Complementation of Axanthic Lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

I also meant to add that in my opinion, if a line is proven to be compatible with another line, then I believe that the new line is not really a new line, but an animal that was imported, and a descendant connected to the original line. I hope that didn't sound to confusing.

---

If that held true, then how do phantoms, lessers, mojaves, etc fit together since they produced BEL's?

That's a very good question. How do you tell alleles from lines?

Alleles are different versions of the same gene. So far some genes seem to only have two alleles - one mutant and one "normal". Stripe for example. As far as we know now, there is only the striped and the non striped version of this gene. Remember that an animal should have two and only two version of any gene (except on the gender chromosome for one sex), one from mom and one from dad. So, with only two versions of the striped gene there are only three possible combinations:

Homozygous normal: normal for stripe + normal for stripe
Heterozygous stripe: mutant stripe + normal for stripe
Homozygous stripe: mutant stripe + mutant stripe

However, it's looking like there may be a lot of different versions of a single white snake gene - lesser, phantom, mojave, Vin Russo's high yellow lemon, and maybe even a dilute gene that with lesser makes a platy and perhaps also something that with the mojave makes a crystal ball. They seem to be distinct from each other in their behavior (i.e. the apparent homozygous phantom is different from the apparent homozygous mojave etc.) yet they also seem to interact with each other. If they are alleles then one animal only has room for two of these versions – including the normal version of this gene. It will be difficult to prove this or any suspected group are alleles though because it can only be done by the lack of an example of an animal having more than two versions of the genes in the group. It can however be disproved quickly if for example leucistic X normal produced any leucistics or any normals.

On the other hand you have all the different lines of ghosts and pastels. Are all the ghosts the exact same mutation of the same gene with differences in lines due to other genes handed down family trees? Or are there different mutant alleles of the same gene causing different types of compatible ghosts? Pastels are even harder to say because with the co-dominant effect you could in theory combine two co dominant mutations and make a super looking animal that isn't homozygous for mutant versions of a common gene. The test would be if the "super" could produce any normals it would then be known that the two lines weren’t alleles but different mutations of DIFERENT genes. For example – pewter looked pretty super but breedings last summer proved that pastel jungle and cinnamon pastel are different genes and not just different versions of the same gene.

So, if D&M axanthic is compatible with TSK axanthic then we know they are the same gene but we still don't know if they are different mutations of the same gene or the same mutation of the same gene. If the lines look distinct even after outbreeding that would be a good indication that any differences might be in the mutation it's self and not just due to family resemblance from other genes in the original animals from each line.

That is my question. BEL made from a mojave x lesser, what does that BEL to a normal make? mojaves? lessers? both? neither? *confused***

Randy,

D&M stands for D&M Reptiles. They proved their Axanthic line in 2004, hatching out Axanthics. I have just recently heard about the D&M and TSK compatability, but did not hear the details about who proved that, or what animals they used to prove it.
Snakey,
As far as I know, noone has produced offspring yet from a mixed gene BEL(i.e. mojave x lesser BEL). However, it should happen this year, and if publicly displayed, we will be able to see what the resulting offspring are. This will give us a little better insight as to how the genes are working with each other.

RDR calls the apparent Lesser Phantom combo a Karma.

In 2005 he shows the following clutches and results:

Clutch 2 Karma X Phantom
3 Karma, 2 Lesser, 2 Phantom

Clutch 51 Karma X Normal
3 Lesser, 2 Phantom

Clutch 125 Karma X Normal
Eggs went bad

Certainly this is too small a sample size to prove that Lesser and Phantom are alleles but there where no normals produced to disprove it. It's also possible that Lesser and Phantom are different loci but closely linked. That one would likely take even longer to sort.

On a related note, has RDR figured out what his Platty actually is? I was looking at his site and he thought that there was a "hidden" gene of some sort, possibly something recessive, that was combining with the lesser platinum gene which in turn created the platty. Is anything more known about these "hidden" genes?

I'm not sure that anyone knows for sure.

I originally agreed with the recessive 2nd gene theory when all the Platys where produced by inbreeding decedents of the original Platy.

However, back well before last summer a poster from Taiwan who goes by the name Hahaman suggested the idea that the mutation that dilutes a lesser into a platy might be yet another allele (different version of the same gene) in this group. When RDR produced Platy Butter last summer I converted. Sure the original Platy and Butter lines could be related in Africa and it could still be recessive but a single dilute gene added to a single Lesser or Butter gene to make the Platy versions seems less unlikely.

Again, this will be hard to prove as it is based on the absence of disproof. Basically, if lesser X lesser or leucistic X lesser can ever produce a platy it will disprove this theory of the dilute gene being an allele of the others in this group. Per the theory a leucistic couldn't carry the dilute gene because it already has two other versions of that gene and if a lesser had a dilute gene it would already be a platy (lesser is matched with the normal version of the gene to make a lesser, with the dilute version to make a Platy - per the allele theory).

Hi Randy, thanks for the info... although I must admit I don't FULLY understand this 2nd theory. In any case, has RDR been able to reproduce the platty and if so how was it done? I was on his site today and it appears as though he is selling a platty so I'm curious as to how he created it. Any info would be great!

RDR’s breeding pages have lots and lots of data so lots of places I could have gotten something wrong between there and here but here is what I came up with for clutches producing the original Lesser line Platy:

2003 Clutch 44 Lesser X Normal Sibling
2003 Clutch 51 Lesser X Normal Sibling
2004 Clutch 8 Platy X Lesser
2005 Clutch 5 Platy X Lesser
2005 Clutch 42 Platy X Normal Sibling
2005 Clutch 71 Platy X Normal Sibling

And here are the two very important productions of Butter line Platy.

2005 Clutch 16 Butter X Normal Sibling*
2005 Clutch 17 Butter X Normal Sibling

*This normal sibling could be from a butter and not from Platy as there where two possible fathers but I think it’s likely from Platy given it produce Platy offspring.

Other than the possible exception from 2005 clutch 16 noted above the “Normal Siblings” are normal looking offspring of a lesser line Platy – i.e. the ones that didn’t get the lesser mutated version of the gene.

When you look at just the lesser line results you’ll notice that all Platy production involves inbreeding decedents of the original Platy Daddy so the platy effect certainly could be a recessive mutation on top of lesser. However, you can also note the absence of platy from any lesser X lesser clutch (there have only been a couple such crosses reported). Hopefully there will be some more data from 2006 to start to build a case for this not being just due to a small sample size.

The big thing to note though is the Butter Platy from crossing the two lines (i.e. no inbreeding that we know of). Again, there haven’t been a ton of inbreedings in the Butter line to be sure it doesn’t just happen to have the same dilute gene as the lesser line and isn’t capable of making Butter Platy all by it’s self.

However, all of these results are consistent with a single dilute gene from a “Normal Sibling” or a Platy causing the Platy version when added to Lesser or Butter gene from the other parent. This isn’t the same as proving the single dilute gene theory, it’s just a lack so far of disproof. If all it takes is one dilute gene to turn a Lesser into a Platy then the lack of an example of a Platy passing both of these genes to the same offspring (i.e. no Platy from Platy X Normal) tends to indicate the Lesser and dilute genes are on the same chromosome. The big question then is if they are different versions of the same gene (alleles) or just neighbors.

So, if all of these different white snake related mutations are alleles then the notation might go something like this:

Wl = the lesser version (wish I could think of something other than a little L since it looks like the number 1)
Wp = the Phantom version
Wm = the Mojave version
wd = The dilute version
w = The normal version (or would it be w’ ?)
Wb = Butter version
Wv = Vin Russo version

Since there are more than just the normal and one mutant version we need two letters for each version of the gene. If I had an easy way to do it the 2nd letter should be lower case to avoid confusion that these are noting gene pairs (i.e. Wb isn’t a “W” gene plus a “b” gene, it’s the “b” version of the “W” gene). I’m starting each with the same “w” for white to remind that they are all the same gene (in this yet unproved theory) and not different genes like say albino and striped where you might use A and S. I’m using upper case for the dominant in relation to normal versions and lower case for dilute which doesn’t appear to do anything by it’s self with normal or even when homozygous.

If these all do turn out to be different versions of the same gene then no one animal can have more than two versions total including the normal version and of course can only pass one of those versions on to each offspring.

Platy Daddy (Wl wd) would give the Wl version to all his lesser offspring and the wd (dilute) version to all his Normal Sibling offspring. The offspring of Normal Sibling X Normal Sibling (wd w X wd w) would be possible het dilutes (wd w) or even possible homozygous dilute (wd wd) but the only for sure het dilute would be the normal offspring of a platy and the platy it’s self. Eventually a homozygous dilute (wd wd) may be identified through breeding trials (like if it produces a large number of 100% platy (Wl wd) when bred to a lesser leucistic (Wl Wl) and then it’s offspring with a normal would be know to be het dilute (wd w).

I'm pulling this one out of my duff, but what if the Platty Daddy's "lighting" gene is like the chinchilla's ebony gene? If you don't know about Ebony Chinchillas... it's an ACCUMULATIVE GENE... meaning that the more you breed the ebony gene to ebonys, the darker the offspring can get. Maybe there's something in the platty line that is accumulative lighting? Like I said though... pulled that one right out and it might stink a little.