was written based upon.....never does the article actually say how they found this and to what % was actually studied.....also when you find something in one species does not carry true to all.....this article isnt Newton's law or Ohms Law......this is one tiny sample of one species of flowering plant.....I have never noticed any difference in any of my Tomato, pepper,cannabis plants from mother to clone or from clone to clone....I have seen less vigor from clone to clone depending on where I took the clone from....a bottom clone would take much longer to get through the veg stage to where I want it then the top clone
In that article I do not agree on the fact that the plant is trying to re-generate itself.....re-generation would be a process in which it clones itself or better yet creates another through DNA
cloning is not that.....you are taking a piece of a organism that has all the keys to life already in place and you keep it sustaining life....it isnt regenerating itself....it would be different if you regenerated a plant from a single sliver of leaf....clones are by virtue a clone of said plant....only missing roots.....as soon as there is a mass study done on multiple plant species over an extended period of time will I then see evidence of genetic mutation through cloning

if this were the case it would be major news to the tomato/pepper/strawberry AG industry as almost all are run from mother plant and cloning with strawberry production being a strictly clone only crop
Never from seed
i am sure there would be reports of differences in plants but.....unfortunately this process is used for uniformity and exactness in the product from a industrial standpoint

 

[Dunge]

I too choose to remain in the "clones are the same" camp.
I use Newtonian physics when working on my snow blower.
Relativistic physics might be more correct, but irrelevant to the throw distance.

I don't doubt that things can and do go wrong in the cloning process.
So many possibilities with all the microbial and nutrient and chemical interactions.

The story is interesting, but fails to convince me that the basic biology of vegetative cloning will change in my garden.

I would like to know what cells are subject to accelerated mutation, and what causes it.
Short wavelength LEDs?

 

[shemshemet]

I am wondering why the article in question never stated the "Scientific Evidence" that it was written based upon.....never does the article actually say how they found this and to what % was actually studied.....also when you find something in one species does not carry true to all.....this article isnt Newton's law or Ohms Law......this is one tiny sample of one species of flowering plant.....I have never noticed any difference in any of my Tomato, pepper,cannabis plants from mother to clone or from clone to clone....I have seen less vigor from clone to clone depending on where I took the clone from....a bottom clone would take much longer to get through the veg stage to where I want it then the top clone
In that article I do not agree on the fact that the plant is trying to re-generate itself.....re-generation would be a process in which it clones itself or better yet creates another through DNA
cloning is not that.....you are taking a piece of a organism that has all the keys to life already in place and you keep it sustaining life....it isnt regenerating itself....it would be different if you regenerated a plant from a single sliver of leaf....clones are by virtue a clone of said plant....only missing roots.....as soon as there is a mass study done on multiple plant species over an extended period of time will I then see evidence of genetic mutation through cloning

if this were the case it would be major news to the tomato/pepper/strawberry AG industry as almost all are run from mother plant and cloning with strawberry production being a strictly clone only crop
Never from seed
i am sure there would be reports of differences in plants but.....unfortunately this process is used for uniformity and exactness in the product from a industrial standpoint

The story isn't about black and white. That every plant you clone will be different from the original. It still holds true that a clone is a exact genetic replica of the piece of plant you are cloning. But if that one branch happens to have mutated, in any way, you are cloning the mutation.

That's it. That is the ONLY point.

This does not mean that it is true, that clones of clones of clones, after years, will eventually 'dud' or grow less vigorously.

People in the AG industry have probably seen this every once in a while. Because that's how likely it is. Once in a while.

This is a rare chance, nonetheless a possibility. If you want to cry and make this a black and white argument, you can go ahead. But I stick to my grey area, and know that this phenomena is at the least, possible.

 

[Wisher619]

I am crying my eyes out right now....

and EVERTHING is Black & White...Shimone .....you know it.....he...he...he

sorry MJ flashback

semantics
well every once in a while blah blah blah

soooooo your saying there is a chance
I really would love a lab to do a study of at least 1000 dud plants and see how many have genetically mutated as opposed to carying a virus/infection

 

[shemshemet]

"I really would love a lab to do a study of at least 1000 dud plants and see how many have genetically mutated as opposed to carying a virus/infection"

See you really aren't getting my point. I am agreeing with you on this..

 

[Wisher619]

no I do understand......i am just messin around....
but on the real I do want someone to do a study on this.....so once and for all it will put this to bed.....so all the "mutation experts" can be put to sleep or it could shut us up....I to do believe in a gray area but that area is really small in my personal belief....which dosnt amount to much.....but I do know that some of the problems are the very definition of mutation and how it may be used

If our community were smart we would be doing this
http://fps.ucdavis.edu/WebSitePDFs/Articles/FPSStrawberryBrochure08.pdf
hopefully when it becomes completely legal this will become the norm in our industry

 

[Seamaiden]

I am wondering why the article in question never stated the "Scientific Evidence" that it was written based upon

They offer this journal reference (there's a hyperlink embedded within, I think you'll have to go directly to the site to follow the link).

Journal Reference:

1. Caifu Jiang, Aziz Mithani, Xiangchao Gan, Eric J. Belfield, John P. Klingler, Jian-Kang Zhu, Jiannis Ragoussis, Richard Mott, Nicholas P. Harberd.Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes. Current Biology, 2011; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.002

also when you find something in one species does not carry true to all.

Are you saying that we actually can't rely on any of the research done on the ubiquitous Arabidopsis? If so, then that means damn near every piece of "scientific" research done on, and that we rely upon, Arabidopsis is shit and doesn't mean a thing. I'm a little incredulous about such a claim.

I have never noticed any difference in any of my Tomato, pepper,cannabis plants from mother to clone or from clone to clone.

But, are you able to test and compare DNA between these plants? That's what I took away from the article, they've noted actual changes in the DNA, which is what the initial question was regarding, no?

To be clear, the idea that the actual DNA or even rDNA might change simply because a piece was cut away makes no sense to me. But that said, I believe that science does not, in fact, have a full or complete grasp on the behavior of genes, DNA and rDNA. That's as far as I can take it.

as soon as there is a mass study done on multiple plant species over an extended period of time will I then see evidence of genetic mutation through cloning

Maybe we can dig a little further to see if there's a better foundation for what was written in the study cited in the article, yes?

So I'm doing some digging. Here's the original paper:
Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes.

Here's the link to the full text:
And the link to references:
Citations (cited by 27):

Honestly, rather than debating whether or not, I'm more curious about "by what mechanism(s)" this may occur.

 

[shemshemet]

@Seamaiden

Maybe I didn't read that link well enough, but I don't think it's the cutting of the plant that induces mutation. What I purport is that the mutation exists before the cutting is made.

 

[Wisher619]

@Seamaiden
all true but.......this article was written in 2011 from an experiment conducted even earlier on a really small populous....one plant to be exact.....no literally .....1 piece of 1 root of 1 plant and they made 28 regenerated clones from in vitro tissue propagation.....sorry but if you read deeper you will find out that tissue culture has always had unstable results.....the experiment was trying to find a way to create less genetic bottleneck from standard cloning......as opposed to "InVitro" which holds no value in our world when it comes to standard cloning practices.....the state that the experiment was to try to see why we see such variant mutation when propagating through in vitro tissue technique as opposed to genetic bottleneck with cloning....which basicaly says when you take cuttings they are stable but when using tissue culture its a crap shoot as to what you may get

 

[shemshemet]

@Wisher619

I don't believe the mechanism of tissue culture and cloning is really much different.

Like you said before, you're taking the genetic info that is there, and giving it the correct conditions. True for both tissue culture AND cloning.