IS THE AUTO GENE RECESSIVE TO THE PHOTO GENE

[infamousralphster]

IS THE AUTO GENE RECESSIVE TO THE PHOTO GENE??????
from my understanding the auto flowering gene is recessive. so any autoflowering plant crossed with another auto flowering plant will be an autoflower. while autoflowering plants crossed with photo plants will all be photos carrying the auto gene. by breeding carrier offspring you will get one out of four being autos.

ex. if P was dominant photo gene and a was recessive auto gene it would be like so.

auto x auto cross

aa x aa = 100% aa all being autos


photo x auto cross

PP x aa = 100% Pa photos carrying the auto gene (heterozygous)

mating the Pa offsping (heterozygous)

Pa x Pa = 1-2-1 ratio PP-Pa-aa = 1 in 4 being auto(aa), 2 in 4 being photos carrying the auto gene (Pa)(heterozygous), and 1 in 4 being a pure photo (PP)(homozygous)

mating the Pa (heterozygous) offsring back with the original auto flower

Pa x aa= 1-1 ratio of Pa-aa meaning half are autos(aa) and half are photos carrying the auto gene(Pa)


This is assuming that that the auto gene is recessive to the photo gene so all the autos are homozygous aa.
IS THE AUTO GENE RECESSIVE TO THE PHOTO GENE??????

edit: i didnt realize that there was already another thread on this subject. According to zygote the auto gene is recessive so the information above should be accurate. If one of the mods/admins wants to delete this thread by all means go for it. Or leave it up for others to see. I tried to organize and explain it as simply as i could. For all the biology majors out there i do realize that dominant and recessive genes are usually shown with the same letter capital and lower case but i thought it would be easier to follow if i used different letters.

 

[Kalianepic]

Yes. We can generalize and say that the gene to autoflower is recessive for the purposes of hybrid production, this is still only true in certain populations. There are lots of wild populations where the auto gene is dominant, but that is because the grow season is too short or the conditions too harsh for long blooming photo plants to complete a full lifecycle.

It also needs to be said that most all strains do have the recessive trait to autoflower, this is a failsafe mechanism for survival in extreme conditions. Somtimes auto strains can be created by repeatedly selecting the earliest son and breeding him back to a recurrent mother.

However I have made autoflower hybrids that did not autoflower. They just didnt, it happens.

 

[mattinuk3]

Yes. We can generalize and say that the gene to autoflower is recessive for the purposes of hybrid production, this is still only true in certain populations. There are lots of wild populations where the auto gene is dominant, but that is because the grow season is too short or the conditions too harsh for long blooming photo plants to complete a full lifecycle.

It also needs to be said that most all strains do have the recessive trait to autoflower, this is a failsafe mechanism for survival in extreme conditions. Somtimes auto strains can be created by repeatedly selecting the earliest son and breeding him back to a recurrent mother.

However I have made autoflower hybrids that did not autoflower. They just didnt, it happens.

in those wild populations, the auto gene is still recessive. There is no dominant copy of the gene in the breeding pool to see the dominant phenotype.

What that means is that there is a loss of heterozygosity in the population, or a bottleneck somewhere that removed the dominant genes from the breeding pool. Lets say we put a bunch of white tigers on an island. Their whole population from that point forward would be white. However, if these white (recessive) tigers ever came into contact with an orange (dominant) tiger, the offspring would all carry the white trait, but display the orange color.

 

[Kalianepic]

I understand what your saying. Its true that environmental conditions can lead to a loss of overall genetic variability, only the strong survive, but those same conditions weed out weak genes, ensuring that only the offspring of the strongest survive. That's how natural selection works. If you had an island full of white tigers, then one would be correct in stating that the dominant color gene for the population of tigers on the island, is white. The orange gene may be dominant genetically, but if a dominant gene does not exist in a population, then it is not dominant. The gene for having six fingers is dominant in humans, that is a well known fact, how many fingers do you have?

Lets say you dropped a population of cannabis plants, (containing both photos and autos) into an extreme environment, say Alaska, and just let them be. If the seeds sprouted at the right time of the year and it was an early blooming enough strain to finish in time, then the photo plants might have a chance, but the autos would definitely finish in time to drop seed, more importantly, pollen would be swapped and open pollination hybrids would be created. Now consider the F1 generation of these hybrids, 75% of them would not autoflower, but in the case of a cold spring or fall, they would also not drop seeds and thus they would not contribute to the next generations genetics, but the autos would thrive, completing multiple lifecycles in a single season. Photo plants would occasionally pop up still because the gene is dominant after all, but much like the six fingered men that ought to be running wild somewhere, they would be freaks, and due to unfortunate environmental factors, they would have a very hard time passing on their freakishness. One can see that it would only take a few years of adverse condition to completely remove the dominant photo gene from a given population, it would not make the photo gene recessive, but it would be fair to say that the population in question is dominantly auto.

 

[L]

This is a very interesting topic answering alot of questions pertaining to autoflower hybirds. I myself have 5 fingers but i do know someone with 6 LMFAO.

 

[Kalianepic]

Oh... well please tell your friend that I didn't mean to call him a freak, as a guitar player I look at sixth fingers with disgusted envy. LMFAO!

 

[Zygote]

Using a gene model for two loct each with two alleles.
I put day neutral in model IV complex..

 

[L]

Oh... well please tell your friend that I didn't mean to call him a freak, as a guitar player I look at sixth fingers with disgusted envy. LMFAO!

lol its alright i call him a freak all the time. i'm also a guitar player but he has 2 thumbs which would be useless as a guiarist.

 

[Joe Dirt]

I agree with Zygote... 'cause you'd have to be pretty dadgone smart just to know what anything he just wrote means. :thumbs:

 

[Zygote]

Using a gene model for two loct each with two alleles.
I put day neutral in model IV complex..

I agree with Zygote... 'cause you'd have to be pretty dadgone smart just to know what anything he just wrote means. :thumbs:

It is recessive but there are at lest 4 kinds of recessive. One of the model is IV “complex” I am not going to go into the others.

The model IV complex was first purposed by Fisher’s 1918 groundbreaking paper, “On
the Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance,”

The simple one-locus, two-allele models of Fisher, Haldane and Wright
sweep aside the “disorderly complexity” of genetic interaction, development
and changing environments for the sake of the “meaningful simplicity”
of idealized relationships between population size and effects of
selection, mutation, and drift on distributions of gene frequency.

http://www.hum.utah.edu/~plutynsk/Explanation.pdf