A hypothetical question for you on Pigeon Bloods

[brewmaster15]

Hypothetical question for you all... At what point is a Pigeon Blood Not a Pigeon Blood?

Say you cross a pure Pigeon Blood Discus out to a Non-Pigeon Blood like a Red Turq. The offspring will off course have half their genes from a Pb parent , assuming there are even Pure Pigeon Bloods out there ( something thats becoming more and More Rare, IMO) These F1 crosses may or may not show pepper, yet they still carry PB genes which can show up down the line when you breed them. So do you consider these f1's still pigeons?


How about if you take a Golden and Breed it to a "pure" pigeon as has been done to reduce the peppering... These f1s still carry pigeon genes... are they Pigeons? How about taking the F1 and cross to another F1 from the group... resulting in F2s, are these Pigeons still.


How many generations would you say it takes to breed the pigeon out of a pigeon? Of course its just an opinion, but curious on your take on it.


while we are at it...

Would you consider the gene (s) for pigeon blood to be dominant, co-dominant, or recessive?


al

[MD.David]

I would consider it recessive, and no matter how many times to attempt to breed it out, genetics are a little bit like God, it will always be with us.
At least this is what my mentor taught me, but I'm not sure because I don't have any formal training in aquatic and discus genetics.
This is just my thoughts.

[MattArmstrong]

This might provide clues: http://cefishessentials.com/Pigeon-blood-history. I was just looking for a way to buy "Blehr's Discus Vol. 2" the other day (and failed).

From this article: http://www.discusnada.org/discus-classification/ I found:

"The pigeon blood gene is dominant. A Pure pigeon bred to any other discus will produce all pigeon fry."

[nc0gnet0]

I would consider it recessive, and no matter how many times to attempt to breed it out, genetics are a little bit like God, it will always be with us.
At least this is what my mentor taught me, but I'm not sure because I don't have any formal training in aquatic and discus genetics.
This is just my thoughts.


This might provide clues: http://cefishessentials.com/Pigeon-blood-history. I was just looking for a way to buy "Blehr's Discus Vol. 2" the other day (and failed).

From this article: http://www.discusnada.org/discus-classification/ I found:

"The pigeon blood gene is dominant. A Pure pigeon bred to any other discus will produce all pigeon fry."

Al, knows it is a dominant gene :) But he also knows this is a topic for discussion that could go on for pages :)

[nc0gnet0]

Hypothetical question for you all... At what point is a Pigeon Blood Not a Pigeon Blood?

From a simplified explanation it would no longer be considered a pb when the mutated gene is no longer present in it's DNA. It might however have carried some "other material" over with it that may or may not remain.

For instance I could take a wild type* brown discus. I then cross it to a homogenous Red based PB. (or golden but a bit more complicated for a simple explanation). All my off spring would be Pigeon bloods. Most likely a good deal of peppering as well. All of these offspring are heterogeous (only have one) for the dominant PB gene. This initial batch is my F1 (first generation) batch.

I then take a male and female from the offspring and breed them. From this pairing I get my F2 batch (second generation). Now. as most of us know, following Mendel's rule, I will get 25% homogenous PB's (two pb genes), 50% heterogeneous PB's, and 25% non-pb's. And in this scenario, it's this 25% non-pb's that I was focusing on all along. NOw, if everything has gone as planned, What these 25% non-pb's in the F2 have given me, is a wild type brown discus, with no PB genes, but an enhanced RED over the very first wild type brown I used in the very first pairing,

Now, technically these enhanced red, non-pb wild type browns are not pigeon bloods, however, I have seen the phrase "with pigeon blood genetics" used on a few occasions. A better way to state this would be to say, refined with pigeon blood genetics.

Now, before anyone tries to correct me, I use this scenario as a means to explain a process in the simplest way. However, the above cross is most often done with a golden based red as opposed to a PB based red, but due to the recessive nature of the golden gene, a few more steps would need to be taken to insure the final outcome was free of golden genetics, otherwise, we would have golden intermediates (intermediates have one golden gene, but because the golden gene is considered recessive, it does not express itself).

People would be amazed at how many of there domestic discus are actually golden intermediates. From Ring Leopards to Heckle cross's, just to name a few.

* For purpose of discussion, "wild type" should not be confused with a "wild" discus, although most wild discus would also be "wild type". From a genetic stand point, "Wild type" would refer to a discus that is free from any of the known mutations such as pigeon blood, albino, golden, snow white, ghost, etc etc.

[nc0gnet0]

How about if you take a Golden and Breed it to a "pure" pigeon as has been done to reduce the peppering... These f1s still carry pigeon genes... are they Pigeons? How about taking the F1 and cross to another F1 from the group... resulting in F2s, are these Pigeons still.

Lol, you evil, evil man!!

The way I see it, as my above post stated, the same would apply. All the F1's would be pigeon bloods. HOWEVER, the way they express themselves(more on this later) might be a bit different than what we would expect, due to the fact we are now playing with two mutated genes. We have all pb's (heterozygous) that are golden intermediates in the F1

NOW the F2, that's where all the fun starts. While the F1 generation by and large all might have looked basically like the same phenotype, The F2's are going to be crazy. From this batch we will have:

1) homozygous pigeon bloods with no golden genes
2) homozygous pb's that are golden intermediates
3) homozygous pb's that are also homozygous for the golden gene
4) homozygous golden's with no pb gene
5) homozygous golden's that are heterozygous for the pb gene
6) wild type (believe it or not)

yup, 6 different types of fry all with deviations within there own group, that may or may not look quite different than the other five groups.

[nc0gnet0]

How many generations would you say it takes to breed the pigeon out of a pigeon? Of course its just an opinion, but curious on your take on it.

2

However, the fish could still be influenced by the PB in the original paring, and yet be free of the Pigeon blood gene. If you want to get rid of this influence, there is no simple answer to your question, could be as few as two generations or as many as 100. You have actually touched on a subject that is worth discussion. By answering these questions, I have touched on one of the tools breeders use to "create" their different varieties (notice how I didn't say "strain"). Even if the breeder is working on a "wild type" variety, he can use one of the different mutations to first focus on a particular attribute, be it color or pattern, introduce it into the variety and then pull out the mutated gene. Or, in the case of the recessive genes, just leave them in there in the heterozygous form (which again happens a lot).

[nc0gnet0]

while we are at it...

Would you consider the gene (s) for pigeon blood to be dominant, co-dominant, or recessive?

:)

Yes-No-Maybe?

From what I have observed in my limited cross's I think I have learned the following, Bear in mind I am not stating this as fact, just observation. Each cross I do helps me to refine my beliefs.

When we talk about as to whether or not a specific gene is dominant or recessive, we are referring to it's interaction by itself, and itself alone, on a "wild type" fish. So, to answer your question in this state, the PB gene is dominant.

However

When we start introducing multiple mutated genes into a fish, well, you can pretty much throw Mendel out the window, By my observations, even some of the mutations we think of as recessive, can effect how the dominant mutation is expressed. Things no longer act in a binary sense, that being either on or off, but rather different states of on. It can almost be better defined as a sliding scale, with 10 being totally dominant, and 1 being totally recessive, with some of the mutations landing in or around the "5" mark. Not only would we need to discuss co-dominance, but penetrance as well. And to further complicate things, certain mutations seem to have more effect on certain regions of the fish's body. A classic example of this is the Red/White (john's favorite fish btw). In this familiar cross, we have two mutations, both thought of as to be dominant, co-existing on the fish. We will see the PB gene influence the regions below the lateral line (it often bleeds into an area above it, just not totally) with red coloration, yet the areas above the lateral line, as well as the head region, will be white, including the eyes.

[nc0gnet0]

Now it is my turn. Estimating a fish has 15,000 to 25,000 alleles, how many would you guess might have an influence on color and pattern? Do you think it is possible that two (or more) mutations we see in discus could be occurring on the same local?

[mollyb]

Wow - now I see why you have Dasterdly in your tag line.

Nice description of the genetics, I would expect there could be many allele combinations that would influence color or other phenotype. What you are describing sounds a lot like the various syndromes you might see in human populations. Many traits seemingly travel in familial generations. I like Mendelian genetics in simple observations, but I tend to loose track of it in anything over F2. It is tough to tell (impossible?) the difference between a heterozygous and homozygous dominant F2 sib. So you have to wait to their possible fry to guess, and then (just to further stir the pot) you may have a lethal combination showing up that will skew the numbers.

Flies breed quickly, but discus would take (well) over a year between generations. I would definitely have to take notes, and then remember where I put them!

Brent

[nc0gnet0]

Wow - now I see why you have Dasterdly in your tag line.

Nice description of the genetics, I would expect there could be many allele combinations that would influence color or other phenotype. What you are describing sounds a lot like the various syndromes you might see in human populations. Many traits seemingly travel in familial generations. I like Mendelian genetics in simple observations, but I tend to loose track of it in anything over F2. It is tough to tell (impossible?) the difference between a heterozygous and homozygous dominant F2 sib. So you have to wait to their possible fry to guess, and then (just to further stir the pot) you may have a lethal combination showing up that will skew the numbers.

Flies breed quickly, but discus would take (well) over a year between generations. I would definitely have to take notes, and then remember where I put them!

Brent

That's not Dasterdly, it is his side kick Muttly.

[mollyb]

Yah, my bad, been longer since I watched these cartoons than doing genetics! Was it Penerlope Pitstop?

[nc0gnet0]

Yah, my bad, been longer since I watched these cartoons than doing genetics! Was it Penerlope Pitstop?

Wacky races.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=datMjH31b14

[brewmaster15]

Al, knows it is a dominant gene :) But he also knows this is a topic for discussion that could go on for pages :)
:bandana:

[brewmaster15]

Glad to see the question got some good discussion going. How about we add another. would you guys consider "Golden" a Dominant gene?

al

[nc0gnet0]

Lol, you evil, evil man!!

The way I see it, as my above post stated, the same would apply. All the F1's would be pigeon bloods. HOWEVER, the way they express themselves(more on this later) might be a bit different than what we would expect, due to the fact we are now playing with two mutated genes. We have all pb's (heterozygous) that are golden intermediates in the F1

NOW the F2, that's where all the fun starts. While the F1 generation by and large all might have looked basically like the same phenotype, The F2's are going to be crazy. From this batch we will have:

1) homozygous pigeon bloods with no golden genes
2) homozygous pb's that are golden intermediates
3) homozygous pb's that are also homozygous for the golden gene
4) homozygous golden's with no pb gene
5) homozygous golden's that are heterozygous for the pb gene
6) wild type (believe it or not)

yup, 6 different types of fry all with deviations within there own group, that may or may not look quite different than the other five groups.

Darn it, I actually missed a few types in there...........

[nc0gnet0]

Glad to see the question got some good discussion going. How about we add another. would you guys consider "Golden" a Dominant gene?

al

No, it is recessive when crossed into a Wild type.