# Lolz at fruit fly genetics...



## sbugir (Sep 15, 2009)

Flightless FFs + Wingless FFs = Flying ffs!

Is this because flying is a dominate trait in fruit flies? If that's the case, wings must be too, otherwise how would the offspring have wings...? Ahhh weird stuff!


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 15, 2009)

lemmiwinks said:


> Flightless FFs + Wingless FFs = Flying ffs!Is this because flying is a dominate trait in fruit flies? If that's the case, wings must be too, otherwise how would the offspring have wings...? Ahhh weird stuff!


My genetics are pretty sketchy, but it is possible that the reversion of a flightless/wingless strain of ff's to the "wild" type, doesn't depend on dominant or recessive genes per se. An isolated community with genetic alteration (inbred) will always (so far as I know), revert to type (outbred) over time, in this case wild ffs. For me, there is an even higher risk that my mutated strains will be contaminated by the more fecund wild ffs that are always welcome in my apartment and love to sneak into a pot of flightless mels. This last process can become speeded up when a population of mutated flies is stressed by the cuture "wearing out," or any other reason. In such a situation, inbred ffs are likely to die out (genetic erosion), leaving only outbred "wild" individuals.

As always, if anyone has a better explanation,. I'd like to hear it.


----------



## sbugir (Sep 15, 2009)

But, none were wild, I just mixed two cultures together because I need to make more cultures out of it... the flightless were bought at scales n tails (rep store) and the wingless were bought at petco... in those icky containers lol. But I think your info is definitely correct, but since (for all i know) there was not any wild ff intervention, is it possible that the wingless ffs carry the flying trait, and the flightless (obviously have wings lol) carry the wings over to the offspring?


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 15, 2009)

lemmiwinks said:


> But, none were wild, I just mixed two cultures together because I need to make more cultures out of it... the flightless were bought at scales n tails (rep store) and the wingless were bought at petco... in those icky containers lol. But I think your info is definitely correct, but since (for all i know) there was not any wild ff intervention, is it possible that the wingless ffs carry the flying trait, and the flightless (obviously have wings lol) carry the wings over to the offspring?


Yep!


----------



## sbugir (Sep 15, 2009)

lol that's so dumb, you'd think that flightless and wingless would lead to never being able to fly again -.-


----------



## Rick (Sep 15, 2009)

I've found that all flightless/wingless ff's will eventually be able to fly if you go through enough generations.


----------



## sbugir (Sep 15, 2009)

Weird, so wingless grow wings? I've gone through a few generations with the vials (my flightless) but i recently bought these wingless...then again they could have been sitting there for god knows how long. Still though, it's strange.


----------



## Rick (Sep 15, 2009)

lemmiwinks said:


> Weird, so wingless grow wings? I've gone through a few generations with the vials (my flightless) but i recently bought these wingless...then again they could have been sitting there for god knows how long. Still though, it's strange.


Right now I have what used to be wingless and flightless. Both are flying now after only a couple months. Time to replace them.


----------



## sbugir (Sep 15, 2009)

Yeah, I'm thinking it's the same for me too, shame, they're pretty expensive.


----------



## Katnapper (Sep 15, 2009)

No need to replace.... the flying ones work great! They reach more mantids more often, and reproduce faster too.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 15, 2009)

lemmiwinks said:


> lol that's so dumb, you'd think that flightless and wingless would lead to never being able to fly again -.-


I remember that when I was in the fish hobby, folks would spend a fortune on new livebearer (guppies, swordtails) strains and then, if they simply inbred them, they'd see their strain revert to the wild type.


----------



## Rick (Sep 15, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> No need to replace.... the flying ones work great! They reach more mantids more often, and reproduce faster too.


I agree but the extra step I have to take of sticking them in the freezer is enough to make me want to replace them.


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 15, 2009)

What happens is that the genes required to fly get patched in by the other populations (filest without the same genetic defect), wether recessive or dominant. Recessive traits would appear to 'go away' much faster through successive generations.


----------



## Katnapper (Sep 15, 2009)

Rick said:


> I agree but the extra step I have to take of sticking them in the freezer is enough to make me want to replace them.


I don't even use the fridge or freezer anymore. I use phototropism to corral them all to the back side of the net cage I keep them in. Then when I open the zipper on the near (darker) side, hardly any escape. Of course this is in my bug room where incidences of escapees aren't met by annoyed or outraged mothers, husbands, or any other family members, hehe.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 15, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> I don't even use the fridge or freezer anymore. I use phototropism to corral them all to the back side of the net cage I keep them in. Then when I open the zipper on the near (darker) side, hardly any escape. Of course this is in my bug room where incidences of escapees aren't met by annoyed or outraged mothers, husbands, or any other family members, hehe.


Perfect, isn't it? If my mel cultures are running low, I can just put out a pot with some banana in it, and its full in no time!


----------



## Katnapper (Sep 15, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> Perfect, isn't it?


Definitely works for me!


----------



## spicey (Sep 15, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> No need to replace.... the flying ones work great! They reach more mantids more often, and reproduce faster too.


They also seem to reach more places in my house! How do you keep them from flying out of the container when you open the lid to feed? I always seem to "release" at least a couple dozen...up up and away!


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 16, 2009)

spicey said:


> They also seem to reach more places in my house! How do you keep them from flying out of the container when you open the lid to feed? I always seem to "release" at least a couple dozen...up up and away!


Oh, that's easy! You will need a funnel and a feeding port cut in the pot containing the mantids and sealed with a sponge bung. Now, here you go. With one hand, remove the bung and keep it tight with yr little finger so that you don't lose it. With the same hand, hold the funnel in place in the port. O.K. so far?

With your second hand rap the pot of mels sharply on a hard surface to knock them to the bottom of the pot. You will be pouring the mels into the funnel with your second hand, so pry the lid off their pot with yr third hand. We're moving along nicely, eh?

Pour the mels into the funnel and be sure to prevent them from climbing out of the funnel by flicking it sharply with the fingers of your fourth hand, at the same time recapping the mel pot with the lid that you should still be holding in one of the other hands; I can never remember which.

If you have just one more hand, you can use that to spritz the pot as you remove the funnel from the port. It is now a simple matter to replace the bung (can you remember which hand you put it in?). put the pot back where it belongs and treat yourself to a shot of whatever works best for you, holding the glass with whatever hand you like.


----------



## Katnapper (Sep 16, 2009)

:lol: @ Phil!!  



spicey said:


> They also seem to reach more places in my house! How do you keep them from flying out of the container when you open the lid to feed? I always seem to "release" at least a couple dozen...up up and away!


I keep my flying mels in a 12x12 net cage that has the opening on one side... not the top. And I just unzip enough to stick my hand in there holding the target container I want ff's in, scoop some into the cup (they are all at the back side of the net cage because I position the cage so the light is coming from that direction), and then wedge my other hand in there and cap the lid.

I also keep at least one complete ff culture right inside the net cages. I just add new cups with new culture media to replace the old every so often to keep the cycle going. Works great! No transferring involved unless you need to harvest some for another cage, or put some more in because the mantids were especially greedy and hungry and ate a lot of theirs... necessitating adding some more.


----------



## spicey (Sep 16, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> Oh, that's easy! You will need a funnel and a feeding port cut in the pot containing the mantids and sealed with a sponge bung. Now, here you go. With one hand, remove the bung and keep it tight with yr little finger so that you don't lose it. With the same hand, hold the funnel in place in the port. O.K. so far?With your second hand rap the pot of mels sharply on a hard surface to knock them to the bottom of the pot. You will be pouring the mels into the funnel with your second hand, so pry the lid off their pot with yr third hand. We're moving along nicely, eh?
> 
> Pour the mels into the funnel and be sure to prevent them from climbing out of the funnel by flicking it sharply with the fingers of your fourth hand, at the same time recapping the mel pot with the lid that you should still be holding in one of the other hands; I can never remember which.
> 
> If you have just one more hand, you can use that to spritz the pot as you remove the funnel from the port. It is now a simple matter to replace the bung (can you remember which hand you put it in?). put the pot back where it belongs and treat yourself to a shot of whatever works best for you, holding the glass with whatever hand you like.


LOL! :lol: That's how I do it with the wingless and flightless varieties, but the ones that fly manage to get away when I open the lid on the mels, even after tapping...I think I could do it if I had a webbed 8th hand though.......


----------



## spicey (Sep 16, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> :lol: @ Phil!!  I keep my flying mels in a 12x12 net cage that has the opening on one side... not the top. And I just unzip enough to stick my hand in there holding the target container I want ff's in, scoop some into the cup (they are all at the back side of the net cage because I position the cage so the light is coming from that direction), and then wedge my other hand in there and cap the lid.
> 
> I also keep at least one complete ff culture right inside the net cages. I just add new cups with new culture media to replace the old every so often to keep the cycle going. Works great! No transferring involved unless you need to harvest some for another cage, or put some more in because the mantids were especially greedy and hungry and ate a lot of theirs... necessitating adding some more.


Currently, I don't have any mantids or ff in net cages, everything is in containers......and even with a funnel, I have a hard time getting the flying FFs into my mantis containers. My nymph nurseries have ports (with bungs) and I funnel in the mels that don't fly without any problems.


----------



## jameslongo (Sep 17, 2009)




----------



## Katnapper (Sep 17, 2009)

jameslongo said:


>


James, why, may I ask, are you beating your head against the wall? :huh:


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 17, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> James, why, may I ask, are you beating your head against the wall? :huh:


Aussies do that from time to time.


----------



## jameslongo (Sep 17, 2009)

Katnapper said:


> James, why, may I ask, are you beating your head against the wall? :huh:


Inheritance doesn't work the way that people have assumed it does in this topic. It's approaching 3am &amp; my brain battery is low, so i'll get back to you with answer using one of my textbooks on subject. Don't mean to offend.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 17, 2009)

jameslongo said:


> Inheritance doesn't work the way that people have assumed it does in this topic. It's approaching 3am &amp; my brain battery is low, so i'll get back to you with answer using one of my textbooks on subject. Don't mean to offend.


Well, James, since you and Superfreak and a few others on this forum have some genetics, here is a suggestion in those terms. While Superfreak's example of genetic drift seems appropriate from the example that she gave, when you have a "reversion to type" as in the situation that we are discussing, it is a case of reverse mutation in a mutant allele that has been created by a mutagenic base analog, (and I have no idea which mutagens cause which mutations). In such mutations, reversion to the "wild type" can be promoted quite quickly by the use of different base analogs but will also occur in an untreated population though more slowly.

As Superfreak suggests, though, there are methods of creating mutant phenotypes, e.g. by gene splicing, that will produce a much more stable population.

How does that sound?


----------



## d17oug18 (Sep 17, 2009)

i thought someone would say this already but they get wingless and flightless and all those other mutants by finding them in FF culture, some are blind, some have no wings, they take those aside and mate them(scientist). Its a lot simpler done than you guys are making it, they just take the mutants out and breed them with other mutants of the same kind. theres no splicing of genes they dont get a FF and mess with its DNA. I both read this and saw it on TV(and for you sceptics, NO i dont have a site for refernce!) =) but i know thats what they do.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 17, 2009)

d17oug18 said:


> i thought someone would say this already but they get wingless and flightless and all those other mutants by finding them in FF culture, some are blind, some have no wings, they take those aside and mate them(scientist). Its a lot simpler done than you guys are making it, they just take the mutants out and breed them with other mutants of the same kind. theres no splicing of genes they dont get a FF and mess with its DNA. I both read this and saw it on TV(and for you sceptics, NO i dont have a site for refernce!) =) but i know thats what they do.


No argument there. With new generations so close together, mutants will be apparent quite often, but we (or at least I!) were looking at "reversion to type" which is something else. I chose a simple example to avoid talking about tautomeric shift and base substitutions/point mutations and transition/transversion. O.K. I'm going to bang my head on the wall, now, but only lightly.

Edit: I usually use books as references which makes citation a problem. Here, though, is a site about the kinds of genetic suppression that can cause a mutant allele to return to "normal" and is written in an understandable way: http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_genet...uppression.html

There are other mechanisms, though, that have the same effect.


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 17, 2009)

I don't know if someone is going to go through a bunch of hoops to 'prove' me wrong...but crossing two different mutant strains will cause reversion back to wild much sooner than if the two were left alone. I'd say akin to the concept of hybrid vigor, but I'm thinking someone is going to disagree...


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 17, 2009)

kamakiri said:


> I don't know if someone is going to go through a bunch of hoops to 'prove' me wrong...but crossing two different mutant strains will cause reversion back to wild much sooner than if the two were left alone. I'd say akin to the concept of hybrid vigor, but I'm thinking someone is going to disagree...


This comes back to Superfreak's statements about genetic drift and preserving a mutant strain through proper management. Breeding two different phenotypes will cause drift, but there is also an increased chance (over inbreeding from one F2 phenotype) of "flanking DNA" mutation which can cause all sorts of nasty results including reversion. "Hybrid vigor" usually refers to the fecundity of a "wild" strain, but I'm sure that there will be some cases where what you predict is true. You do seem to imply, though, that you cannot be proven wrong, a position that may enrage disciples of Karl Popper!  

I have about exhausted the limits of my probably outdated and certainly rusty genetics, so I shall leave the rest of this thread to the Young and the Restless.


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 17, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> This comes back to Superfreak's statements about genetic drift and preserving a mutant strain through proper management. Breeding two different phenotypes will cause drift, but there is also an increased chance (over inbreeding from one F2 phenotype) of "flanking DNA" mutation which can cause all sorts of nasty results including reversion. "Hybrid vigor" usually refers to the fecundity of a "wild" strain, but I'm sure that there will be some cases where what you predict is true. You do seem to imply, though, that you cannot be proven wrong, a position that may enrage disciples of Karl Popper!  I have about exhausted the limits of my probably outdated and certainly rusty genetics, so I shall leave the rest of this thread to the Young and the Restless.


I imply only that someone will try  ...I am unfamiliar with the term 'drift' except in the context of rediculous motorsport revolving around import autos.

But hybrid vigor has nothing to do with reproduction or fertility. It is that two separately inbred parents are crossed, the offspring typically are stronger, larger, etc. Best example would be dog breeds and all their problems vs. the relatively healthy mutts out there or F1 crosses which are all the current rage in the states.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 17, 2009)

kamakiri said:


> I imply only that someone will try  ...I am unfamiliar with the term 'drift' except in the context of rediculous motorsport revolving around import autos.But hybrid vigor has nothing to do with reproduction or fertility. It is that two separately inbred parents are crossed, the offspring typically are stronger, larger, etc. Best example would be dog breeds and all their problems vs. the relatively healthy mutts out there or F1 crosses which are all the current rage in the states.


Ah, Grant! Here I am trying to agree with you because you're such a good guy, and then you hit us with hybrid vigor. I know what you are saying, with regard to mutts, but the main characteristic of hybrid vigor is fecundity: (http://web.nmsu.edu/~milthoma/HybrdVwb.html), or simply Google &lt;"hybrid vigor"&gt; or &lt;heterosis&gt; . This applies equally to plants. Hybrid corn does not necessarily have larger ears, but provides a more prolific crop. However, if two closely related species are used, it only works with an F1 cross. The usually sterile mule is a well known example of this, and it also accounts for the high cost of some hybrid seed corn. Dogs however, being all of the same species, are fertile in the F2 generation, as are different breeds of chicken.


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 18, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> Ah, Grant! Here I am trying to agree with you because you're such a good guy, and then you hit us with hybrid vigor. I know what you are saying, with regard to mutts, but the main characteristic of hybrid vigor is fecundity: (http://web.nmsu.edu/~milthoma/HybrdVwb.html), or simply Google &lt;"hybrid vigor"&gt; or &lt;heterosis&gt; . This applies equally to plants. Hybrid corn does not necessarily have larger ears, but provides a more prolific crop. However, if two closely related species are used, it only works with an F1 cross. The usually sterile mule is a well known example of this, and it also accounts for the high cost of some hybrid seed corn. Dogs however, being all of the same species, are fertile in the F2 generation, as are different breeds of chicken.


Don't take me too seriously. :lol:  But I am confused. Googling 'hybrid vigor'...seems to support my definition. And doesn't mention a thing about fecundity or reproduction or fertility in the first handful of links that I clicked through.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Sep 18, 2009)

Ain't that the way it goes! I'm taking the liberty of pasting the two applicable lines from the New Mexico State University URL in my last post on the grounds of fair use. It is obviously part of notes for a genetics course:

"Hybrid Vigor or Heterosis: An increase in the performance of hybrids over that of purebreds, most noticeably in traits like fertility and sterility (Crossbreeding definition).

Hybrid Vigor or Heterosis: An increase in the performance of hybrids over that of purebreds from linebred families, most noticeably in traits like fertility and sterility (linebreeding definition)." Sterility is an example of negative heterosis, of course.

For the same result in plants, particularly grains, see this obscure report from the Nepal Agricultural Research Council: http://www.narc.org.np/publicaton/pdf/news...13%20No%202.pdf :

"The rice variety: ‘Loktantra’ (NR 1487-2-1-2-21-1) was released on 4 May 2006. It is a high yielding variety,recommended for farmers to cultivate...

The variety ‘Loktantra’ has been developed in Nepal from a cross of “MAHASURI” and “IR 4547-6-2-2”

"High yielding" here, refers to fecundity, and almost all strains of maize in the U.S. are hybrids for the same reason.

But you are right, too, "positive heterosis" can produce sturdier offspring. Either a Tigron or a Liger has been produced that is too huge to survive in the wild. I have always found negative heterosis rather interesting, as examples of hybrid failure. I was involved marginally, some decades ago, in the filming of prairie chickens in Illinois. We saw one sad example of a not-so-rare hybrid between this bird and the ruffed grouse. He could neither puff out his chest as well as the prairie chickens nor drum as well as the grouse, and was unlikely to find a mate. Even less fortunate are the white tailed and mule deer hybrids that can neither run nor jump as well as their parents and are often the first to be taken by predators.

It seems that mammals do least well at heterosis and more primitive (sorry, less derived) critters, particularly insects, tend to do much better.

Mostly, though, this is a topic which is interesting for its own sake. Everything fits like a puzzle. F1-only creation of artificially bred hybrids is a reminder that the inability of the F2 to produce fertile offspring is a species criterion. The greater ability of "lower" animals to hybridize naturally reminds us of the costs of a high level of derivation or "specialization."

If you say that you have noticed a more rapid reversion to type when two strains of ffs are mixed rather than just one, I obviously have no reason to disbelieve you. This stuff is far too interesting to be the grounds for acrimony.

[And as he returns gracefully to his seat, the crowd goes wild!!  :lol:  ]


----------



## kamakiri (Sep 21, 2009)

Er...did James just leave us with his headbanging cliffhanger?


----------

