Re: Pollen Parent
>As you know, there has been great discussion on this subject and that
>of Hosta Sports here on the Hosta-open for several months now.
And it looks like it will be the only site where this topic will be
>...but from the perspective of one who kind of knows enough to
>get parts of it right.
Yes, and get the rest of it WRONG!
>This appears to explain rather well the reason that maternal
>inheritance is the method for transmission of genes that affect
>(most?) coloration in Hosta, since the vast majority of the genes
>that influence coloration are owned by the plastid organelles that
>provide pigmentation variance to leaves.
First, chlorophlasts and mitochondria only have a very small amount of
DNA and most of the DNA genes in chloroplasts are related to
photosynthesis functions. Chloroplasts do NOT contain any genes for
leaf color. Leaf color genes are nuclear and both parents contribute
>I asked this question of Ben Z. recently, but do not believe he
Does he ever respond with a real answer?
>I was simply wanting to get a better feel for whether the pollen
>parent could EVER be a contributor of more DNA than what is in
Are you asking if the pollen parent can contribute more DNA then the
pod parent or if the pollen parent can contribute more DNA then what
is in the pollen parents nucleus? If the pod parent is a diploid and
the pollen parent is a tet or a diploid producing unreduced gametes,
then the pollen parent would contribute twice the amount of DNA as the
pod parent, assuming a triploid zygote. Some plants also have B
chromosomes that are extra chromosomes that are not always passed
along to the zygotes in any predictable maner and some times a pollen
parent can pass along some B chromosomes and thus contribute more then
the pod parent, but to the best of my knowledge hostas don't have B
>...whether their could be propagation that occurs without inclusion
>of Chloroplast and Mitochrondria DNA but that, through transcription
>and translation the Chroloplasts and Mitochondria DNA would be built.
Chloroplast and mitochondria DNA are self contained within the
organelles. A plant cell can't under go "transcription and
translation" to produce chloroplast and mitochrondria DNA.
>I would like to conduct a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test of a
>plant like Blue Angel with its sport, White Angel or some such
>similiar parent/mutant combination to determine whether there is
>anything different between the genome of these two plants,
Now you are starting to get into something interesting. Wonder why
Ben hasn't considered experiments along these lines?
>From my investigation, the pollen parent appears to contribute
>phenotype that is NOT related to coloration but IS related to
It would be interesting to hear how you come to that conclusion. You
have to remember that leaf color may be due to a hundred different
genes all interacting in some complex way. Both the pod and pollen
parent contribute equally to nuclear traits, barring ploidy
>IF the pollen parent contributes NO Cholorplast DNA, but only
>contributes nuclear DNA, then what explains the prodgeny inheriting
>coloration traits of the pollen parent?
The genes for coloration that are contained in the pollen parents DNA!
>Ben may wish to comment in order for us to better understand his
>mitotic recombinatoin hypothesis.
Ben's mitotic recombination theory has pretty much been thrown into
the trash can.
It's obvious Andrew that you still have not read the chapter on
Mendelian inheritance in a decent genetics book.
To sign-off this list, send email to email@example.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN