From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Denver, CO

What is the diffrence genetically speaking between say a pumpkin that has parents of 1370 Rose X 1054 Howard and that with parents of just the oppossite, 1054 Howard X 1370 Rose. I understand the female and male parents have swapped, but what does this mean in terms of gentic potential. Why is the first prefred over the second?

Thanks

3/12/2006 11:26:37 PM

Eugene,OR

In the case of an unproven seed, I'd be more interested in knowing what the two parents of the seed actually grew. With the 1273.5 Howard (1370 Rose x 1054 Howard) this particular 1370 Rose producee the 1273.5 Howard. The 1054 Howard (which was the pollinator for the 1273.5) also probably grew a pumpkin...and it would be interesting to know how that pumpkin did. It would also be interesting to know what that pumpkin looked like. For whatever it is worth, that is how my thought process works.

3/13/2006 12:15:30 AM

Eugene,OR

By the way, I think that the 1273.5 Howard is a pretty hot ticket. It is on my short list for this year.

3/13/2006 12:16:31 AM

Syracuse, NY

i think that in most cases people see the first
parent and go "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH!!! 1370 Rose!!!"
ahem...probably not yet knowing what the 1054 Howard
has produced or not QUITE as familiar with it performance just yet, lol. it could be a PR thing, or peoples' perception of the parents in general. if it were 1370 X say,
300 Gerry, lol, probably NO ONE would plant it until it had at least had a few dozen progeny worthy of mention.
BUT if it were 1370 X 1104.5 Hester or 898 Knauss, then it would get planted in dozens and dozens of patches, sight unseen simply BECAUSE of the parentage of the seed.
in some cases, the reverse cross has done even better than
the original, simply because some one has said "hey, what's THIS button do???"------lol---eric

3/13/2006 12:54:19 AM

Colo.Spgs.CO. Pikes Peak Chapter @ spacemaster400@earthlink.net

I seem to lean toward the older part of the genes being on the male side of the cross, but there are many exceptions to that rule with all of the many great crosses out there that are doing well. Who knows I guess the luck is still in the cross and the folks whom have grown it in the given conditions and experience of the grower. ghopson, hope to see you this fall..Happy growing

3/13/2006 3:43:32 AM

Eugene,OR

The 1054 Howard was grown from a 727 Pearce.

3/13/2006 1:33:54 PM

Sioux Falls, SD garyboer@dakotalink.com

The pumpkin itself is proof of what the female can do . . .
The male effect can only be guessed from previous years.
So the female genes are always 1 generation better proven.

That could make a difference if you're weighing the potential of a seed. If the male is famous, and the female is less known, might be safer bet than other way around.

3/13/2006 3:09:55 PM

Menomonie, WI (mail@gr8pumpkin.net)

I disagree with the above statement. Alot of growers are intersted in what the plant that the male was from produces.

3/13/2006 3:29:09 PM

Eugene,OR

I think a great example of an unproven seed that looks like it holds a LOT of promise is the 1163.5 MacKenzie (1236 Eaton x 1370 Rose). Since many of us have a new-found love for orange and beautiful, seeing that the 1163.5 is gorgrous...and then knowing that it was pollinated by a 1370 Rose...which has a great reputation for producing big/orange/beautiful pumpkins...and knowing that the particular 1370 that pollinated the 1163.5 grew the 1104 MacKenzie...then you REALLY have a tempting un-proven seed.

3/13/2006 4:02:42 PM

Eastern Pennsylvania

Yep, any of the 05 Wolf seeds that are x 723 Bobier, I expect they will crank out some monsters. Because that particular 723 grew the 1407. And that's also why I jumped on Martin's offer for 869 x 670, because that particular 670 grew the 1233 Reiss.

3/13/2006 4:10:13 PM

Sioux Falls, SD garyboer@dakotalink.com

V-man and O-neck . . .I see your point
Thanks for the schoolin.
Gonna have to go back and research my seeds
Maybe rethink what to plant 2006

3/13/2006 5:10:16 PM

Covington, WA

Mitochondrial DNA is the DNA that is the powerhouse for any living thing. Mitochondria are the energy units for the cells. It us the only part of the cell beside the nucleus that has DNA. That DNA is unique to the mitochondria and is passed on to the progeny only from the female. The male parent makes no contribution to the mitochondrial DNA. Some mitochondrial DNA may be superior to others for the production of energy in a plant and therefore a reverse cross may be less likely to perform well if the other parent fruit has a different ancestry. Now it may not make any difference if it is a cross between a 845 Bobier and 723 Bobier since they are the same cross. In this case 845 X 723 should yeild the same result as 723 X 845. This is a simplistic example, but I think it illustrates the point. Now having said this I don't know if anyone can make a case the the 935 Lloyd is better to have as the maternal grandmother, great grandmother etc. than the 567.5 Mombert. But it could explain why some reverse crosses don't measure up the same at others. I'm sure there are other factors involved, but this is one I feel comfortable that I know enough about to share. I don't know the family trees of the two fruit you are inquiring about so I can't say specifically in this case if it is a factor or not.

3/13/2006 5:16:10 PM

Deer Park, WI

Well stated Tiller. I was going to chime in with the same exact response but you beat me to it. Thanks!

If memory serves me correctly, cholorplastal DNA is also maternally inherited, suggesting that a plant's photosynthetic capacity is also determined by mama.

Back when I did my analyses on the potential for hybrid vigor, I found that 935 heritage on the maternal side produced larger weights than similar crosses where the 935 was on the paternal side. It is possible that 935 mitochondrial and chloroplastal are superior to other lineages.

3/13/2006 8:23:32 PM

Eastern Pennsylvania

I don't mean to really get into this because it is off topic but there is very little Mitochondrial DNA compared to that located in the nucleus, and I think it is generally considered to be older- that is it codes for traits that evolved long ago. Like from when green plants evolved from algae. Do you believe that Mitochondrial DNA codes for the type of traits we're talking about?

3/14/2006 11:39:43 AM

Syracuse, NY

i must have had JUST enough coffee so far this morning,
because i think i actually understood this!

3/14/2006 11:39:56 AM

Sioux Falls, SD garyboer@dakotalink.com

I can't decide if I had too much or not enough?

3/14/2006 11:59:07 AM

Eugene,OR

I've also noticed that canned Coca Cola products with serial numbers starting with 512734---- seem to have a better flavor than the others. I'm not sure if it is because the batch of aluminum the cans were made from has slightly purer alluminum or if it has something to do with the actual mix at the factory...

3/14/2006 12:15:49 PM

Covington, WA

Ok, maybe that first sentence could have been stated more clearly. Mitochondria are the power plants of the cells. The DNA found in the mitochondria is unique to the mitochondria. Yes it is believed to be an older form of DNA but the function of the mitochondria is to convert the nutrients to energy. The more efficient the mitochondria are, the more vigor you see in the organism. If the mitochondrial DNA mutates, as all DNA is prone to do from time to time, some of the vigor is lost if the mutation is a detrimental mutation. Therefore, the further along the organism gets in its growth, the more frequently the mutation is replicated, and the less efficient the mitochondria become in converting nutrients to energy for the cells. So even though it is a small amount of DNA that is found in the mitochondria. The effect is has on an organisms vigor or health can be profound becuase of the function of mitochondria in converting nutrients in to energy.

3/14/2006 3:16:38 PM

Eastern Pennsylvania

Okay Tiller, I am starting to see your point. So to sum up: Mitochondrial DNA is passed to the offspring only thru the female. mDNA primarily codes for cellular respiration (making energy for the cell). Therefor the mother plant makes a more significant contribution to the offspring as far as cell growth is concerned. Is that what you mean? Something to keep in mind is that the mDNA cannot function without counterparts found in the nuclear DNA. Now I am having fun with this!

3/14/2006 4:30:58 PM

Syracuse, NY

problem is, i never drink coffe past 2 PM,
but this is very interesting---lol----eric

3/14/2006 5:09:43 PM

Denver, CO

HOLLY COW! This is a great set of respones from everyone! I was hoping to get a couple of responses and next thing I know there's 20 of them !

So, it appears that a significant factor in the plants potential vigor will come from the maternal side. Which then begs the question, what comes from the paternal side of things? Surely dad contributes to the gentitic make up if not the vigor potential per se.

3/14/2006 10:29:18 PM

I think you guys are looking to much into it. I like to see some real measurements on the subject. Also from what I read on Mitochondrial DNA mutation is very slow. So i do not think that is a deciding factor.

3/15/2006 9:19:31 AM

Eastern Pennsylvania

Mat, for once you are probably right, I am not buying into anything yet either but it's still fun to talk over. So you think that all Atlantic Giants have identically cloned mDNA?

3/15/2006 9:43:29 AM

Eastern Pennsylvania

Oh, and by the way - as for recorded progeny, the 1054 Howard grew the 778 Howard '05 which was a light-medium orange with decent shape from what I could tell. -Jim

3/15/2006 9:48:01 AM

Deer Park, WI

ghop- from a numbers perspective the paternal contribution is roughly 50%. The amount of DNA contained within the mitochondria and chloroplasts is likely less than 1% of total nuclear DNA, keeping in mind that even though it constitutes a small percentage of total DNA, it serves a very important function. As a side note, a large percentage of DNA is nonsense anyways, meaning it has no known function or contribution. (this is true for humans too, btw) To my knowledge, paternal DNA is not responsible for any one structure or function within the plant genome. Just goes to show that male flowers and men are quite similar...the species only needs their pollen to survive!!!

3/15/2006 8:17:24 PM

Denver, CO

Thanks for everything, I learned more in this one post then I have in the past two years combined;

One thing I know for sure is that paternal DNA is repsonisble for my pumpkins wanting to sit on the couch, watch some hockey and drink a beer or two. I guess I'll go join them!

Thanks for all the great postings.

3/15/2006 10:08:38 PM

I think both sides contribute to vigor there is just no way to tell which side is the deciding factor in each seed.

3/16/2006 12:34:16 PM