Why Plant 'Clones' Aren't Identical

  • Thread starter psychoactive
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
P

psychoactive

29
8
Why Plant 'Clones' Aren't Identical



ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2011) — 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.'
 
S

Sea Of Green

Guest
Interesting. I wonder how it applies to other plant species. In my research, which is limited to long-term cloning of a single strain of cannabis, I've not seen any visible differences in clones. It's my opinion that I'm still growing the same plant that I grew from seed nearly 10 years ago. Or if any mutations have occured, they've been favorable. Because I swear it's just as good as it's always been, or even a little bit better. No BS.

This isn't the first I've heard of this phenomena however. Not by a long shot. In fact I've been arguing my case for there being no genetic differences in clones for many many years now. Specifically with one of my aunts and one of my cousins, her son. She has decades of experience working in greenhouses. He's got more knowledge and experience in terms of growing cannabis. Not as much as me, but he thinks so. Anyhow, both strongly believe that you can't go on cloning a plant forever.

She says that wierd things will happen eventually, and you'll end up with a plant less desirable than you started with. She's supposedly seen it happen with many other plants where she worked. But she's never grown cannabis, so I don't listen to what she tells me about growing it for the most part. But now it sounds like maybe she's on to something...unfortunately. Or fortunately, depending on your outlook. All genetic mutations aren't necessarily "bad".

His version of why you can't clone a plant indefinitely is a bit more quirky and strange, and he also says believes what his mom says too. His belief is that there are 5, 10, and 15 year cannabis strains. That's how many years you can clone them before they go shitty on ya. How do you know which is which? You don't. You find out by cloning them for that many years to determine which category they fit. Where he got this crazy sounding notion I have yet to ascertain.
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
Good read and an interesting article! FYI clones can become genetically different due to deleterious mutations accumulated over time. The phenomenon is know as "Mullers Ratchet." This same phenomenon is why clones will often degrade over time. Some more info:

"Muller's ratchet is a population genetical model that describes the random accumulation of sightly deleterious mutations in finite populations with limited amounts of recombination. If Muller's ratchet operates long enough it can lead to genomic decay that is strong enough to drive a population to extinction. The rate of deleterious mutation accumulation from Muller's ratchet is difficult to predict. Muller's ratchet gets its name from the fact that the loss of fitness in the fittest individuals of a population due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations cannot be reversed, if there is no recombination and no back mutation (like in an asexual population with an infinite genome)"

Asexual reproduction compels genomes to be inherited as indivisible blocks so that once the least mutated genomes in an asexual population begin to carry at least one deleterious mutation, no genomes with fewer such mutations can be expected to be found in future generations (except as a result of back mutation). This results in an eventual accumulation of mutations known as genetic load. In population genetics, genetic load or genetic burden is a measure of the cost of lost alleles due to selection (selectional load) or mutation (mutational load). In theory, the genetic load carried by asexual populations eventually becomes so great that the population goes extinct."
 
phenotyper

phenotyper

851
63
Fascinating article and awesome supplemental information Blaze and Sog!
 
green punk

green punk

957
143
I wonder where Trainwreck fits in there. I know of a cut that has been around here for at least 15 years.
 
OctoberDee

OctoberDee

785
93
I assumed that a clone can have degraded value as it is cloned, especially a clone from a clone. However I did not think that a clone can actually create it's own phenotype through genetic mutation. That is some awesome shit. I guess I am wrong thinking you can't have a good clone from generations old cuts. Maybe it is dependent also on the DNA of the parent. Some plants are just super easy to clone, makes me think these are ones that are more likely to mutate for the better.
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
I think it's definitely dependent on the strain or the original individual plant that originated the cutting. Taking care of your mothers helps too I think - healthy mother plants make healthy clones. For example any disease or virus contracted by the mom over time can pass that on to it's subsequent clones. So the skill of the grower is definitely part of it too IMO - the healthier you keep your plants the longer the clone line can be maintained. I know a few people that have maintained a clone line for 15-20 years and it is still going good, so it definitely can be done.
 
A

AliasAO

660
18
I think it's definitely dependent on the strain or the original individual plant that originated the cutting. Taking care of your mothers helps too I think - healthy mother plants make healthy clones. For example any disease or virus contracted by the mom over time can pass that on to it's subsequent clones. So the skill of the grower is definitely part of it too IMO - the healthier you keep your plants the longer the clone line can be maintained. I know a few people that have maintained a clone line for 15-20 years and it is still going good, so it definitely can be done.

I cant even imagine the type of keeper the cut would have to be in order to keep it in the stable for 15-20.. talk about a loooooong love affair.

Thanx for the article and all the supplemental info blaze and company.

Id agree 150% with you regarding the health status of the mother and how skilled of a grower the person is. As you stated so well, The healthier you keep the plants the longer youll be able to preserve and take healthy cuts.

Im very excited to find a keeper or 2 that can stick around for 2 + years. lol
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
<musing> I wonder what would happen if we put Muller's Ratchet together with Occam's Razor. </musing>
 
S

Sea Of Green

Guest
<musing> I wonder what would happen if we put Muller's Ratchet together with Occam's Razor. </musing>
:giggle

I figure if we leave them together long enough something interesting is bound to happen.

Might end up with various types of asexual reproduction by which to apply the theory, at the very least. The two types we'd be interested in, that are utilized by plant species, are vegetative reproduction/propagation/multiplication/cloning and clonal fragmentation.

I'm still using said razor on this whole idea of "observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants". If so, what does that mean? How does it apply to plants in general? Or does it? Will all plants exhibit this phenomenon? Is it more common in some than others? Aren't we making an extremely broad generalization to think it not? These are just results from one specific species being analyzed in this manner. Ultimately, how is this relevant to cannabis?

Results: Inconclusive
 
Top Bottom