View Full Version : What is the difference between phenotype/genotype and epignetics?


mildadhd
02-01-13, 05:03 PM
Anyone want to discuss environment/phenotype/genotype and epigenetics.

I don't claim to fully understand the present theories.



(Not sure if my interpretation below is correct?)

looking for help/input/criticism....from everyone interested.


Environment(E)(New Environment ?) + Phenotype(P)(More recently recorded newer Environment ?) + Genotype(G)(More older recorded older Environment ?)---> Epigenetic?






.

Nachons
02-01-13, 05:47 PM
Genes are expressed differently from organism to organism by alleles.
Alleles are simply variations of the same gene, e.g. red hair versus brown hair.

Some types of alleles compete with other types, while others combine to form a new trait, like crossing red and white flowers to get pink ones.

An example of the former:

"A" is the dominant allele for the pea color gene and it makes the pea green.
"a" is the recessive allele and is the yellow trait.

If you get two parents who each have one of each allele, they would both be Aa and therefore green since A is dominant.

If they mated, then you would expect to get, from 4 offspring,
Aa x Aa -> AA + Aa + Aa + aa.

In this case, three of the kids are green ( AA and Aa and Aa ) while one is yellow ( aa ).

The phenotype of three is green, while their genotypes are not exactly the same ( AA vs Aa ).

The phenotype of the yellow pea is yellow; its genotype is aa.

If I missed the point completely then ignore me :L

mildadhd
02-01-13, 05:57 PM
Genes are expressed differently from organism to organism by alleles.
Alleles are simply variations of the same gene, e.g. red hair versus brown hair.

Some types of alleles compete with other types, while others combine to form a new trait, like crossing red and white flowers to get pink ones.

An example of the former:

"A" is the dominant allele for the pea color gene and it makes the pea green.
"a" is the recessive allele and is the yellow trait.

If you get two parents who each have one of each allele, they would both be Aa and therefore green since A is dominant.

If they mated, then you would expect to get, from 4 offspring,
Aa x Aa -> AA + Aa + Aa + aa.

In this case, three of the kids are green ( AA and Aa and Aa ) while one is yellow ( aa ).

The phenotype of three is green, while their genotypes are not exactly the same ( AA vs Aa ).

The phenotype of the yellow pea is yellow; its genotype is aa.

If I missed the point completely then ignore me :L


Nachons


This is an open discussion.

Your input is more in depth than I presently understand,

much appreciated.


Looking forward comparing with other peoples comparisons/input.

I am learning and have not come to any conclusion.

Interesting.

I will have some questions.


.



.

Lunacie
02-01-13, 06:12 PM
Genes are expressed differently from organism to organism by alleles.
Alleles are simply variations of the same gene, e.g. red hair versus brown hair.

Some types of alleles compete with other types, while others combine to form a new trait, like crossing red and white flowers to get pink ones.

An example of the former:

"A" is the dominant allele for the pea color gene and it makes the pea green.
"a" is the recessive allele and is the yellow trait.

If you get two parents who each have one of each allele, they would both be Aa and therefore green since A is dominant.

If they mated, then you would expect to get, from 4 offspring,
Aa x Aa -> AA + Aa + Aa + aa.

In this case, three of the kids are green ( AA and Aa and Aa ) while one is yellow ( aa ).

The phenotype of three is green, while their genotypes are not exactly the same ( AA vs Aa ).

The phenotype of the yellow pea is yellow; its genotype is aa.

If I missed the point completely then ignore me :L

You didn't miss completely but it's not quite right.

As I understand it, if the parents had four children . . .

you couldn't actually count on three children being green

and one child being yellow.


Each child would have a 3 in 4 chance of being green

and a 1 in 4 chance of being yellow.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 06:17 PM
Where does the Environment come in?

Somehow the color of many animals camouflage with the environment?

Example,

the snowy owl's feathers,

or the polar bear's fur,

are very similar as the color of snow in their environment?



.

VOltaire
02-01-13, 06:24 PM
Is this topic applicable to gene cell therapy?, an adhd diagnosis??? or weird thread of the year??
Care to ellaborate? I'm a little confused?

Lunacie
02-01-13, 06:35 PM
Where does the Environment come in?

Somehow the color of many animals camouflage with the environment?

Example,

the snowy owl's feathers,

or the polar bear's fur,

are very similar as the color of snow in their environment?



.

Animals that are naturally camouflaged within an environment

may be more likely to live and reproduce in that environment . . .

resulting in more animals that have natural camouflage.

At the risk of being bashed again for using this particular idiom,

I think that's more likely to be the order for the horse and the cart.

The other way round would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

This is just my opinion based on what I have read myself.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 06:53 PM
Is this topic applicable to gene cell therapy?, an adhd diagnosis??? or weird thread of the year??
Care to ellaborate? I'm a little confused?


Well I would like to learn the basics.

High school level up to what ever related level of topics you want.

i'm interested in it all,

but would like to start with the current normal basic understandings.

I don't understand totally the basics of current information?

I feel like something is missing in my understanding of the basic concepts,

when I try to understand?


Is there anything you disagree with so far,

might be a good way to approach the discussion?



.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 07:11 PM
Animals that are naturally camouflaged within an environment

may be more likely to live and reproduce in that environment . . .

resulting in more animals that have natural camouflage.

At the risk of being bashed again for using this particular idiom,

I think that's more likely to be the order for the horse and the cart.

The other way round would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

This is just my opinion based on what I have read myself.



Lunacie,

You have captured my problem understanding current information.

Except that we may be have different opinions.

Environment-----Genetics-----Environment (me)

Genetics------Environment-----Genetics (you?)

This is an open discussion.

All opinions appreciated.


.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 07:15 PM
Animals that are naturally camouflaged within an environment

may be more likely to live and reproduce in that environment . . .

resulting in more animals that have natural camouflage.

At the risk of being bashed again for using this particular idiom,

I think that's more likely to be the order for the horse and the cart.

The other way round would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

This is just my opinion based on what I have read myself.


The animal and fur or feathers,

adapts to the environment.


The environment does not adapt to the color of the animals.


The colors in environment seems to be the decisive factor,

not the colors of the animals,

in my opinion.


Edit: I am open to exceptions, different situations/reasons why I could be wrong (or right)

I am trying to figure this out in this thread.





Opinions?

mildadhd
02-01-13, 07:21 PM
Is this topic applicable to gene cell therapy?, an adhd diagnosis??? or weird thread of the year??
Care to ellaborate? I'm a little confused?


A little early but I would be happy to be nominated.

In my opinion I have had weirder threads in the past,

and there is still 11 months left in this year.


I am interested in the unknown as well as the known.




.

Lunacie
02-01-13, 07:43 PM
The animal and fur or feathers,

adapts to the environment.


The environment does not adapt to the color of the animals.


The colors in environment seems to be the decisive factor,

not the colors of the animals,

in my opinion.


Edit: I am open to exceptions, different situations/reasons why I could be wrong (or right)

I am trying to figure this out in this thread.





Opinions?

I don't think it's either one, not the animal adapting to the environment,

nor the environment adapting to the animal.



When an animal is lucky enough to find itself in an environment

where it's natural coloring or abilities works well,

it will be more likely to stay alive and reproduce.



Those who find their environment more hostile may not survive,

therefore there won't be any offspring.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 08:18 PM
=Lunacie;1434256]I don't think it's either one, not the animal adapting to the environment,

nor the environment adapting to the animal.

Do you mean 50:50 ?




When an animal is lucky enough to find itself in an environment

where it's natural coloring or abilities works well,

it will be more likely to stay alive and reproduce.



Those who find their environment more hostile may not survive,

therefore there won't be any offspring.


I would agree that a hostile environment,

stresses those in the hostile environment.


In your example,

The hostile environment seems to be the decisive factor, in survival?


.

Nachons
02-01-13, 08:24 PM
Nachons


This is an open discussion.

Your input is more in depth than I presently understand,

much appreciated.

Ok, I just wasn't sure if this was over my head or not :giggle:

I tend to jump into conversations and some people hate it when it seems like I'm talking down to them by explaining basic stuff.

You didn't miss completely but it's not quite right.

As I understand it, if the parents had four children . . .

you couldn't actually count on three children being green

and one child being yellow.


Each child would have a 3 in 4 chance of being green

and a 1 in 4 chance of being yellow.

Yes, that's right :)

I was just trying to make things as simple as possible since I doubt Peripheral is going to be tested on population genetics anytime soon.

Where does the Environment come in?

Somehow the color of many animals camouflage with the environment?

Example,

the snowy owl's feathers,

or the polar bear's fur,

are very similar as the color of snow in their environment?

Well this issue opens up a whole new can of worms.

In the previous example, you could look at the mating like this:

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/gene%20cross.png

where it doesn't really matter whether the babies are green or yellow.

In this case, if you mate these two enough times, each of those rectangles have about a 25% chance of coming about. Which means 25% of their kids will be AA (green), 50% will be Aa (green) and 25% will be aa (yellow).

However, sometimes it's not the case where it doesn't matter whether you're yellow or green. The above case makes a lot of assumptions about the conditions which the mating is taking place (read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle)if you're interested in the details).

For example, what if there is a bird that only eats yellow peas because it can't see the green ones? In this case, it's a disadvantage to be yellow, because you won't be able to pass on your genes. This is what's known as selection. There are many types of selection - the most well-known one being natural selection - that will affect all sorts of traits in an animal population.

Another example: there's a species of moth that has two wing colors - a greyish-black one and a whitish color. During the winter, the whitish moths survived much better than the greyish moths because they were able to blend in with the snow. If you were a grey moth it was hard to camouflage yourself.

But, a coal-burning factory had an accident one day, and covered all of the trees with soot after an explosion.

What started happening was the white moths were no longer able to blend in with the blackened snow, and began to get eaten, while the grey moths started to multiply due to their now-advantageous wing color.

So, environment is a big factor in determining what a species might look like.

A textbook definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time".

In the pea example, the allele frequencies (or, ratios of A to a among the entire population of peas) will shift towards a majority of A genes, because any pea with a green genotype (AA and Aa) will survive, while the yellow peas (aa) will die out. This means that, if the birds are around long enough, the yellow allele will eventually be removed from the gene pool, assuming no other things affect the survivability of yellow versus green peas.

In the moth example, the allele frequencies for determining wing darkness changed as a result of environmental effects. In this case, there was no "yes or no" to whether the wing color was "good or bad"; it depended on circumstance entirely.

There are a number of other factors that affect what a population will look like, such as sexual selection (does red hair make you more attractive to mates than brown hair?), vicariance (i.e. a population getting split apart by an earthquake and evolving separately based on the new environments they're in), and many others.

I hope that wasn't too much information :confused:

mildadhd
02-01-13, 08:34 PM
Genes are expressed differently from organism to organism by alleles.
Alleles are simply variations of the same gene, e.g. red hair versus brown hair.

Some types of alleles compete with other types, while others combine to form a new trait, like crossing red and white flowers to get pink ones.

An example of the former:

"A" is the dominant allele for the pea color gene and it makes the pea green.
"a" is the recessive allele and is the yellow trait.

If you get two parents who each have one of each allele, they would both be Aa and therefore green since A is dominant.

If they mated, then you would expect to get, from 4 offspring,
Aa x Aa -> AA + Aa + Aa + aa.

In this case, three of the kids are green ( AA and Aa and Aa ) while one is yellow ( aa ).

The phenotype of three is green, while their genotypes are not exactly the same ( AA vs Aa ).

The phenotype of the yellow pea is yellow; its genotype is aa.

If I missed the point completely then ignore me :L


Nachons,

I didn't forget,

thanks for presenting the basics.

Really helping me.

(as well as discussion from all ADDF members participating.)

Thanks.

I am considering phenotype (present color?) and the genotype(record of present/past colors*?),

*is genotype is a type of record of different (older)colors options?

And in addition the hereditary mathematic factors and biochemistry in play between parents?



I have lots more questions.(trying to ask one step at a time)



Edit:.Posted this post before I read post above from Nacho.



,

Lunacie
02-01-13, 08:39 PM
Do you mean 50:50 ?

No.



I would agree that a hostile environment,

stresses those in the hostile environment.


In your example,

The hostile environment seems to be the decisive factor, in survival?


.

Yes, most generally that's the case.

In the Arctic, being a brown bear would make the environment very hostile.

Being a white bear would make the environment much less hostile.


I don't think the environment causes the bear to become white in order to survive.

White bears are simply more likely to survive - and therefore to reproduce

- and therefore you'll find more white bears than brown bears in the Artic.

I could be wrong about all this but I don't think I am.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 08:50 PM
Ok, I just wasn't sure if this was over my head or not :giggle:

I tend to jump into conversations and some people hate it when it seems like I'm talking down to them by explaining basic stuff.



Yes, that's right :)

I was just trying to make things as simple as possible since I doubt Peripheral is going to be tested on population genetics anytime soon.



Well this issue opens up a whole new can of worms.

In the previous example, you could look at the mating like this:

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/gene%20cross.png

where it doesn't really matter whether the babies are green or yellow.

In this case, if you mate these two enough times, each of those rectangles have about a 25% chance of coming about. Which means 25% of their kids will be AA (green), 50% will be Aa (green) and 25% will be aa (yellow).

However, sometimes it's not the case where it doesn't matter whether you're yellow or green. The above case makes a lot of assumptions about the conditions which the mating is taking place (read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle)if you're interested in the details).

For example, what if there is a bird that only eats yellow peas because it can't see the green ones? In this case, it's a disadvantage to be yellow, because you won't be able to pass on your genes. This is what's known as selection. There are many types of selection - the most well-known one being natural selection - that will affect all sorts of traits in an animal population.

Another example: there's a species of moth that has two wing colors - a greyish-black one and a whitish color. During the winter, the whitish moths survived much better than the greyish moths because they were able to blend in with the snow. If you were a grey moth it was hard to camouflage yourself.

But, a coal-burning factory had an accident one day, and covered all of the trees with soot after an explosion.

What started happening was the white moths were no longer able to blend in with the blackened snow, and began to get eaten, while the grey moths started to multiply due to their now-advantageous wing color.

So, environment is a big factor in determining what a species might look like.

A textbook definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time".

In the pea example, the allele frequencies (or, ratios of A to a among the entire population of peas) will shift towards a majority of A genes, because any pea with a green genotype (AA and Aa) will survive, while the yellow peas (aa) will die out. This means that, if the birds are around long enough, the yellow allele will eventually be removed from the gene pool, assuming no other things affect the survivability of yellow versus green peas.

In the moth example, the allele frequencies for determining wing darkness changed as a result of environmental effects. In this case, there was no "yes or no" to whether the wing color was "good or bad"; it depended on circumstance entirely.

There are a number of other factors that affect what a population will look like, such as sexual selection (does red hair make you more attractive to mates than brown hair?), vicariance (i.e. a population getting split apart by an earthquake and evolving separately based on the new environments they're in), and many others.

I hope that wasn't too much information :confused:


Actually it seems like the perfect amount of information.

Fascinating,

Will need to think about this stuff for a bit.

If I am out of the discussion for a bit.








.

Nachons
02-01-13, 08:54 PM
I am considering phenotype (present color?) and the genotype(record of present/past colors*?),

*is genotype is a type of record of different (older)colors options?

Another way of looking at it might help.

When babies are made, a whole crazy process goes on when the sperm fuses with the egg.

Basically, mom's genes get all mixed up with dad's genes through a process called recombination.

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/recombination.png

Here you have the gene that determines the pea's color. On it are the alleles for different types of color.

You can see that both of them have an A allele (green) and an a allele (yellow). That makes both of their genotypes Aa.

The genotype is simply which alleles (A or a) the individual has on their gene.

If dad had two A alleles you would see two green rectangles, and his genotype would be AA!

When recombination occurs, the alleles get split up and randomly sorted among the sperm and egg cells (gametes). When the egg and sperm combine, you get the table that I showed you, where the egg and sperm have only one allele each (A or a).

So, going back to the table I made in the last post, cutting up the genes and putting them back together gives us:

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/recombination2.png

with the full gene ready for the offspring to use.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 09:06 PM
No.



Yes, most generally that's the case.

In the Arctic, being a brown bear would make the environment very hostile.

Being a white bear would make the environment much less hostile.


I don't think the environment causes the bear to become white in order to survive.

White bears are simply more likely to survive - and therefore to reproduce

- and therefore you'll find more white bears than brown bears in the Artic.

I could be wrong about all this but I don't think I am.


There could vary well be more than one possibility.

I would sleep ok,

with a 50:50 (give or take) standard,


You could be right about the environment not causing the polar bear to be white?(I would like to come back to this, I do think you have pointed out a possibility)


Let's say no matter the color,

if it doesn't match the environment factors.

Less chance of survival.

The environment seems like the decisive factor in survival.(no matter the color)

But not the only factor.




.

VOltaire
02-01-13, 09:12 PM
i'm interested in quantum physics and forensic psychiatry but I know jack & **** about the latter and jack left town some time ago....Either way this thread is about to get interesting I've got my popcorn and I'll be sitting on the sideline until I feel comfortable or somebody changes the topic to IBM I series or DOS?

mildadhd
02-01-13, 09:19 PM
Another way of looking at it might help.

When babies are made, a whole crazy process goes on when the sperm fuses with the egg.

Basically, mom's genes get all mixed up with dad's genes through a process called recombination.

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/recombination.png

Here you have the gene that determines the pea's color. On it are the alleles for different types of color.

You can see that both of them have an A allele (green) and an a allele (yellow). That makes both of their genotypes Aa.

The genotype is simply which alleles (A or a) the individual has on their gene.

If dad had two A alleles you would see two green rectangles, and his genotype would be AA!

When recombination occurs, the alleles get split up and randomly sorted among the sperm and egg cells (gametes). When the egg and sperm combine, you get the table that I showed you, where the egg and sperm have only one allele each (A or a).

So, going back to the table I made in the last post, cutting up the genes and putting them back together gives us:

http://imageftw.com/uploads/20130201/recombination2.png

with the full gene ready for the offspring to use.


I've never studied this information before, and it makes a lot of sense.

Your charts make it very easy to understand.(side note I was wondering if I should have multiplied instead using addition when I wrote the OP?)

I think I understand up to about now.


What I am wondering about...in your charts....the environment is not considered.

When I read,

Genotype (G) ------>Phenotype(P)

I wonder about,

Phenotype(P)------->Genotype(G)


Interesting Stuff,

I am learning a lot.

Still missing something,

but learned other stuff.





.

mildadhd
02-01-13, 09:22 PM
i'm interested in quantum physics and forensic psychiatry but I know jack & **** about the latter and jack left town some time ago....Either way this thread is about to get interesting I've got my popcorn and I'll be sitting on the sideline until I feel comfortable or somebody changes the topic to IBM I series or DOS?


This section is fun!

mildadhd
02-01-13, 09:42 PM
Nachons,

I hope I didn't sound rude.

In addition to the excellent explanation and charts.

I am wondering about environmental factors.


Example,

sex of alligators can be decided by keeping the egg within a certain temperature range.

If I understand correctly.

The temperature can be a major factor in what sex the cute little alligators are.



.

Nachons
02-01-13, 10:17 PM
What I am wondering about...in your charts....the environment is not considered.

The environment will determine the phenotype and genotype of the parents.

If the environment favors AA over Aa or aa, then there will be an abundance of AA for mating. And so on. The cross there only is valid for a cross between two parents.

If the two parents are representative of the whole population then it represents the ratios of different genotypes across the whole population.

When I read,

Genotype (G) ------>Phenotype(P)

I wonder about,

Phenotype(P)------->Genotype(G)Genotype is just the genetic code for what your phenotype will be.

Genotype determining phenotype would be like taking instructions and parts and building a model airplane.

Phenotype determining genotype would be like having just the model airplane, and the airplane magically creating parts and instructions for building another model airplane :lol:

I am wondering about environmental factors.

Example,

sex of alligators can decided by keeping the egg at a certain temperature.

If I understand correctly.

The temperature can be a major factor in what sex the cute little alligators are.

That is interesting. Of course there are special cases for everything, these examples are only explanatory models.

I looked that up on Google and found this (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v296/n5860/abs/296850a0.html); it says,

The factors controlling sexual differentiation in crocodilians are unknown, but heteromorphic sex chromosomes are absent from all species. (i.e. they don't have male or female chromosomes like most sexually-reproducing species do!)

In this case, it might be that, historically, it was beneficial for them, or some ancestor of theirs, to have lost the chromosomes for determining gender. Or, maybe they never had a need for them in the first place!

It's hard to tell without a lot of research. And maybe it's not even possible then. But it's possible to come up with a plausible explanation.

The abstract goes on to say:
Females hatched from eggs incubated at 30 C weigh significantly more than males hatched from eggs incubated at 34 C. This weight difference constitutes a possible selective evolutionary advantage of temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) in alligators in that females become large and sexually mature as early as possible.

It might be that the temperature difference between male and female - with males needing the higher temperature - is the temperature at which an essential protein or enzyme, necessary for the unborn alligator to be female, is broken down.

I don't know for sure, but it's possible to come up with explanations for it. Hypotheses to be tested, etc.

Fortune
02-02-13, 12:14 AM
I don't think the environment causes the bear to become white in order to survive.

White bears are simply more likely to survive - and therefore to reproduce

- and therefore you'll find more white bears than brown bears in the Artic.

I could be wrong about all this but I don't think I am.

You are correct.

Here's a classic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Nachons
02-02-13, 12:33 AM
You are correct.

Here's a classic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Oh that's the one I was talking about!

I heard about it almost a decade ago so I'd forgotten its name :o

Lunacie
02-02-13, 12:37 AM
You are correct.

Here's a classic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Thanks, Fortune.

I wish I understood more of that information,

but it's good to know I have the general gist of it straight.

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:19 AM
Yeah. It's not so much that environment creates genes as it favors some genes and culls others. Genes develop on their own by mutation and evolution, but which genes get to survive is determined by which traits are positive survival traits vs. traits more likely to result in death. Environment is one aspect of that, but some mutations are just downright lethal regardless of environment, and some genes aren't heavily impacted because while they may be suboptimal, they're not lethal enough on their own or in any particular environmental context to disappear entirely.

Environment itself is made up of many things, including other living creatures (plants, animals, predators, prey, etc.).

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:22 AM
Also, introducing species to a new environment can turn out to be dangerous for that species...or dangerous to the rest of the environment. For example, introducing possums to New Zealand has been more of a danger to New Zealand's environment than vice versa. They have no natural predators and much of the vegetation is edible. So, they breed and spread rapidly and thrive while other species native to that environment are starved out due to the increased competition.

mildadhd
02-02-13, 01:24 AM
Sorry I plan to reread,

I need to learn the terms better presented.

Need to learn what and how Allele work.

I am learning a lot.


Two questions for clarity,


1)Does everyone agree that what ever the color of the moths wings,

the species is less likely to survive if the color doesn't match color of the environment,

and the environment is the decisive factor?



2)And if a bird that only sees yellow,

only eats yellow peas,

then would the phenotype of the peas,

influence the genotype and phenotype of the bird?


Thanks for being patient with me.

I promise I will review the material before asking more questions.



.

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:25 AM
A similar issue occurs when diseases are introduced to a new region, such as happened frequently during Europe's colonization/imperial period. Diseases like smallpox could spread like wildfire through human populations that had never encountered them before and thus had no immunological defenses against them.

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:29 AM
Two questions for clarity,


1)Does everyone agree that what ever the color of the moths wings,

the species is less likely to survive if the color doesn't match color of the environment,

and the environment is the decisive factor?

The environment being trees with a certain color of bark - the trees also having genotypes and phenotypes of their own - and changing the bark's color due to anthropogenic climate changes (that is, industrial pollution). Yes, the moths with a color that blends in better are more likely to survive than those with colors that clash with the environment.

This is one reason why biodiversity is good and lends itself to resilience: Dark-colored peppered moths were rare because most of them would be eaten by predators (who also have their own genotypes and phenotypes), but when the environment changed, the existence of a dark-colored phenotype meant that the species survived.

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:33 AM
2)And if a bird that only sees yellow,

only eats yellow peas,

then would the phenotype of the peas,

influence the genotype and phenotype of the bird?

The species would be extremely vulnerable to environmental disruption, especially if it impacted the yellow peas adversely, or caused them to be different colors.

Also, the birds themselves could eat so many yellow peas that peas of other colors would become more common, eventually making it harder and harder for the birds to find food they could eat, and so birds that ate more varieties of peas might become the dominant population over the yellow-only birds. So, it really goes both ways.

Something that might be interesting would be to study how bees interact with the environment - if bees died out, that would have a significant impact on land-based species' survival. It would be a severe environmental disruption sufficient to cause mass starvation and probably more extinctions.

Another one is the impact plankton have. They're also vital to life on Earth.

mildadhd
02-02-13, 01:42 AM
It really does go seem to go both ways,

depending on the circumstances.

I want to reply more but I better understand what has been presented so far.

So I don't ask questions that have already been answered.

Looking forward to more discussion when I feel confident in the proper terms used....

Thanks everyone.

Fortune
02-02-13, 01:45 AM
No worries, take your time. It's a complex topic.

mildadhd
02-02-13, 03:18 AM
1)What about Allergies?





2)Phenotype<---Alleletype?--->Genotype





3)How does Allele relate to between ADD genetics and ADD phenetics?




.

mildadhd
02-02-13, 04:09 AM
Anyone want to discuss environment/phenotype/genotype and epigenetics.

I don't claim to fully understand the present theories.



(Not sure if my interpretation below is correct?)

looking for help/input/criticism....from everyone interested.


Environment(E)(New Environment ?) + Phenotype(P)(More recently recorded newer Environment ?) + Genotype(G)(More older recorded older Environment ?)---> Epigenetic?






.

Change OP to....


Environment (E) x Genotype (G)----> Allele?------->Phenotype (P)


Are ADD alleles considered phenotypes?



.

Drewbacca
02-02-13, 04:14 AM
The colors in environment seems to be the decisive factor,

not the colors of the animals,

in my opinion.


If an animal lacks the appropriate means of defending itself from predators (be it camouflage or fighting ability), it will die.

The environment IS the causation in this scenario. The animal in question must adapt or die. Those with the genetic ability to adapt, survive.

But, you can also look at it the other way.

Suppose that the environment is currently at a balance. But, by accident a new trait comes into being in the offspring of one of the predators... this accident is not caused by the environment, it is caused by the DNA mutating.

This new trait allows this animal to kill more prey. This animal becomes the king predator. His cousins, who lack the trait, starve and die off (eventually). The strong animal is able to take advantage of the environment but is not a product of it (not in the same sense, anyways).

Both views are correct.

mildadhd
02-02-13, 04:27 AM
If an animal lacks the appropriate means of defending itself from predators (be it camouflage or fighting ability), it will die.

The environment IS the causation in this scenario. The animal in question must adapt or die. Those with the genetic ability to adapt, survive.

But, you can also look at it the other way.

Suppose that the environment is currently at a balance. But, by accident a new trait comes into being in the offspring of one of the predators... this accident is not caused by the environment, it is caused by the DNA mutating.

This new trait allows this animal to kill more prey. This animal becomes the king predator. His cousins, who lack the trait, starve and die off (eventually). The strong animal is able to take advantage of the environment but is not a product of it (not in the same sense, anyways).

Both views are correct.


In general terms I think both is appropriate as well.

One relationship requires at least two.





.

Drewbacca
02-02-13, 04:41 AM
1)Does everyone agree that what ever the color of the moths wings,
the species is less likely to survive if the color doesn't match color of the environment, and the environment is the decisive factor?

2)And if a bird that only sees yellow, only eats yellow peas, then would the phenotype of the peas, influence the genotype and phenotype of the bird?



Can you clarify what you mean when you say "the environment is the decisive factor?" As opposed to what other factors?

Color is irrelevant, if the predator is a bat hunting by sonar or a spider with a web. You can't generalize these things easily, because there are so many variables to consider.

The bird eating the peas may harm the pea population by eating all the peas. It may also help the pea population if the pea is carried by the bird to a more fertile environment and is dropped into the ground and a new pea plant grows from that seed.

The color of the pea has no direct action on the birds genetics. Other characteristics of the pea may result in a healthier bird (easier to gather due to abundance, distance, or reduced predator population... or it could be healthier: more protein, carbs, or vitamins).

IF there is a plentiful food source, the bird is more likely to survive. A picky eater is less likely to survive and reproduce. That is survival. The surviving bird's genes will be passed on to its offspring. However, the genes themselves do not mutate/change because of the environment.

*edit to clarify* environmental toxins, which we call "mutagens" can mutate DNA which results in a change in genetic structure due to (some toxin in) the environment... but this is a bit different from environment as it is being used in our current context. (We have to be careful with how we use these words since they have more than one meaning... depending on the context. Hopefully that makes sense; if not, I'll clarify further).

mildadhd
02-02-13, 05:00 AM
Drewy,

This is a good explanation to use as a discussion reference.

I have been "observing" the relationship between environment and gene expression for a couple of years,

and I agree with the information quoted below.

I like to choose when ever possible not learn the basic information and observe the big picture first.

This is not a judgment on anyone else,

just what works for me.


I appreciate your participation in the discussion.

Gene's are also part,

but environment is the decisive factor in which genes are expressed.

Macro and Micro , Internal and External ,environmental cues are determining factors in which different gene allele are expressed.



Far from being the autonomous dictators of our destinies,

genes are controlled by their environment,

and without environmental signals they could not function.

In effect,

they are turned on and off by the environment;

human life could not exist if it wasn't so.

Every cell in every organ in our bodies has exactly the same complement of genes,

yet a brain cell does not look or act like a bone cell.

And liver cell does not resemble or function like a muscle cell.

It is the environment within and outside the body that determines which genes are switched on,

or activated,

in which cell.

"The cell's operations are primarily moulded by its interaction with the environment,

not genetic code,"

the cell biologist Bruce Lipton has written.(14)



-Gabor Mate M.D., "In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts", P 203- 204




.

Tyler Durden
02-02-13, 07:45 AM
Conception is a single point in time, what happens at conception is a very small but significant part of the story but it is not the whole story, I think people have a much oversimplified and focussed perception of genetics due to a focus on conception, not the details of what occurs before, after and to some extent during (e.g. the tempterature example above).

If anyone who is an 'expert' on epigenetics reads this, and they can spare some time even though I believe understanding is quite limited I think insight in to these effects would add significantly to this discussion.

Drewbacca
02-02-13, 02:53 PM
Slightly off topic, but I saw this posted on facebook this morning. Did wolves develop genes allowing them to digest the more domesticated diet? or, did wolves already carrying these genes just end up being the ones that became domesticated, as a niche? I Love finding a real life and recent example of these questions to throw out there:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-how-dogs-evolved-20130124,0,1620029.story

mildadhd
02-03-13, 11:19 PM
Slightly off topic, but I saw this posted on facebook this morning. Did wolves develop genes allowing them to digest the more domesticated diet? or, did wolves already carrying these genes just end up being the ones that became domesticated, as a niche? I Love finding a real life and recent example of these questions to throw out there:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-how-dogs-evolved-20130124,0,1620029.story

Seems like the people in the article are unsure.

Either way,

the changes in environment led to the changes in the genetics.

Tyler Durden
02-03-13, 11:39 PM
Drewbacca, regarding mutation, we have to consider influences on mutation, how and why this occurs. I assumed that was what this thread was kind of about. How about looking at the relationship between epigenetics and mutation?

mildadhd
02-04-13, 12:25 AM
Drewbacca, regarding mutation, we have to consider influences on mutation, how and why this occurs. I assumed that was what this thread was kind of about. How about looking at the relationship between epigenetics and mutation?

Tyler,

Would mutation be considered a type of epigenetics?

Or epigenetics a type of mutation?

What are the differences?

I have a hard time not seeing everything as types of epigenetics?

Even when the time factors or influencing factors are different,

they seem to be environment related in some way?

(if that makes sense)

(I'm asking, I'm not sure)

Opinion?

Fortune
02-04-13, 12:31 AM
This page talks about some ways that epigenetic changes can trigger mutations, although epigenetics are not themselves mutations.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/epigenetic-influences-and-disease-895

Tyler Durden
02-04-13, 12:39 AM
Fortune my current understanding is the 2 are very much related with epigenetic effects being the precursor.

Peripheral, I accidentally found this link but haven't had a chance to read yet may be of interest (Epigenetics and adhd.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250517/

Also try the wiki article on Epigenetics, it is long but seems pretty comprehensive, it is 4.38am and I must sleep now.

Fortune
02-04-13, 01:01 AM
Tyler Durden,

That's essentially what the page I linked said, except with many more syllables and more Latin. I think. Maybe some Greek. Epigenetics doing something or failing to do something can cause mutations leading to tumors leading to cancer, among other possibilities. Mostly what I read was about cancer, though.

mildadhd
02-04-13, 02:44 AM
Caution in using epigenetic therapy is necessary because epigenetic processes and changes are so widespread. To be successful, epigenetic treatments must be selective to irregular cells; otherwise, activating gene transcription in normal cells could make them cancerous, so the treatments could cause the very disorders they are trying to counteract. Despite this possible drawback, researchers are finding ways to specifically target abnormal cells with minimal damage to normal cells, and epigenetic therapy is beginning to look increasingly promising.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/epigenetic-influences-and-disease-895




Fascinating,

Great link to reference.

I am learning lots, I never thought about.


Among the topics,

I keep forgetting about "bad" neuroplasticity.



Thanks for the great link.

Lots for me to learn.

mildadhd
02-04-13, 02:51 AM
Fortune my current understanding is the 2 are very much related with epigenetic effects being the precursor.

Peripheral, I accidentally found this link but haven't had a chance to read yet may be of interest (Epigenetics and adhd.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250517/

Also try the wiki article on Epigenetics, it is long but seems pretty comprehensive, it is 4.38am and I must sleep now.




Answers all the previous questions I had about alleles and ADD.

Amazing information!

Information worth discussing again as well.

Thanks!


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250517/




.

Tyler Durden
02-05-13, 12:25 AM
I think epigenetics requires its own section of the forum, it seems to be by far the most interesting and progressive area, also it would be nice to have all the information and discussion in one place.

That link does seem extremely good if I may say so myself! Still haven't made it through properly yet there is so much to take in, the references are longer than the text!

Also, all science is theoretical, even experimental. How is this a philosophical discussion?? :confused:

mildadhd
02-05-13, 02:34 AM
I think epigenetics requires its own section of the forum, it seems to be by far the most interesting and progressive area, also it would be nice to have all the information and discussion in one place.

That link does seem extremely good if I may say so myself! Still haven't made it through properly yet there is so much to take in, the references are longer than the text!

Also, all science is theoretical, even experimental. How is this a philosophical discussion?? :confused:


I hear you on the topic of who decides what is more science than other science.

Example, Why is the thread on Dr.Barkley's NEW theory in the other section?

If this is the place for new ideas?

That being said,

it is so nice to have a different section where people aren't saying what I post isn't science.

I really like it here,

Lets make this the epigenetic section?

The truth is the truth.

:D


Side Note: That link about ADHD and Epigenetics is the best link ever.(in my opinion)

Thank You Tyler!!!!

Peripheral




.

mildadhd
02-05-13, 04:46 PM
Thread Question

1)What is the difference between phenotype/genotype and epignetics?



The epigenetic state of an organism (or “epigenome”) incorporates a landscape of complex and plastic molecular events that may underlie the missing link that integrates genotype with phenotype [54].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250517/





2)Is the epigenetic state the relationship between genotype and phenotype?


(Genotype<----->gene x environment relationship<------>Phenotype)?






3)Environment (or lack of) x ADD Genotypes---->ADD Alleles Phenotypes?

or/and?

ADD Genotypes (abnormally large amount of) x Environment (or lack of)-----> ADD Alleles Phenotypes?



Open for discussion/ideas?

.

Tyler Durden
02-08-13, 11:42 AM
I have been meaning to start a new thread to discuss that link more fully but I have been so busy lately, hopefully ill get some time this weekend.