wondering................

[science_doc]

okay I was on vacation....now that I am back I'm going to read through the entire thread and think and then reply, cause I think that this is an extremely interesting topic, that's all for now.

This is so much fun for a science geek you would not believe it!!!!

[Guest Anonymous]

Okay, again, certain lines carry certain traits. Ex. Redboy dogs are gamey, bullyson dogs have mouth. A pure redboy will be more game than a redboy with several outcrosses and a pure bullyson will have more mouth than one with several outcrosses. Lines are kept pure because of this. I will breed a pure bullyson bitch to as pure a male as I can find at least once. The other breedings will be outcrosses. I will outcross when I feel the line is missing a necessary trait. Like a bullyson to a redboy, you get the mouth and the gameness.
There is a need for culling in every breed. It is very important to do so if you are breeding for certain standards. Every breeder has dogs that need to be culled, regardless of the knowledge of genetics.
I am not saying you learn everything from books!!
I have never come across a gamebred dog that is not mentally stable. I am sure they exist but my dogs and the others I have seen have all been stable. My vet is my cousin and he does all needed tests, and tells me my dogs are healthy in every way. (Considering he is the best vet, with national recognition, in this area, I fully trust what he says.)
I believe most dogs are chosen by people that have no knowledge of genetics. Does everyone you sell your dogs to know about genetics??
Yes, my mind is made up. I feel with APBTs inbreeding is important, but like I said so is linebreeding and outcrossing.
If inbreeding does cause so many health problems why is it the APBT, which is inbred so much, a generally very healthy breed?
knocking pups in the head? No, I will take them to my vet and have them put down properly if they need to be put down.

[science_doc]

Okay, please stop right here:

And yes, I freely admit...I suck at molecular genetics. But then have you ever tried to read through topics like Mu DNA, Circularization of Infecting DNA, Mu encoded protiens, Ribosomomal frame shifting, Replicative Transposition, Mechanism of G inversion? and other such topics. Its enough to make your eyes glaze over. For example.... I am still trying to work out as to where TN3, TN7, TN1721 exactly are located (as in are they themselves gene sequencing or only a pritien within the gene?) and what they do, I understand they are some sort of family dealing with protien coding (GCAT)...I realize that they are gram positive transponsons...but understanding their use can make your eyes cross. So I applogize for my ignorance. If any one out there would like to help me understand and figure out some sort of system so that I can remember protien codes I am all for it. Also I would like to know how they decide the difference between a heptanucleotide and a nucleotide, as well as how they catagorize TN families? Is it location? or legth of code? Is it based on the 3' end or the 5' end or am I totally off on either of those assumptions? Or is it based on its positive or nagative charge?
Reading books about the results of gene combinations is alot easier then reading books about the molecular aspects of protien sequencing.....
Hey...at least ignorance is curable.

This is a complete and utter mish mash of non-sensical science words copied and pasted from an old text book...."gram positive" referes to a type of bacteria and has NOTHING to do with genetics. Transposons are hopping pieces of DNA shown to be present in the mamalian genomes only very recently, do you know where they came from, cause I do.
What the cr** is a pritien? Did you mean protein....that again is NEVER part of DNA. I would be willing to explain anything you want, but PLEASE speak real words not jibberish.

[science_doc]

I must say that all the questions asked of me have been answered perfectly by Hobbit.

I just don't understand why breeders fail to see that the "problems" found in tightly inbred lines are not the result of small mutations magnified by generation after generation of the same genetic material being used to generate thousands of dogs, each of those dogs with new mutations. If a trait can be "set" by inbreeding why can't a disease be "set" by inbreeding. I know your going to tell me that the vet said your dogs are healthy, but I'll be he didn't say their DNA was healthy.

[science_doc]

poofy,
Once again, all of your examples about why inbreeding is good come from dog breeders or rabbit breeders or people trying to create a certain "look". I will not argue that inbreeding is the easiest way to achieve a "look", but all those diseases you mention in other breeds that you would never outcross with are present because of inbreeding. In fact if you bred your dogs to some of those dogs, the pups could be less likely to carry those diseases than the sire and dam. Again, when you outbreed there are more combinations of alleles which prevent the appearance of a disease in a population. Getting rid of affected individuals will NOT remove the problem alleles from the population. When those allelels remain in the inbred population they will come together to affect the offspring. Cull or selectively breed all you want, someday all the individuals in your gene pool will carry the disease, then you will be FORCED to outcross. This is not my rule it is mother nature's rule and dog breeders are just seeing the tip of the iceburg. God help dogs, if a new canine virus pops up (think SARS in people), all the dogs are going to be sick.

RR,
After the last couple of BS posts I realize that poofy knows very little about genetics at all, be careful when taking advice on a topic where random words can be used to impress people...

Rosebud,
The purpose of inbreeding the mice was to create disease models. The lines used to create the models are/were checked for health and are free of disease before inbreeding. We know that the diesease arose through random mutation (please let me know if you guys want to know what a mutation is) which was then "set" in the line. We know far more about the genetics of our mice than dog breeders do about their dogs.

[Guest Anonymous]

APBTs are not bred for looks. Never have been and hopefully never will be.

[science_doc]

PLEASE as a favor to everyone, Poofy and Hummmmm, check out the links posted by me on this thread and by Hobbit posted on the other thread........I understand why you think inbreeding is so important, but just realize that there are risks/costs for doing this and someday there will be reprecussions in dog breeds.

[Poofy]

Woah:
This is a complete and utter mish mash of non-sensical science words copied and pasted from an old text book...."gram positive" referes to a type of bacteria and has NOTHING to do with genetics.


I am perfectly aware that gram positive has to do with Bacteria, but if you are dealing with the Genetic material of bacteria, and site specific transpondible elements...it has EVERYTHING to do with genetics. DNA exisists in bacteria. Bacteria are much more simple and often easier to deal with then looking at a more complex organism


Transposons are hopping pieces of DNA shown to be present in the mamalian genomes only very recently, do you know where they came from, cause I do.

Then I am suprised that you do not know that the first transposible elements to be used for genetic analysis was done in bacteria. The E coli bactiophages. That was over 50 years ago by Marbnara Mc Clintock.
Transposons are not hopping genes, from the way I was taught, rather ther are genetic elements or units that can be "transposed" within the genome.


What the cr** is a pritien? Did you mean protein....that again is NEVER part of DNA. I would be willing to explain anything you want, but PLEASE speak real words not jibberish.



Pritien was a type-o ...should have been protien. Sorry about that.
Actually protien binds certain parts of Mu DNA thats why I was asking. Is it apart of that binding process/coding ? or what? As for protien not having any part of DNA... When DNA is coded into MRNA the MRNA is associated with the robisome where is undergoes translation into PROTIEN.
Protien is HOW a genetic code is expressed. Almost all the possible codes in DNA specify one of the twenty amino acids, the chemical building blocks of protien....

And I am speaking real words thank you.

[Poofy]

I want to ad something to my post..becasue I know how people are such sticklers for details... ;)


Tranposible genetic elements were first studied, in depth in maize.

Transposons were also first associated with bacterial and viral resistance to antibiotics. It was suggested that the genes responsible were actually mobile and could move between bacterial plasmids and chromosomes...

I realize I ran that info together and it didn't quite make sense...sorry.

[Rosebud]

:wink:

Poofy: I got the impression from your "miss mash" (to quote doc) that you were just pointing out in a scientific way that there were things that you were still learning. I didn't think you were trying to be literal.


Doc: thanks for your mouse clarifacation. Now I have another question for you. If outcrossing makes it harder for certain alleles to not make and inbreeding helps them to match, then how does genetics play into my breed. When you outcross Ridgebacks you get larger Ridgebacks, but when you inbreed or linebreed they stay the appropriate size.

:angel:

[Poofy]

Thanks rosebud...you understood what I meant then...I wasn't being litteral you are right about that... :) Geeze, if I was, that really would make you cross eyed huh?

[Poofy]

lastly: As for the site hobbit posted...while it was interesting...I will not put much weight in the value of private web pages. If its not published buy the scientific community I am not really interested in it. And its very difficult for me to put any stock into a web page that promotes the breeding and selling of mixed puppies using a bit of out of context fact to sell what they are breeding.
I have plenty of books and online zines to read and keep me busy for the next year or so. Currently I am reading a DNA book by Berg and Howe which is very dry boring and I have fallen asleep on it a few times. It would be nice if these books would have some action scenes every once in a while (grin) :D I am currently looking for a good used copy of Cancer Chemotherapy in Small Animal.
Practice by Jane M Dobson and Neil T Gorman, if any one has one they want to part with. <hint> There is supposed to be a good section on tumor biology.

Any how...sleep tight...I am off to bed ;)

[RR]

[quote]When you outcross Ridgebacks you get larger Ridgebacks, but when you inbreed or linebreed they stay the appropriate size.
[/quote]

[color=darkblue]This is not necessarily true. I've seen plently of outcrossed RRs well within standard, as well as linebred RRs over-standard.[/color]

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Poofy']Woah:
[color=darkred][b]I knew I would get sucked back into this vortex of never ending mis-information. I just can't let this go.[/b][/color]

I am perfectly aware that gram positive has to do with Bacteria, but if you are dealing with the Genetic material of bacteria, and site specific transpondible elements...it has EVERYTHING to do with genetics. DNA exisists in bacteria. Bacteria are much more simple and often easier to deal with then looking at a more complex organism

[color=red][b]Who is the heck was EVEN talking about bacteria in the first place?? No one, but you. [/b][/color]


Transposons are hopping pieces of DNA shown to be present in the mamalian genomes only very recently, do you know where they came from, cause I do.

Then I am suprised that you do not know that the first transposible elements to be used for genetic analysis was done in bacteria. The E coli bactiophages. [b][color=red]Bacteriophage(phage) is a virus that infects bacteria. A virus is a particle consisting of a nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) genome surrounded by a protein coat (capsid) and sometimes also a membrane, which can replicate only after infecting a host cell. A virus particle may exist free of its host cell but is incapable of replicating on its own. [/color][/b] That was over 50 years ago by Marbnara Mc Clintock.
Transposons are not hopping genes, from the way I was taught, rather ther are genetic elements or units that can be "transposed" within the genome.

[color=red][b]The pioneering work in the 1950/60's by Barbara McClintock on so-called jumping genes in corn where she identified transposible elements or transposons which are genetic signalling sequences that allow genes to move around within the genome. These studies made possible the techniques that are used today to insert genes into organisms. However they also show that there is a great deal of instability to gene modification and this leads to much uncertainty as to where genes locate and what they do once they are inserted. Thus, it is much too soon to know the affects that inserted genes will have either in the targetted crop plants or on consumers of those crop products.

Are you sure it's NOT [i]Shigella[/i] that you are talking about?

Transposible elements: Genetic elements characterized by their abilities to insert into and withdraw from a given location within the genome, resulting in movement from site to site within the genome over a period of time. Transposable elements may cause epigenetic changes in phenotype. [/b][/color]

What the cr** is a pritien? Did you mean protein....that again is NEVER part of DNA. I would be willing to explain anything you want, but PLEASE speak real words not jibberish.



Pritien was a type-o ...should have been protien. Sorry about that.
Actually protien binds certain parts of Mu DNA thats why I was asking. Is it apart of that binding process/coding ? or what? As for protien not having any part of DNA... When DNA is coded into MRNA the MRNA is associated with the robisome where is undergoes translation into PROTIEN.
Protien is HOW a genetic code is expressed. Almost all the possible codes in DNA specify one of the twenty amino acids, the chemical building blocks of protien....

[color=darkred][b]Messenger RNA (mRNA):
An RNA molecule transcribed [u]from[/u] the DNA of a gene, and from which a protein is translated by the action of ribosomes. The basic function of the nucleotide sequence of mRNA is to determine the amino acid sequence in proteins.

Ribosome:
A complex organelle (composed of proteins plus rRNA) that catalyzes translation of messenger RNA into an amino acid sequence. Ribosomes are made up of two non-identical subunits each consisting of a different rRNA and a different set of proteins.

The genome, is used to build and maintain cells, tissues, organs and organisms. In the flow of information from genome to organism, two steps require the copying of nucleotide sequence information into a different form. The first step, the copying of the DNA information [i][u]into[/u][/i] RNA, is designated transcription. After transcription and before translation the RNA transcripts are processed to produce mature messenger RNA (mRNA). The second copying step, in which amino acids are polymerized in response to the RNA information, is called translation. The products of translation, polypeptides, are also processed, producing the mature proteins. Each of the steps and the RNA and protein processing reactions rely on signal elements within the informational molecule to signal the correct copying or processing. Mature proteins contribute to phenotype in many ways: structural (membranes, fibers); catalytic (synthesizing other structural macromolecules, lipids, polysaccharides, etc.); regulatory (turning on and off various reaction paths) in response to environment or developmental plan. [/b][/color]

And I am speaking real words thank you.[/quote]

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Poofy']lastly: As for the site hobbit posted...while it was interesting...I will not put much weight in the value of private web pages. If its not published buy the scientific community I am not really interested in it. And its very difficult for me to put any stock into a web page that promotes the breeding and selling of mixed puppies using a bit of out of context fact to sell what they are breeding.
I have plenty of books and online zines to read and keep me busy for the next year or so. Currently I am reading a DNA book by Berg and Howe which is very dry boring and I have fallen asleep on it a few times. It would be nice if these books would have some action scenes every once in a while (grin) :D I am currently looking for a good used copy of Cancer Chemotherapy in Small Animal.
Practice by Jane M Dobson and Neil T Gorman, if any one has one they want to part with. <hint> There is supposed to be a good section on tumor biology.

Any how...sleep tight...I am off to bed ;)[/quote]


Because you don't understand it, that is why you poo-poo it off. If you DID understand, then you would see the significance in the meaning. If you want published works by the Scientific community --- I CAN surely give you lots and lots of information.

[Poofy]

Hobbit: I reffered to Bacteria when I replied about molecular genetics. And yes I know a bacteria phage is a virus.



And as for the little blurb on Barbara Mclintock...I thought I made that clear in my other post where I said I had not made any sense when I typed that. I forgot a few sentences.


And Yes I also know the definitions to the stuff that you replied too. I was not bringing that up with the expectations that everyone would know, nor was I realizing you would need the full text explinations...I made "reference" to them as pretty much of an example.
As for your other detailed references...your books simply read differently then mine. I even double checked what I wrote in reference to MRNA

You say:
An RNA molecule transcribed *from* the DNA of a gene,

And William S Klug says:
The coded information in DNA is first transferred during a process called inscription INTO a messanger RNA molecule. The MRNA subsequently associates with a cellualr organelle, the ribosome, where it undergoes translation into a protien, the end product of almost all genes.
p8 Concepts of Genetics

I thought I had that pretty much down...as I just looked it up the other night for another question I was having from another book. I don't think what I said is different from what you said...only worded differently.

[Poofy]

As for the other part: As I said...I cleared that up when I made refference to Babara Mclintock as she was involved with the study of Maize and transposons.

When I mentioned E. Coli I forgot to detail that was involved with Starlinger and Shapiro.
So pardon me for forgetting that detail.

I have no idea who Shigella is.

[science_doc]

And William S Klug says:
The coded information in DNA is first transferred during a process called inscription INTO a messanger RNA molecule. The MRNA subsequently associates with a cellualr organelle, the ribosome, where it undergoes translation into a protien, the end product of almost all genes.
p8 Concepts of Genetics

AGAIN POOFY WRONG WRONG WRONG
THE PROCESS OF MAKING mRNA FROM DNA IS CALLED TRANSCRIPTION

The reason I called your mumbo jumbo mish mash is that your are not participating in a logical discussion. As Hobbit said, why are you talking about bacteria at all? I asked why you were talking about "gram positive" because bacteria are a prokaryotes not a eukaryotes and the genetics of one do not usually apply to the genetics of the other, not logical. You need to know virtually nothing about the molecular genetics of bacteria and bacteria phage to discuss the problems of inbreeding. In addition plant genetics, things that can't move and so have a very different approach to life, will also not help your dog breeding program very much either.......why bother discussing side topics, tell me how inbreeding helps dog breeds? The problem is that you cannot provide a sound argument on the value of inbreeding from any textbook/book newer than 1922. Science done 10 years ago is out of date, so what would you suspect about science done 80 years ago? I think you posted all that malarky on bacteria to make yourself appear knowledgeable to those without the benefit of a scientific education. Please stick to the subject since you are going to confuse people. As for proteins and DNA......you are correct about proteins being encoded by DNA, but your post implied that they are part of DNA which they ARE NOT. They can bind to DNA and influence transcription and the ribosome is the site of translation so at least you got that part right.

I don't agree with breeding mutts and selling them, however the genetics explaination on that site was good for those with little background knowledge. I'm just trying to help those out there with little or no genetic understanding to think a little about the REAL DANGER of inbreeding.

[science_doc]

Rosebud,

Knowing little about ridgeback genetics I am not sure why outcrossed ridgebacks are bigger, except wait.......here is a crazy idea:
Perhaps the outcrossed dogs are bigger because the are HEALTHIER!
I have already tried to explain that I realize that the current dog breed standards make inbreeding seem the only option to make champion dogs. I am just simply trying to point out that there are going to contiune to be "diseses" specific to each breed until breeders clean up their lines or whatever with a little outcrossing.

[science_doc]

I know that I should just let this topic drop, but as a scientist I HAVE TO BE a stickler for details. That's the cool thing about science, there is evidence and more evidence and eventually you convince people that your evidence is enough to prove or disprove a hypothesis. However to do this stuff we HAVE TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO DETAILS. We are not allowed to speak in generalities, rough approximations, and vague ideas. Poofy you keep saying things that are flat out wrong or at the very least misconstrewed, this is not a difference in how a book "reads":

1. Transposons were also first associated with bacterial and viral resistance to antibiotics.

I'm sorry but viruses are not killed by antibiotics, so they don't need to develop resistance. I know you are all thinking these are petty points, but to the trained eye these petty points show the difference between understanding the topic of genetics and having a rough idea about some genetic topics whic you developed by skimming a textbook.

2. I don't know who shigella is.

Shigella is a type of bacteria that infects the gastrointestinal tract, not a person. Now I am the one who is "surprised you don't know that".

3. Crossing over can introduce genetic diversity (This is by far the one thing that irritates me most)

Crossing over simply changes around the order of the genes present in a phenotype it's not the same thing as introducing new allelels into a population. There is no way that crossing over can be compared to genetic diversity, just not the same thing.

I still stand by the original idea at the start of this thread, inbreeding is bad for a population and no one has yet given any type of scientific evidence to the contrary so I for one am still not convinced.

[imported_Cassie]

I agree with science_doc & hobbit, here is an interesting quote from Raymond & Lorna Coppinger (both are biologists)
[quote]During the past one hundred years, hobby breeders have taken the working-sporting breeds and bred them specifically for the household market. I understand that throughout history breeders have bred miniature and gargantuan forms of dogs simply for display: the bonsai-garden type of breeding. But few of our modern household breeds are much older than a hundred years. The "perfection" of breeds is coincidental with the interest in expositions in which owners or trainers submit their dogs to judges who decide which which dogs are superior in looks. Over the past hundred years, the hobby breeding program has succeeded quite well in isolating subpopulations of working-sporting breeds from their greater populations for the specific purpose of public display and sales to the household market. This is an important concept to understand. The modern hobby breeder specializes in a breed. A breed is a population of dogs that is mechanically isolated from all other dogs.
It also points up a very different process than the one producing pet or show dogs. A dog purchased from inbred stock (closed stud book), untested in the field for many generations, is the product of a breeding program (maybe) that has little to do with its working behavior. The expectation of the new owner is that the dog will be good because it is a purebred golden retriever[i]."What kind of dog should I get?" "Get a golden retriever because they have a friendly nature and disposition, athletic ability, love of water, and natural instinct for hunting and retrieving". [/i]
That sounds ridiculous to a working-dog person, or to a population geneticist. Friendly disposition is genetic? Love of water is genetic? Athletic ability has something to do with golden color? Is the implication that all goldens have this same set of genes, and all these traits? Is there no variation in golden retrievers? Lord Tweedmouth had good dogs because he had a good breeding program that included a high percentage of crossbreeding and because he hired people to work those dogs from their youngest days and develop the best dogs. He liked to hunt, he liked to have the best hunting dogs, and he was proud of his eye for working dogs. And he culled the bad ones.
Increasingly, the modern household dog becomes a genetic prisoner trapped in an isolated population. With each succeeding generation the behavioral and physical misfits get eliminated from the gene pool while breeders try to hold on tho the ancestral form. But in each new generation we see a host of new genetic problems. Lists of breed-specific genetic diseases are now part of the professional and popular literature. And it is worse than that. Breeders and owners forget what the historical dog looked like. They select for the exagggerated form. They select for the longest face. They select for the really big ones. They select for the flattest face. The breeds end up with weird conformations. Each breed takes on an unnatural shape, becoming a freak of nature. They are loved the way the hunchback Quasimodo was loved-a dichotomy between the grotesque form and the honorable personality...As the decades go by, every part of the household dog's life is increasingly manipulated for the human host's benefit. The dog is capriciously manipulated for human pleasure. The more bizarre and exaggerated the animal is the more benefit it seems to confer. This recent breeding fad for the purebred dog is badly out of control. It appears that selection for the exotic is the goal, We are producing unhealthy freaks to satisfy human whims. This is terribly unfair to dogs.
The same reduction in gene diversity takes place when a breed club tries to select against hip dysplasia, retinal atrophy, and some other so-called genetic disease. Every time an animal is culled for genetic problem, the genetic variation in the closed population is further reduced. It's not just the bad genes that are affected, it is all the animal's genes. Any time there is selection for or against single characters, ie, "tame" or "hip dysplasia," then one must be prepared for the appearance of new or altered characters because of what Darwin called "the mysterious laws of correlation" Today the phenomenon is called pleiotropy, or saltation-the fact that more than one characteristic can be controlled by a single gene, and selection can result in unintended and unpredictable changes.
Many breeds are living to pay a terrible price for the temporal increase in population or the luxury of expensive food and care. It is not simply that the dogs have access to the kind of medical care that is given to humans, but that they have been bred so they need such care to survive. Breeds like the English bulldog are in a dead-end trap. There probably is not enough variation left to get them out of their genetic pickle. Unless the breed clubs open their stud books and and allow outside breedings, Bulldogs and the other breeds caught in these eugenic breeding practices are headed for extinction. The problem here is that unlike the wild counterpart becoming extinct because of habitat loss, these purebred individuals will increasingly suffer ill health. What is troublesome is that modern society seems to have little realization of what it is doing to dogs..owners don't seem to be disturbed about deformation....[/quote]

[Hobbit]

Cassie --- again, BRAVO!