PDA

View Full Version : Genetic 102 continued




misterdogman
06-21-2005, 02:59 PM
. http://www.apbtconformation.com/genetic1b.jpg

GO OVER OUR RED NOSE BLACK NOSE EXPERIMENT USING THE DIAGRAM

In the figure above the top blue blob represents our original pure blacknose homozygous B/B http://www.apbtconformation.com/blackblob.jpg(Parental strain of black noses) the yellow blob represents our original pure (parental) strain of red noses homozygous b/bhttp://www.apbtconformation.com/redblob.jpg. Notice that there are two letters in the blobs. Yep, these represent the gene pairs. B = Black nose gene and b = red nose gene. Each of these original bloodlines has been line bred and the characteristics of the specific nose colors has been aligned.

TERM: The word we use to describe when we have two exact or functionally exact copies of the same gene on both the maternal and paternal supplied pairs is homozygous. Thus both of the P generation are homozygous for their respective nose colors.

Out of each of the P parents we see a separate smaller yet similarly colored blob for representing the egg and sperm. Notice that the egg and sperm do not have paired letters. This is because they do not contain both pairs of chromosomes. They actually are haploid. (again the dogs themselves are dipliod but the sex cells are haploid) In essence all the paired genes from the parents are separated somewhat randomly and the spermatazoon and egg are formed from only half of the chromosomes of the original parent. (this is segregation and we will come back to this in the next segment of the primer) In this case the only possible genes for nose color from the red nose homozygote P generation is b http://www.apbtconformation.com/egg.jpgand the only possible gene from the black nose homozygous P generation is Bhttp://www.apbtconformation.com/sperm.jpg. (note this has nothing to do with whether the rednose is a male and the black nose is a female. The red nose homozygous P generation can only produce egg or sperm that is b. The black nose homozygous P generation can only produce egg or sperm that is B.



The dogs themselves are diploid but both the egg and sperm are haploid meaning that they (unlike the actual dogs) only contain one of the two alleles encoded by the dog. This is what is known as segregation. Segregation is the next concept of importance. Segregation as a concept, is vital to understanding what goes on when you are doing outcrosses, family and line-breeding. We will delve more into segregation and random selection later. However, what we mean by segregation is that when the bitch produces eggs, her chromosome pairs are segregated equally into haploid states in the eggs. Meaning The members of the gene pairs segregate (separate) equally into the gametes. The same is true for the male. His diploid genome is segregated equally into individual sperm which are haploid. A good example to use and one we will return to eventually is sex determinant. Thus the Gametic content states that each gamete (sperm or egg) carries only one member of each pair.

http://www.apbtconformation.com/j0281142(p).gif

Thus, when the sperm and egg combine to create the new dog these two gene pairs (one from the male sperm and one from the female egg) are combined to form a new genotype B/b which is completely different from either parent. The F1 generation is not homozygous (B/B or b/b) for nose color instead they are heterozygous (B/b). However, as we saw the phenotype (what we see) produced in the F1 generation is exactly the same as the black nose parent because the black nose gene is dominant The genotype is different from either parent http://www.apbtconformation.com/heterozygote.jpg. This is seen by the large green blob representing the F1 generation. This F1 generation can produce sperm and egg which are of course haploid but when the separation of the chromosomes occurs when the eggs or sperm is produced equal portions of B and b haplotypes are formed.

PUNNET SQUARE

http://www.apbtconformation.com/punnet1.jpg

Next we notice that the F1 generation (green blob) has arrows that point to the top and side of a four squared box. This box is a Punnet-square and is used to visualize the possible recombination of genetic pairs in a diploid organism. Here the two possible sperm haplotypes are on the verticle axis and the two possible egg haplotypes are on the horizontal top axis. To create the data in the punnet square we simply drop the letters from the top of the box down into each cell in the column below it. Similarly the letters on the side are placed across in each box in their own row. Below is an example of how this is done.

If we continued to experiment with our dog inbreeding and produced a few more litters of F1 dogs. Then if at random we began breeding all the black nose dogs with only other black nose dogs, in the resulting F2 litters we would begin to see as second trend. We would find a population of F1 black noses that would not produce red nose dogs no matter how often they are bred. We would also see a population about twice this size which (like the F1 generation) produced a few red nose dogs (about 1:3 ratio just like the F1). But if we inbred the red noses from the F2 generation, only with the red nose dogs, we would only obtain red nose dogs no matter how many times we bred them. If you understood the dominant recessive concept you begin to understand what is occurring within this F2 generation.

The answer is that in the F1 generation we have a Phenotype (seen) ratio of 1:3 but we also have an actual genetic distribution (genotype) of 1:2:1 (1 B/B: 2 B/b: 1 b/b). Which is to say that 1 out of 4 of the F2 generation are homozygous (has two identical copies of the black nose gene BOTH FROM THE P SIRE) for the black nose. Two out of 4 dogs from the F2 are heterozygous for the black and red nose genes (ONE FROM P DAM ONE FROM P SIRE). This means that they carry the dominant black nose gene which is expressed phenotypically (they have black noses) and they also carry a copy of the recessive red nose gene, which is not expressed phenotypically because it is recessive. Finally we also have produced 1 out of 4 red nose puppies that is homozygous for the recessive genotype (BOTH GENES DERIVED FROM THE P DAM).

Continuing to drive home the point

For this reason when we breed the homozygous GENOTYPE dominant we obtain only black nose dogs. When we breed the heterozygous dogs we get the same phenotypic mixture (1:3) seen in the original F2 generation (1 out of 4 will be red nose). This is because this heterozygous F2 population has the same genotype (B/b) as the F1 generation. If we breed the homozygous recessives we get only red nose dogs.

The final concept we have to grasp is that ofRandom fertilization. The union of one gamete from each parent to form the first cell (zygote) of a new puppy occurs randomly, This means there is nothing guiding the good red nose genes to align with other red nose genes. Segregation and joining of alleles occurs without regard to which member of a gene pair is carried.

REVIEW

In our previous work we discovered that phenotypic traits are the product of genes. These genes are individual packets of information. Together all these paired-packets of information combine to create type. We also came to recognize that heredity is not a fluid blending of characteristics it is particulate in nature.

Mendel’s original experiments with peas and our experiments with inbreeding have taught us very important concepts. There are two copies of each of these genes within an individual dog (pea) otherwise how did we get red noses from black noses? When breeding what we will get is one copy of a gene from the dam and one copy of a gene from the sire, both of which are transferred to the puppy.

Alternative phenotypes of a particular trait (red nose or black nose) are determined by different forms of a single type of gene called an allele. In example the heterozygous dogs contain alleles for both nose colors (a red allele and a black allele). One of these alleles may be dominant which means that if both are present only the dominant is seen phenotypically.

Genetic 102 to be continued again




DOCTORPITS
06-25-2005, 03:54 PM
You seem to be a very intelligent man and a true Pit-man, but I think you lost most of the people on this board with your Genetic 102 lesson.

houstonapbt
06-25-2005, 04:16 PM
You seem to be a very intelligent man and a true Pit-man, but I think you lost most of the people on this board with your Genetic 102 lesson.You're a jackass. You really think just because you own those blue mutts, you're smarter than people who own "true pits"? lmao, UKC pit bull more like UKC "blue pitts". These are good articles though, read them some time ago.

Scotsman
06-25-2005, 04:36 PM
That's not bad for High School Genetics but when it comes to dogs it is A LOT more complicated.

El Mexicano
06-25-2005, 04:36 PM
i learned about genetic stuff like this last year when i was in 8 grade.

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 07:48 PM
It is A LOT more complicated.Yeah im sure you know it all and didn't have to start somewhere. But some people do need to learn and to disrespect some free education is just ignorant... so if you dont like a post or already know the material then just STFU... so others can learn if they don't already know everything like you Mr. Webster.

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 07:55 PM
i learned about genetic stuff like this last year when i was in 8 grade.Same goes for you.

Shon
06-27-2005, 08:23 PM
Yeah im sure you know it all and didn't have to start somewhere. But some people do need to learn and to disrespect some free education is just ignorant... so if you dont like a post or already know the material then just STFU... so others can learn if they don't already know everything like you Mr. Webster. He made a general statement of which is true, it was not meant to disrepect what you had posted. What you posted was great information that many people on this site probably doesn't know (although many of them may to a certain extent). All he was saying was that it is a lot more in-depth than just what you posted (although what you posted was the general consensus of it).Same goes for you.Although I'm sure that was a general statement as well, it kind of did seem like they took what Scotsman said as "disrespectful" and added on to it.

If people read things as they are and kept a level head about it, there would be no reason to get mad about small things and leave everything open to a civilized discussion instead of heated arguements.

idgie
06-27-2005, 09:24 PM
I know absolutely nothing about genetics and found this information really helpful - thanks misterdogman for taking the time to post it.

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 09:33 PM
He made a general statement of which is true, it was not meant to disrepect what you had posted. What you posted was great information that many people on this site probably doesn't know (although many of them may to a certain extent). .Although I'm sure that was a general statement as well, it kind of did seem like they took what Scotsman said as "disrespectful" and added on to it.

If people read things as they are and kept a level head about it, there would be no reason to get mad about small things and leave everything open to a civilized discussion instead of heated arguements.Man looks like I cant win for losing...I must be offending everyone and their brother...Well I guess it was my fault for taking something that need not be said and adding to it... so I will just cur out here and run away with my tail between my legs... and let all the Fairy tale conversations continue to prevent arguments ...since I never posted the original argument I just responded... I will be the bigger person and bow out so you can continue with your posts...

All he was saying was that it is a lot more in-depth than just what you posted (although what you posted was the general consensus of it)

Well also to point out...read the posts Genetic 101 genetic 102 and genetic 102 continued and Genetic 102 end... to sum up the things you say are just a "consensus". Trust me all relevent info are here and stopping after reading just a page or two doesnt mean I didnt cover all details it just means you failed to read all the info...

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 09:35 PM
I know absolutely nothing about genetics and found this information really helpful - thanks misterdogman for taking the time to post it.Thank you idgie.

Shon
06-27-2005, 09:50 PM
Man looks like I cant win for losing...I must be offending everyone and their brother...Well I guess it was my fault for taking something that need not be said and adding to it... so I will just cur out here and run away with my tail between my legs... and let all the Fairy tale conversations continue to prevent arguments ...since I never posted the original argument I just responded... I will be the bigger person and bow out so you can continue with your posts...

All he was saying was that it is a lot more in-depth than just what you posted (although what you posted was the general consensus of it)

Well also to point out...read the posts Genetic 101 genetic 102 and genetic 102 continued and Genetic 102 end...to sum up the things you say are just a "consensus". Trust me all relevent info are here and stopping after reading just a page or two doesnt mean I didnt cover all details it just means you failed to read all the info...Everything that has been posted, even together, doens't include everything genetics involve, even if everything that has been tested and proven to be true has been posted and detailed in the form of posts on this site or any other. There are a lot more variables and untested\undiscovered causes for many things (not specifically related to breed\reproducing), it was a general statement and stands true in almost every way.

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 10:19 PM
Everything that has been posted, even together, doens't include everything genetics involve, even if everything that has been tested and proven to be true has been posted and detailed in the form of posts on this site or any other. There are a lot more variables and untested\undiscovered causes for many things (not specifically related to breed\reproducing), it was a general statement and stands true in almost every way.True enough... so therefore it isn't a "consensus" either..it just a bunch of crap hypothesis waiting for fact and until then the only thing we have to compare findings to. This was meant for education and isn't doing the intended job... so just take the damn posts down so we can forget about it... if everyone here is so darn educated and cant benefit from it then it need not be up. See how 1 comment that should have been kept in someones mouth can cause such a waste of time and space here...forget about adding what I thought was good educational material around this place if it isn't beneficial or prized as good knowledge for everyone even the beginners here to have I will just keep it. Lets just bag and dis on it... If I were to post all genetic material to cover everything in all cases I would have crashed the system...theres too much... thats why it was called Genetic 101 and 102 terms generally used for things beginners read...so forget it was ever there...since it wasn't obvious enough and needed a reflection to realize it was meant for that exact purpose..for beginners.

Shon
06-27-2005, 10:25 PM
Well, you're right about it being for beginners, and nobody has said any different. The only thing I am saying is there was no reason to lash out at Scotsman (or Pits Bull) because of what they said. There's really no need to do away with their posts as long as everybody doesn't respond to them unappropriately for a public forum.

misterdogman
06-27-2005, 10:30 PM
Well, you're right about it being for beginners, and nobody has said any different. The only thing I am saying is there was no reason to lash out at Scotsman (or Pits Bull) because of what they said. There's really no need to do away with their posts as long as everybody doesn't respond to them unappropriately for a public forum.No... I was talking about my posts and threads...all of them... the whole genetic crapolla.. delete it all... and pretend I never posted it. It was there for a reason(education) and it isn't fufilling that reason so I'd rather not have it be there at all. Period, Finale, Fin, The end.

Shon
06-27-2005, 10:41 PM
But the point of it is that it is "fufililling that reason." Nobody has said that is wasn't. I've only commented on the way that you and others have been posting towards other people's comments about what you have posted, nothing more.

Scotsman
06-28-2005, 12:36 AM
Misterdogman, I was not trying to start anything. I am not apologizing for anything I said because I was not trying to put you down, you just took it the wrong way.

NuTtDoGg
07-09-2005, 04:40 PM
Ive seen this genetics essay before. R U sure youre the author? If you wrote it then I understand your anger. But if you didnt which I expect you did not then why waste time arguing about coat colors. Im sure it is a very important topic for staff breeders and the "pitbull/mastiff" breeders (they know who they are) that call their animals "pitbulls" for the purpose of sales. These are the same beautifully colored dogs that are supposedly bred for temperment, head size, chest width, color etc. Now that being said "your" genetic report scratches the surface of genetics in that you still using the comparison of plant genetics which are simpler to manipulate than any animals genetics. Also you must understand "misterdogman" that in our breed which is the tried and true A.P.B.T., we believe (at least most of us, but apparently not you) that gameness is the required quality above all else. Color is the farthest thing from the proformance dogmans mind. the coat color does not make a pitbull, gameness does. if the dog is not game well then guess what? It probably aint a PIT. I wrote all of that to write this : as well written as that genetics informative was it wouldve been better served on a amstaff message board. you said youll just cur out on the conversation. well I feel that the information you provided is a step by step informative on breeding cur dogs and maybe just maybe if you posted a genetics informative on gameness which is a much more complex inherited trait than color then youd be "informing" us and our new comers on somthing that matters to us as opposed to offending true dogmen by speaking about a subject that is the cornerstone of the bully breeds, show breeds, and all other cur breeds. THE A.P.B.T. IS A BEAUTIFUL PROFORMANCE ANIMAL JUST AS IS THE THOUROGHBRED RACE HORSE. BUT WHEN THE RACING ASPECT IS NO LONGER THE FOCUS OF YOUR ANIMAL THEN WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WITH? A DAMN HORSE.
AND SAY THAT THE PERSON WITH THIS HORSE FROM THOUROGHBRED LINES TRIED TO SELL HIS HORSES TO A HORE RACING MAN OR WOMAN AND THE PERSON TRIED THE HORSES JUST TO SEE IF HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT USE THEM IN HIS BREEDING PROGRAM, AND HE OR SHE SEES THAT FUNCTIONALLY THE HORSES WERE NO GOOD BUT USES THEM ANYWAY CUS THEYRE "SO DAMN PRETTY" WHEN HE TRIES TO SELL THE YOUNG COLTS SHOULD HE BE ABLE TO CALL HIS ANIMALS THOUROGHBRED RACE HORSES OR SHOULD HE BE HONEST AND LET THE CUSTOMER KNOW THAT HE HAS PRETTY HORSES THAT ARENT BRED FOR RACING BUT COME FROM RACING LINES? AND IF THESE HORSES SHOULD BE ANYWAY FAULTY SHOULD THAT BE A REPRESENTATION OF THE THOROUGHBRED RACING BREED OF HORSE OR THAT FAULTY ASS HORSES BREEDER? these are things to think about before you inform us on how to further waterdown the purities of our "PROFORMANCE BREED".

Thank You for Your Time,
NuTTDoGG

misterdogman
07-12-2005, 12:54 AM
Ive seen this genetics essay before. R U sure youre the author? If you wrote it then I understand your anger. But if you didnt which I expect you did not then why waste time arguing about coat colors. Im sure it is a very important topic for staff breeders and the "pitbull/mastiff" breeders (they know who they are) that call their animals "pitbulls" for the purpose of sales. These are the same beautifully colored dogs that are supposedly bred for temperment, head size, chest width, color etc. Now that being said "your" genetic report scratches the surface of genetics in that you still using the comparison of plant genetics which are simpler to manipulate than any animals genetics. Also you must understand "misterdogman" that in our breed which is the tried and true A.P.B.T., we believe (at least most of us, but apparently not you) that gameness is the required quality above all else. Color is the farthest thing from the proformance dogmans mind. the coat color does not make a pitbull, gameness does. if the dog is not game well then guess what? It probably aint a PIT. I wrote all of that to write this : as well written as that genetics informative was it wouldve been better served on a amstaff message board. you said youll just cur out on the conversation. well I feel that the information you provided is a step by step informative on breeding cur dogs and maybe just maybe if you posted a genetics informative on gameness which is a much more complex inherited trait than color then youd be "informing" us and our new comers on somthing that matters to us as opposed to offending true dogmen by speaking about a subject that is the cornerstone of the bully breeds, show breeds, and all other cur breeds. THE A.P.B.T. IS A BEAUTIFUL PROFORMANCE ANIMAL JUST AS IS THE THOUROGHBRED RACE HORSE. BUT WHEN THE RACING ASPECT IS NO LONGER THE FOCUS OF YOUR ANIMAL THEN WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WITH? A DAMN HORSE.
AND SAY THAT THE PERSON WITH THIS HORSE FROM THOUROGHBRED LINES TRIED TO SELL HIS HORSES TO A HORE RACING MAN OR WOMAN AND THE PERSON TRIED THE HORSES JUST TO SEE IF HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT USE THEM IN HIS BREEDING PROGRAM, AND HE OR SHE SEES THAT FUNCTIONALLY THE HORSES WERE NO GOOD BUT USES THEM ANYWAY CUS THEYRE "SO DAMN PRETTY" WHEN HE TRIES TO SELL THE YOUNG COLTS SHOULD HE BE ABLE TO CALL HIS ANIMALS THOUROGHBRED RACE HORSES OR SHOULD HE BE HONEST AND LET THE CUSTOMER KNOW THAT HE HAS PRETTY HORSES THAT ARENT BRED FOR RACING BUT COME FROM RACING LINES? AND IF THESE HORSES SHOULD BE ANYWAY FAULTY SHOULD THAT BE A REPRESENTATION OF THE THOROUGHBRED RACING BREED OF HORSE OR THAT FAULTY ASS HORSES BREEDER? these are things to think about before you inform us on how to further waterdown the purities of our "PROFORMANCE BREED".

Thank You for Your Time,
NuTTDoGGIf you read the other posts youd have seen anything can be substituted in the Punnet Square..I.E. mouth, gameness,..I used color and stuff to keep it clean. So be careful before you try to cur out a game dog son...you might find your barking up the wrong tree.

NuTtDoGg
07-18-2005, 12:16 PM
If you read the other posts youd have seen anything can be substituted in the Punnet Square..I.E. mouth, gameness,..I used color and stuff to keep it clean. So be careful before you try to cur out a game dog son...you might find your barking up the wrong tree.
Sounds real good except I happen to know that thats not "YOUR" genetics premiere. You are a plagurist, but thats O.K. secondly every experienced dogman I know will tell you that gameness is not a quality that can just be bred into an animal the same as a hard bite or color or even wind. If gameness isnt always at the top of your list youll be feeding a bunch of hard biting colorful curs. PERIOD. a beautiful example is the staff dogs. These animals are bred for "looks", and are nowhere near a game animal but used to be. Now say you bred an amstaff to a game bred pit. Would any of the puppies be game? The answer is hell no. On the flipside if you took a blue amstaff and bred it to a red pit would you have "blues" in your litter. the answer is more likely than not. so then how do you figure "I used color and stuff to keep it clean" is a relavent statement. Breeding for color is somthing my young son could excel at. Now breeding game dogs he cant do without guidence, knowledge and experience. and for some reason I feel like yore missing one or more of those qualities. as for your warning "So be careful before you try to cur out a game dog son...you might find your barking up the wrong tree". I dont bark, I scratch..... HARD

NuTTDoGG P.S. Im not your SON and you didnt answer not one of my questions in my post which tells me that "the game dog" may have curred out already.