Growing, native locations, and genetics

[Wren]

I've noticed that the smaller complex hybrids (mini Phalaenopsis) tend to grow faster when it's warm. My Phalaenopsis Amabilis does better under warmer temps 71 and up. Another species (Japonica) grows vigorously even with with cooler temps (68 and up). Even complex hybrids seem to have similar temperature preferences. I would think they would have a wider range because of there mixed genetics. Thoughts on this?
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

[PaphMadMan]

Here's one point where it can make a difference what plant is the pod parent and what plant is the pollen parent, and back through all the generations to the species involved. A significant portion of the physiology of a plant lies in the subcellular organelles that come only through the mother line. A plant gets its mitochondria and chloroplasts with their little bits of DNA that are independent of the chromosomes in the nucleus only from the pod parent, from the pod parent of the pod parent, and the pod parent of the pod parent of the pod parent, and all the way back. If the species that began the mother line of a hybrid had specific temperature range preferences, that may still be reflected in the hybrid 20+ generations later to some extent.

Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis and store energy reserves and mitochondria process energy that drives everything else a cell does. The efficiency of those processes may depend on a species' adaptation to a specific temperature range, and result in a narrower temperature range preference than you might expect looking at all the species that go into a hybrid. Hybrids usually will thrive in a somewhat broader temperature range than any one species that make them up because other aspects of genetics are also involved, but there is this piece of the puzzle that only comes from the mother of the mother of the mother...

[Dorsetman]

[QUOTE=PaphMadMan;435737] If the species that began the mother line of a hybrid had specific temperature range preferences, that may still be reflected in the hybrid 20+ generations later to some extent.
This business about mitochondria being responsible for basic functions, and only descending through the mother line is true of all life as far as I know ; certainly true of homo sapiens (us ) - and from my reading we are all descended ( or maybe its "only" just all white caucasian types) from just a handful - actually about 20, females, all those generations ago at the beginning of our species. On that basis 5% of the population are cousins. Mind blowing !
With animals I think it is 99.5% of our dna in the nucleus and coming from both parents , and ½ of 1% from the mitochondria from the mother . Now in flowers, it is I think 95% from the nucleus and both parents, 4.5% from the chloroplasts and the same 1/2 of 1% from the mitochondria . The chloroplast dna is also passed down the mother, i.e. pod parent line , and the nuclear dna from both pod and pollen parents. Much of the flower structure and colour comes from the genes in the chloroplasts - whiuch indicates the importance of making a hybrid cross one particular way, i.e. with the two parents together, choosing which will carry the pod.

[sciencegal]

I love mitochondria discussions. I was the main technician involved in the research many years ago that for the first time actually proved that mitochondria were inherited from the mother in mammals. It was assumed but never proven. I used rats that were thought to be perfectly genetically related. It was the time when recombinant DNA work just started and everyone was all concerned that we were going to be making Frankenstein monsters.. In some of the work I was doing with mitochondrial DNA it was discovered that the mitochondria in these lab rats were of two different types. This made it easy to breed the rats, extract their mitochondrial DNA and see how it was inherited. Those were the good ol' days.

[PaphMadMan]

...
This business about mitochondria being responsible for basic functions, and only descending through the mother line is true of all life as far as I know ; certainly true of homo sapiens (us ) - and from my reading we are all descended ( or maybe its "only" just all white caucasian types) from just a handful - actually about 20, females, all those generations ago at the beginning of our species. On that basis 5% of the population are cousins. Mind blowing !
With animals I think it is 99.5% of our dna in the nucleus and coming from both parents , and ½ of 1% from the mitochondria from the mother . Now in flowers, it is I think 95% from the nucleus and both parents, 4.5% from the chloroplasts and the same 1/2 of 1% from the mitochondria . The chloroplast dna is also passed down the mother, i.e. pod parent line , and the nuclear dna from both pod and pollen parents. Much of the flower structure and colour comes from the genes in the chloroplasts - whiuch indicates the importance of making a hybrid cross one particular way, i.e. with the two parents together, choosing which will carry the pod.

At least some conifers are an exception to the matrilineal inheritance of mitochondria, and many conifers (maybe most or all) get their chloroplasts through the pollen line. Life seems to have exceptions to every rule, and many species have not been studied in this way, so I doubt we know all the variations on this.

Estimates on the single female-line ancestor of all living humans based on mitochondrial studies puts her anywhere from about 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, so we're all cousins. (At the risk of setting off some 6000 year old Earth anti-evolution types.)

I love mitochondria discussions. I was the main technician involved in the research many years ago that for the first time actually proved that mitochondria were inherited from the mother in mammals. It was assumed but never proven. I used rats that were thought to be perfectly genetically related. It was the time when recombinant DNA work just started and everyone was all concerned that we were going to be making Frankenstein monsters.. In some of the work I was doing with mitochondrial DNA it was discovered that the mitochondria in these lab rats were of two different types. This made it easy to breed the rats, extract their mitochondrial DNA and see how it was inherited. Those were the good ol' days.

Nice work Karin, but I may have you beat on the Frankenstein factor. At one time my job was in production of some of the first GMO crops, putting genes where they didn't belong. (Now I know I'm going to get some hate mail.)

[Aeronaut]

Nope sciencegal no hatemail from me, I'm too busy stamping my feet and throwing a temper tantrum over modern polotics wawawa.... hahaha
Posted via Mobile Device

[Azizan]

I am interested with the mitochondria discussion as well. Since you guys have bring it up, have you heard the controversy about 3-parent child? When a mother have defected mitochondria, she couldn't get pregnant. So they get an egg with healthy mitochondria, enucleated it and replace with mother's nucleus then fertilize with father's sperm. The child already born many years ago and just recently, there is news about another. Actually, there is very small possibility of inheriting mitochodrial DNA from the father, if the mitochodria in the middle piece of the sperm accidentally penetrates the egg (normally left outside the egg), but that is exceptional case.

---------- Post Merged at 10:38 AM ----------

And I have acquired some much new info from Geoff and Kirk.

[sciencegal]

Modern science can boggle the mind. I don't think the science behind GMO is bad, I don't even think GMO is bad. I think if used right it can help feed the world. I just bought 2 tons of GMO alfalfa hay to feed my livestock. The regular stuff, if you can find it, is always full of weeds. The problem is the politics behind it.

[Azizan]

Modern science can boggle the mind. I don't think the science behind GMO is bad, I don't even think GMO is bad. I think if used right it can help feed the world. I just bought 2 tons of GMO alfalfa hay to feed my livestock. The regular stuff, if you can find it, is always full of weeds. The problem is the politics behind it.

But I do believe there should be boundaries in GMO. I don't mind the Japanese blue Phalaenopsis at all.

---------- Post Merged at 08:31 PM ----------

I've noticed that the smaller complex hybrids (mini Phalaenopsis) tend to grow faster when it's warm. My Phalaenopsis Amabilis does better under warmer temps 71 and up. Another species (Japonica) grows vigorously even with with cooler temps (68 and up). Even complex hybrids seem to have similar temperature preferences. I would think they would have a wider range because of there mixed genetics. Thoughts on this?
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

Coming back to the question itself. Actually I have read a theory that the temperature preference also dependent not on genetics alone but determined since it is in seed. If the seed capsule grow during cooler season, the resulting offspring could adapt better at cooler temperature and vice versa. But I'm am not sure how true this theory might be.

[sciencegal]

It could also be related to the microbes that naturally live with plants. I am reading a fascinating book, "I Contain Multitudes, the microbes within us and a grander view of life" by Ed Yong. It turns out that the genetics of the organism can influence the value (or not) of their microbes. We grow orchids in a microbe depleted world which simply has to affect them.

...the problem with setting boundaries with GMO is who sets the boundaries.