I am confused on naming coral
- Thread starter Brandon Smith
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SeaDweller
2500 Club Member
LOL we go from prices, coral names and then to arguing about how a frag is or isn't identical from the mother colony when its a broken piece from a growing coral, where the genetics is the same as when it was attached to the mother, and now it's different and mutates when not attached to the mother? Someone make a big bowl of popcorn...
Fishfinder
2500 Club Member
Breaking an organism in half will not change its DNA. You are talking about mutations which is possible but an entire different subject and not guaranteed
C. Eymann
2500 Club Member
Why plant 'clones' aren't identical
A new study of plants that are reproduced by 'cloning' has shown why cloned plants are not identical. Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical. Now researchers believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of...www.sciencedaily.com
Corals arent plants, nor are they prokaryotes.
Wait, am I the only one not keeping plants in my reef tank? Am I missing out?
Doesn't matter, I can dig up a different study about colonial animals if you'd like, but they even mention in that study that animal clones still aren't genetically identical, but that they tend to be more similar than plants. The study is aimed at understanding why.
Do you keep Acropora?
The genetics of colony form and function in Caribbean Acropora corals - BMC Genomics
Background Colonial reef-building corals have evolved a broad spectrum of colony morphologies based on coordinated asexual reproduction of polyps on a secreted calcium carbonate skeleton. Though cnidarians have been shown to possess and use similar developmental genes to bilaterians during...
bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com
Sorry, here is a much better one.
Coral colonies more genetically diverse than assumed
Coral colonies are more genetically diverse than it has been assumed to date, conclude researchers who have conducted comprehensive studies into the genetic variability in individual colonies of different reef-forming coral species.
www.sciencedaily.com
vetteguy53081
Well known Member and monster tank lover
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
RGB
Article Contributor
Tampa Bay Reef Keepers
West Palm Beach Reefer
Hospitality Award
Ocala Reef Club Member
305 Reef Club
Wisco Reefers
Midwest Reefer
Fish Medic
MAC of SW Florida
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
R2R Secret Santa 2023
My Tank Thread
My Aquarium Showcase
Come On !!!!
No one likes coral named after cereal, planets, zodiac and emperors and scorcerors?
IT IS INDEED REDICULOUS AND THE CUTER THE NAME - THE HIGHER THE PRICE.
No one likes coral named after cereal, planets, zodiac and emperors and scorcerors?
IT IS INDEED REDICULOUS AND THE CUTER THE NAME - THE HIGHER THE PRICE.
To be fair though, the cost of a Ferrari doesnt drag the entire automotive industry along with it.
The trend of naming and oversaturated photos, and then jacking the price 40-100%, is becoming more and more prevalent (probably because it works) but i don't think the complaints are unreasonable. In a small hobby like ours, the Ferrari companies actualy can (and do) set the pace.
And a lot of people will say things like "why complain? just don't buy it" IDK... i think that only enables those practices. Voting with our wallet doesnt actually work (i sure wish it did though lol)
Im getting a little sidetracked with price/photoshop but just naming, I agree makes a bit more sense. It just makes it easier to find and understand what you're looking for/buying. I love yellow for example. Although, I couldn't care less if its actually a 'pink floyd.' I just want more yellow! And having a named coral usually leads me down a path of R2R threads will similar coloration. Its a good baseline I guess is what im saying.
Side note: @bubbaque when will see some more frag packs in the selling forum!? I need moooore
Last edited:
SeaDweller
2500 Club Member
Do you keep Acropora?
The genetics of colony form and function in Caribbean Acropora corals - BMC Genomics
Background Colonial reef-building corals have evolved a broad spectrum of colony morphologies based on coordinated asexual reproduction of polyps on a secreted calcium carbonate skeleton. Though cnidarians have been shown to possess and use similar developmental genes to bilaterians during...
I see your point, but this article talks about differentiation:
The large number of differentially expressed genes supports a strong division of labor between coral branch tips and branch bases. Genes involved in growth of mature Acropora colonies include the classical signaling pathways associated with development of cnidarian larvae and polyps as well as morphological determination in higher metazoans.
and they conclude:
Our RNA-seq results demonstrate that there are large differences in gene expression representing a strong DOL between polyps in the growing tips of branches compared to branch bases for both Caribbean Acropora.
I think many are saying their "core" genetics are the same, but this study talks about gene differentiation/expression.
The second article you cite seems to allude to variability due to environment- The genetic variability can be caused by two processes: by spontaneous genetic mutations in individual colony sections or by different corals coalescing during their development stage.
But how does this back up your argument that a frag is genetically different than from the mother colony, and discredit what other people are saying (that they're identical)? Are you trying to say as a frag, it can mutate or express different genes and will be totally different than the MC?
"by spontaneous genetic mutations in individual colony sections"
What makes you think that these changes that occur via random mutation, which are then passed on to the clones of those particular cells don't demonstrate the point I'm making? I'm not saying these papers are all about the particular point I'm making. I'm not saying you will necessarily even see large changes in phenotype, or even any change at at all, but that does not change the fact that daughter colonies are not "EXACTLY identical" genetically to their parent colony. They just aren't. Now if someone said essentially/basically identical genetically I could agree with that. Again I didn't say they were wildly different, I even gave the human identical twins example. (I'm talking about genotype not phenotype please don't confuse the two. ARRRGG)
Last edited:
Now, to make a related point. I have little doubt that if one were to have sequenced the genome of the original Oregon Tort back when it was brought into the hobby, it would be slightly (significantly? I guess it depends on your definition of significant) different than say if one sequenced the daughter colony in my tank, even though/if my colony had a direct lineage back to that original piece. The living tissue of our corals are constantly dying and being replaced. These replacements are ever so slightly genetically different from their parents. These differences accumulate over time, and the differences that are best suited to aquarium life (or even a particular aquarium) will come to dominate. It is impossible that genetic adaptations do not provide some benefit to long term captive raised corals. How much change depends on generational length (of the cells themselves in this case) and how different the new environment is (not sure if this is exhaustive?). There are several papers out there discussing this phenomena (among others), and its effect on strategies related to aquaculture/mariculture being used to repopulate reefs. Again, this is a question of how many generations and how much pressure, so obviously degree of change will vary wildly.
I'm also not saying this type of change would be as significant as change via sexual reproduction. I have no doubt that sexual reproduction will get the work of adaptation done much faster. I mean lets be real sexual reproduction is expensive and exhausting, such a resource intensive process must have a huge payoff in evolutionary terms (in some or many situations?) or it would simply not be a thing.
I'm also not saying this type of change would be as significant as change via sexual reproduction. I have no doubt that sexual reproduction will get the work of adaptation done much faster. I mean lets be real sexual reproduction is expensive and exhausting, such a resource intensive process must have a huge payoff in evolutionary terms (in some or many situations?) or it would simply not be a thing.
Last edited:
SeaDweller
2500 Club Member
I'm not confusing the two. Just trying to see both sides of the argument (although what you present seems to tip the scales). Just based off of that one sentence you quoted, I can see how one can argue that well frag X came from this section, not that section, so this is still identical to this portion of the MC.
It's funny this is even mentioned because I was talking about something similar to my friend the other day; I have a HW colony that isn't expressing the colors I feel it should be; and I bought a frag of it where the MC wasn't expressing the best colors either (I thought I could color it up); so I asked him if he felt its biology and gene expression changed where the poor coloration is now carrying on? Maybe those articles will help to explain alot more than what's being discussed here.
Focus on the environmental. Even when one type of cell starts to take over more than others due to environment, it was in the DNA to do so. There is little chance that your home wrecker mutated to have different colors after of a single cutting - it is likely more of a light, parameter or other environmental issue. With a trillion-trillion cuts, then the odds get better.
Similar threads
