Cruising's Clones Revealed

[skydy]

[QUOTE=stoicfish;8021831]
???
I am not sure I understand. I think it is obvious who the parent is when using a clone. It may not be obvious that it is a clone. But that is another concern, not a parent verification issue.[/QUOTE]

For most stud books, the fact that the sire (or dam) of a foal might be the “donor” or one of many clones (with no way to differentiate between them) is a problem.

[camohn]

[QUOTE=stoicfish;8021831]
???
I am not sure I understand. I think it is obvious who the parent is when using a clone. It may not be obvious that it is a clone. But that is another concern, not a parent verification issue.

I would be surprised if there wasn’t some sort of marker in clone DNA.[/QUOTE]

If there is only one clone then yes . But thinking ahead… What if there are multiple clones?

[vineyridge]

A marker in clone DNA? That passes into the sperm cells? Now you’re talking gene modified horses.

[Texarkana]

Not necessarily. It could be as simple as a single variation in a gene that is transcribed differently. The hard part would be finding it!

Isn’t breeding genetic modification in its simplest form? You are trying to control the genes and traits present in the next generation.

I still grapple with the necessity of cloning a stallion when you can freeze his semen and essentially have him available for eternity. But his owner articulated her reasons quite well in the video!

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=skydy;8021832]
For most stud books, the fact that the sire (or dam) of a foal might be the “donor” or one of many clones (with no way to differentiate between them) is a problem.[/QUOTE]

Well, genetically there is no significant difference. We identify sire or mare because of their genetic uniqueness and their “known” identity is relevant because it represents not only themselves but more importantly, the whole pedigree.
The question becomes why would it matter if it was the original or one of the clones if the results are the same?

I was actually thinking the telomeres might be telling somehow. But the multiple clones might all display similar results. Your right.

[whitney159]

[QUOTE=columbus;8021812]
While there are no exact physical clones because of the presence of donor mare DNA, however small, the semen IS Cruising’s semen. The cloning process does not change the semen DNA. It does not matter which of the 3 Cruising bodies the semen comes from. Admittedly it is hard to grasp but the semen is Cruising semen. unadulterated. Look at how semen is produced to understand. There is not a gene pool where the genes randomize and non- Cruising DNA can be mixed with the donor mares DNA. In sperm it is direct as there is no mitochondria in the sperm. Cruising, Cruising Encore, and Cruising Arish all contribute identical DNA in the sperm. PatO[/QUOTE]

DNA isn’t everything, do a little reading on epigenetics and DNA methylation. VERY interesting reading. Yes, the DNA sequence (barring a few possible random mutations which may have happened along the way) is the same. No, there is no carryover of mitochondria from the sperm, but sequence isn’t everything.

Here is a pretty good technical review of clones and epigenetics. I love the science behind cloning, but we need to remember that we are in the infancy of this technology and playing with things we don’t fully understand. I wouldn’t breed to a clone, because you are NOT breeding to the original sire, don’t fool yourself.

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm124803.htm

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=whitney159;8026388]
DNA isn’t everything, do a little reading on epigenetics and DNA methylation. VERY interesting reading. Yes, the DNA sequence (barring a few possible random mutations which may have happened along the way) is the same. No, there is no carryover of mitochondria from the sperm, but sequence isn’t everything.

Here is a pretty good technical review of clones and epigenetics. I love the science behind cloning, but we need to remember that we are in the infancy of this technology and playing with things we don’t fully understand. I wouldn’t breed to a clone, because you are NOT breeding to the original sire, don’t fool yourself.

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm124803.htm[/QUOTE]

This speaks of which genes that get turned on/off in an animal due to it’s environment/fertilization circumstance.
Epigenetics can happen to any animal regardless of the parent being a clone or the original. But unless they can prove that basic regulatory genes are permanently affected or differ from the original, then as far as using clones as a replacement in reproduction, the F2 offspring have the same chances of effects of epigenetics as any other animal.
I believe this article tries to explain the differences in cloned animals phenotypes from epigenetics from the artificial “fertilization” process.

•Progeny of animal clones, on the other hand, are not anticipated to pose food safety concerns, as natural mating resulting from the production of new gametes by the clones is expected to reset even those residual epigenetic reprogramming errors that could persist in healthy, reproducing clones (Tamashiro et al. 2002; Yanagimachi 2002; NAS 2002a, 2004, Fulka et al. 2004). Thus any anomalies present in clones are not expected to be transmitted to their progeny.