Question though, it would seem after searching for info on the Y chromosome. The only reason there's so much info dedicated and genetics attributed to the X is because there's not much of any on the Y chromosome. Do you know of any on the genetic attributes of the Y Chromosomes?
Okay, sure, and once again thank you for sharing with all of us a theory I have never heard of.Originally Posted by StoneCity
In analyzing this theory as best as I can, I have come up with some preliminary impressions that I will try to give here:
Okay, here is where I agree/disagree with this theory, as best as I am able to follow it:
- 1) I agree that Mayday got his Y chromosome from from Yellow, as that is the only way he could have gotten it;
2) I disagree that he absolutely has no information from Yazoo Cody. He may not have gotten Yazoo Cody's Y male-information, but Yazoo Cody still passed-on his X chromosome to Dolly, so the potential does exist for Yellow to be influenced to some degree by Yazoo Cody's genetic make-up, albeit from the X-side. In other words (as discussed below) there is a distinction between sex-linked Y-X chromosomes and behavior/characteristic-linked autosomes.
This is how I interpret what you've presented here anyway.
I do see the logic here. What I am not so clear on is whether these sex-linked chromosomes are 100% linked to all other attributes/traits in the dog that are contained in the autosomes. For instance, Bojacc357 posted the following (and thank you for your contribution too Bojac!):
- "Animals have two types of DNA, nuclear (nDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA). Nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell. The genes coded for by nDNA are responsible for external characteristics and for behavior, but they also have important regulatory functions inside the cells. Mitochondrial DNA is separate and distinct from nDNA and is found in the mitochondria of the cell. The gene coding here is strictly regulatory and has little effect on external characteristics or behavior in comparison to nDNA ... One pair of chromosomes are involved in sex-determination and are, therefore, called sex chromosomes; females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. The other chromosomes are called autosomes. All mammals have only one pair of sex chromosomes, but the number of autosomes varies according to species ... It is a myth that female (or male) genetics are stronger ... the pups will have the dog mtDNA of the mother while the nuclear DNA of (BOTH) the parents would again mix ... When a wolf and a dog mate, the outcome as far as looks are concerned is a crap shoot. The DNA to look at in this case would be nuclear DNA, not mtDNA."
If I am understanding The X-Factor Theory correctly, its shortcoming is there is no actual "external" nDNA genetic dominance by the female, but only the internal (mitochondrial) mtDNA dominance. Therefore, as far as the physical looks, abilities, temperament, etc. go ... how the pups turn out still remains a genetic crapshoot which can obtain from either side of the pedigree.
And yet there is a massive strength to The X-Factor Theory, regardless, because (again, if my preliminary interpretation of this is correct) the mtDNA is responsible for the basic mitochondrial cell fitness of the animal, which directly translates to its exercise tolerance and staying power in the pit. Therefore, having a brood bitch with whatever internal blood-function/components yield exceptional stamina and staying power would be foundational to success! I personally have always believed that strong brood bitches are vital to success, and even though my best-known bulldog is the stud dog Poncho, he was produced by the inbred brood bitch Miss Trinx. In thinking back, my most consistent producers of deep game, longwinded dogs were Screamer and Wild Red Rose, both of whom were structurally-perfect bitches of tireless stamina. All of my inbred Screamer/Rosey dogs were longwinded animals (mtDNA-dependent, through these bitches).
Therefore, again, if I am understanding this right, the "external variables" of intelligence, looks, and ability are still the "genetic crapshoot" of the nDNA that can be passed on to the pups from either the sire or the damn, but the internal cell mitochondrial fitness of the pups are all matriarchal and come from the female, and therefore having a good, strong, physically fit female(s) upon which a yard is based is critical.
I don't know if my interpretation of this Theory you have presented here is correct or not, but if it is it's kind of poetic for me, in the sense that I am now linebreeding on Silverback (based on his physical abilities), but I am always trying to place SUPER-longwinded, high-staying-power bitches underneath him, which natural staying power and physical health of the cells HAS to be genetic (mtDNA?). Some dogs are simply able to go an hour off the chain, and some dogs simply cannot, and that has to be related to the presence of "basic genetic cell health/function," does it not?
At any rate, I am not sure if you (or anyone) agrees with my attempts to make sense of this theory, but I very much do see it as a valuable tool. I never knew anything about mtDNA or nDVA, but I have always believed in having truly superior brood bitches, and I for one am fascinated by the potential applications of this theory, so thanks once again for sharing
Cheers,
Jack
This is a very fascinating topic. Too much information with many variables and very few studies made on canines. It will be great if someone makes a study of how specific traits that matter to US in this sport are passed on and by Who.
At the end of the day, we are all looking for the best possible results and consistently repeat them.
My goal with this topic is to bring to peoples attention the females larger contribution to the end product. In order to a male be successful, he needs a good female.
Actually, I strongly believe that a female will make a male much better than the opposite.
I hope that with this instead of people talking about the Sire and Grand Sire, they start paying more attention to the Dam, Grand Dam. I will get rid of all males I have in my yard with no regrets if need to, but the females I will really keep at all cost.
IMHO, The longevity of this breed rest in the breeding of high quality females.
This is very interesting. In reality this shows the cross within litters, lines, and families genetically. If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding. Male and female equally give 39 chromosomes but with the larger X chromosone in females. The Y chromosomes of males carry less INHERITABLE MATERIALS.This makes picking a female very important. It shows why picking a solid family or line is important rather than just breeding peds. It seems after reading autosomes the other 37 chromosomes influence features. With just this info it's saying the 1/8th great grandmother behind the sire never has any influence nor 3rd generation grandfather on X chromosome. Only influence they have is appearance through autosomal DNA. This means breeding heavy on individuals not aligned right in the ped renders there sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits useless. This is cause the are passed by the X and Y chromosomes and these where they are located in this theory have no effect there. It is interesting and is heavily influenced by the fact that more is known about the female genetics and contribution on the X chromosomes. It only makes me want to know more bout the Y chromosomes and it limitations do to being small annd what it brings in function. It is called a theory and in fact has validity through science but It all still comes back to quality and culling.
Agreed.
Agreed.
You certainly achieved your goal, and I do agree with you on the importance of a foundational bitch.
Still, I can't help but add a fly to the ointment by thinking of some pretty mediocre bitches that were bred to Poncho, with world class results obtaining. In fact, one of these females was bred to Poncho's uncle and I got all garbage, but when bred to Poncho I got all B+ to A+ caliber dogs. So I do think some stud dogs are simply prepotent, and can produce regardless of the bitch that gets put under them. The proverbial, "Breed em to a fence post and get game splinters," kind of dogs.
And I also think more people are willing to breed a lousy bitch to a great stud, "hoping" to get something, than would ever take a great bitch and experiment with her on a lousy stud.
I agree with you. Certainly, your own story with the all-time-great producer Awesome Baby proves your theory. Boyles and Hollingsworth likewise proved the ability to erect monumental bloodlines all based around a key brood matron. Waccamaw, too, built their own line around Saber.
In fact, in my book I specifically state that the quickest way a person can go from beginning to winning is to first buy himself the very best bitch he can possibly afford (not "a pup," not a "prospect," but a truly excellent bitch, from a truly excellent bloodline), and then through selective breeding build a monument around her.
Although I am personally building my yard around Silverback right now, his origination all started when I bought the key brood matron Miss Trinx, and bred her to Ch Hammer to get his mama Missy, who was one of the best bitches I have ever bred in my life. In going forward with her outstanding son Silverback, I am doing so with him being bred to quality bitches, and there are plenty of great programs built around key stud dogs too (Yellow, Bolio, Redboy, ect.), where the linebreeding program was built around the great stud dog, but this has to be implemented around the framework of quality bitches.
Certainly, when I was heavily-active as a breeder, the pups I kept were always the ones that were out of my best bitches ... and these pups also commanded the highest prices. And, while I absolutely agree with you that going down to just "one" quality bitch would be better than going down to just "one" quality male, in the end I believe that a truly quality program relies on the maintenance of quality in both.
I think the revelation brought here in this discussion, that I certainly was never aware of, namely that the mtDNA of an animal (its cell fitness, etc.) is entirely dependent upon the matriarchal (bitch) influence is absolutely vital to keep a sense of direction in a breeding program. And I sincerely thank you for sharing this GEM of information with me and with the community here.
The way I am personally going to interpret this information you've shared here is to continue with my plans as-is, which was to make sure that I breed the longest-winded, most naturally-athletic bitches I can to Silverback. IMHO, I believe staying power to be a basic health & fitness phenomenon, where animals that truly do have World Class Staying Power are simply superior to animals to those who do not, even if the other animals initially have "more ability" out of the gate, because (if they can't sustain it) then it all amounts to nothing in the end. Anyway, I digress
Sincerely appreciate the discussion!
Cheers,
Jack
I agree with this; well said.
There are plenty of time-proven bloodlines around males to show that, when the right bitches are put under him, the male's superior traits can be reliably and consistently passed on.
I would modify your first conclusion by saying picking solid individuals is more important than just breeding peds.
It would be my interpretation that autosomal influence is EVERYTHING, as far as ability and outward traits go, while the mitochondrial influence has more subtle influence "under the hood" of the basic fitness of the animal.
I would disagree with the statement that the 1/8th grandmother etc. "never" has any influence; I think she may, or may not, depending on the individual pup we're talking about. Again, this is where selection comes in.
What you just said is critical not aligned right in the ped. IMO there are basic, time-proven linebreeding patterns ... that repeatedly and consistently work, precisely because they line things up right ... but that also is dependent upon IF the right dogs are used in the equation
I would also say "culling" has nothing to do with breeding dogs at all; selection is what breedings are based on. For example, I could have 85 curs on my yard, that I never bothered to cull, but 15 truly world class animals, and so if I only select the truly world class dogs to breed, then I can keep breeding world class dogs, culling or no culling. That is one of the biggest non-truths repeated in the dog world: "hard culling = great yard." Nothing could be further from the truth. "Culling" creates nothing; it only destroys.
What creates great dogs is GOOD SELECTION, wise choices in mating pairs, and proper genetic alignment between individual ancestors (and a little bit of luck!), not "culling."
Case in point, perhaps the greatest dog produced out of Stone City's Ch Nico Jr. (Gr Ch Awesome Beast ROM) came from a breeding a woman made, who had never rolled (or culled) a dog in her life ... but she sure did her homework on bloodlines, and she sure did know how to line the genes up in her breeding choices ...
Jack
Thanks for cleaning up a couple things which were exactly what I meant. Solid individuals in a family most def. Small yard means culling is a must for me to move on in selection and many others. Not in a barberian way. Just for need of the chainspots. Culling is simply removing them from the program. The 1/8th grandmother if you notice does lend a X chromosome to male are female offspring in the X Factor. That would be the sire granddam on his sires side. She does however lend autosomal DNA which brings genes for appearances, color, and othe physical features. Her alignment doesn't let her effect sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal structure as those are left to the X Chromosome. Only the Y generation to generation is passed in males which leaves her out. Then in females only the sires dam X is passed alone with his mates to make XX. Also the mitochondria DNA and Y and X skeletal genes would be what allows ability. This is in the since of with form comes function and also the X chromosome gives mental function. With the mitochondria DNA helping build muscle building proteins most compatible with structure as part of its inner workings with the cells. Since autosomes allow the brain to connect with cells I can see your point. Still if it doesn't have the form how can it perform it limits abilities. I guess you are looking at the ability to do anything with helping cells and brain communicate and I myself am thinking of talent and other aspects of ability as in fluent motion. Atleast this is what I gathered. The X Factors main focus is inheritable material genes wise on the X and Y chromosomes and the larger X has more inheritable material. I still think more needs to be none bout what inheritable material the Y Chromosome does posess.
I'm sorry, but I have to say this is just plain false… I mean, in middle school I could have debunked this theory based on the simple steps of sexual reproduction.
The thought that a males Y chromosome comes only from the males on his sires side is incorrect. Yes his father HAD to pass the Y chromosome, as the female can only pass the X, BUT the Y chromosome the father passes down, is not a direct link to the dogs, grand father, great grand father, etc as your suggesting.
In the first stage of sexual reproduction, cells undergo Meiosis. During Meiosis, the chromosomes undergo recombination which “shuffles the deck” and creates a new gamete with a combination of each parents chromosomes.
Here is my easiest thoughts on debunking this, based on your explanation of the theory above, ALL males out of the litter would be twins. As they would be receiving the SAME Y chromosome.
Obviously this is not the case, and the reason for this is the “shuffling of the deck” of chromosomes during meiosis. Meiosis begins with one diploid cell containing two copies of each chromosome one from the dogs mother and one from its father. It then divides into four haploid cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically different from either parent, and from siblings.
Also, during sexual reproduction, a gamete from each parent (sperm cell and egg cell) combine and fuse. Resulting in an EXACT 50/50 contribution of genes from each parent. The only reason offspring may seem to “pull” to one side or the other, is because of the contribution of dominant or recessive genes form either parent, not because on parent is making a greater contribution. This is why selection and breeding choices are key. Selecting dogs with dominant genes will pass the selected trait along. OR, selecting two individuals who both posses the SAME recessive gene, will LOCK that trait in, as there is no ther possible option for them to pas along.
All that said, I DO totally agree that female selection is of the utmost importance. As said previous, the mitochondrial DNA ALL comes from the gyp, and this does have a direct effect on energy output.
Regards,
MinuteMan
Minuteman I'm going to post info on recombination and also why the X chromosome contributes more. Y Chromosome simply doesn't have enough inheritable material.
Recombination inhibition
Recombination between the X and Y chromosomes proved harmful—it resulted in males without necessary genes formerly found on the Y chromosome, and females with unnecessary or even harmful genes previously only found on the Y chromosome. As a result, genes beneficial to males accumulated near the sex-determining genes, and recombination in this region was suppressed in order to preserve this male specific region.[6] Over time, the Y chromosome changed in such a way as to inhibit the areas around the sex determining genes from recombining at all with the X chromosome. As a result of this process 95% of the human Y chromosome is unable to recombine.
Inefficient selection
Without the ability to recombine during meiosis, the Y chromosome is unable to expose individual alleles to natural selection. Deleterious alleles are allowed to "hitchhike" with beneficial neighbors, thus propagating maladapted alleles in to the next generation. Conversely, advantageous alleles may be selected against if they are surrounded by harmful alleles (background selection). Due to this inability to sort through its gene content, the Y chromosome is particularly prone to the accumulation of "junk" DNA. Massive accumulations of retrotransposable elements are scattered throughout the Y.[6] The random insertion of DNA segments often disrupts encoded gene sequences and renders them nonfunctional. However, the Y chromosome has no way of weeding out these "jumping genes". Without the ability to isolate alleles, selection cannot effectively act upon them.
A clear, quantitative indication of this inefficiency is the entropy rate of the Y chromosome. Whereas all other chromosomes in the human genome have entropy rates of 1.5–1.9 bits per nucleotide (compared to the theoretical maximum of exactly 2 for no redundancy), the Y chromosome's entropy rate is only 0.84.[12] This means the Y chromosome has a much lower information content relative to its overall length; it is more redundant.
Gene conversion
In 2003, researchers from MIT discovered a process which may slow down the process of degradation. They found that human Y chromosome is able to "recombine" with itself, using palindrome base pair sequences.[14] Such a "recombination" is called gene conversion.
In the case of the Y chromosomes, the palindromes are not noncoding DNA; these strings of bases contain functioning genes important for male fertility. Most of the sequence pairs are greater than 99.97% identical. The extensive use of gene conversion may play a role in the ability of the Y chromosome to edit out genetic mistakes and maintain the integrity of the relatively few genes it carries. In other words, since the Y chromosome is single, it has duplicates of its genes on itself instead of having a second, homologous, chromosome. When errors occur, it can use other parts of itself as a template to correct them.
Findings were confirmed by comparing similar regions of the Y chromosome in humans to the Y chromosomes of chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. The comparison demonstrated that the same phenomenon of gene conversion appeared to be at work more than 5 million years ago, when humans and the non-human primates diverged from each other.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote