Hidden genes

I was looking at pictures of the hidden gene Citrus lines crosses that are available on kingsnake and pics of the soulsuckers by NERD and they are simply amazing. Are hidden genes ressesive? What do we know about them? Were these breeders just lucky to stumble across these or are there some tell tale signs one could go with to know theres a hidden gene?

all of them so far appear to be dom / incomplete dom. luck is probably goin to play a big part in it, but ive hear that the original hidden gene woma looked significantly different than the normal run of the mill woma. and id say we know very little about them, as we actually dont know THAT much about normal bp genetics

I actually had to Google the hidden gene Citrus, but it looks like it does some pretty cool stuff!

The impression that I get is that a lot of this so-called "hidden gene" stuff (like the "hidden-gene woma" or "hidden-gene Citrus pastel") is actually just one dominant or co-dominant mutation that was originally mistaken for something else, and mis-named, and then given the addendum "hidden gene" once it was discovered that it did something different than what it was thought to be (under the mistaken impression that it carried a 2nd, "hidden" gene).

NERD has already stated that the so-called "hidden gene" woma isn't in any way related to the "regular" woma, but Kevin thought they might've been the same when they were first imported so both were originally named "woma." Further breeding revealed that the "hidden gene" woma does a bunch of cool, crazy stuff when combined with lessers, etc., but the "regular" woma doesn't.

Based on my understanding, I don't think the "hidden gene woma" or "hidden gene Citrus" is really hiding anything more than, say, the yellowbelly or specter mutations -- all are fairly subtle single-gene mutations that just happen to do some wicked stuff when combined with the right animals. (I don't know as much about the "HG Citrus" though so I might be totally off on that one!)

i wouldnt say "hidden" since the platty requires a gene from a normal looking animal that is a result of rdr's original platty daddy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I actually had to Google the hidden gene Citrus, but it looks like it does some pretty cool stuff!

The impression that I get is that a lot of this so-called "hidden gene" stuff (like the "hidden-gene woma" or "hidden-gene Citrus pastel") is actually just one dominant or co-dominant mutation that was originally mistaken for something else, and mis-named, and then given the addendum "hidden gene" once it was discovered that it did something different than what it was thought to be (under the mistaken impression that it carried a 2nd, "hidden" gene).

NERD has already stated that the so-called "hidden gene" woma isn't in any way related to the "regular" woma, but Kevin thought they might've been the same when they were first imported so both were originally named "woma." Further breeding revealed that the "hidden gene" woma does a bunch of cool, crazy stuff when combined with lessers, etc., but the "regular" woma doesn't.

Based on my understanding, I don't think the "hidden gene woma" or "hidden gene Citrus" is really hiding anything more than, say, the yellowbelly or specter mutations -- all are fairly subtle single-gene mutations that just happen to do some wicked stuff when combined with the right animals. (I don't know as much about the "HG Citrus" though so I might be totally off on that one!)

---

This is correct. The HG woma is just a snake that was once misnamed a woma. It is not a woma and there is no hidden gene, just had to add the hidden gene to seperate it from the original woma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

i wouldnt say "hidden" since the platty requires a gene from a normal looking animal that is a result of rdr's original platty daddy

---

:confused:

Not sure what you mean ... To me the "platty" gene seems to be the most "hidden" of them all, from what I've read ..!

I didn't mention platty 'cos it seems to be a totally different situation from that of the HG woma and the HG Citrus ... The platty gene actually does seem to be kind of a "hidden" one since as you say, the platty carriers DO apparently just look like normals (at least as far as I know, unless there's some secret marker trait that we all aren't privy to ... :rolleyes:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MKHerps

This is correct. The HG woma is just a snake that was once misnamed a woma. It is not a woma and there is no hidden gene, just had to add the hidden gene to seperate it from the original woma.

---

so does the super hg woma die young like the pearl?

I think everyone was so excited over the Platinum genetics that they got completely carried away with the 'hidden gene' idea.

I also think that the 'hidden gene' animals really should be re-named. They need to have their own separate names to avoid confusion, and hey...isn't naming a new morph kind of fun?

The HG Woma deserves its own name. So does the HG citrus. If there is not really another gene in hiding, then 'Hidden Gene' is simply incorrect.

I've been very curious about the womas myself. Did NERD produce the pearl from HG womas, or from womas? What happens when you cross a HG woma with a woma?

I know that if no one knows, one of these days I am going to have to be brave enough to breed my womas together, and confirm the Pearl issues...simply because of all the confusion with the HG Womas. I just don't want to have to watch a gorgeous hatchling die of internal problems. It would be a shame if all this time we've been avoiding Woma X Woma due to the fact that HG Woma X HG Woma is lethal, though.

Does anyone out there have a solid answer to this question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I also think that the 'hidden gene' animals really should be re-named. They need to have their own separate names to avoid confusion, and hey...isn't naming a new morph kind of fun?

The HG Woma deserves its own name. So does the HG citrus. If there is not really another gene in hiding, then 'Hidden Gene' is simply incorrect.

---

I agree 100%!! ... Maybe if we all come up with a really cool name, NERD and everyone else will start using it ... :rofl:

Quote:

---

I've been very curious about the womas myself. Did NERD produce the pearl from HG womas, or from womas? What happens when you cross a HG woma with a woma?

I know that if no one knows, one of these days I am going to have to be brave enough to breed my womas together, and confirm the Pearl issues...simply because of all the confusion with the HG Womas. I just don't want to have to watch a gorgeous hatchling die of internal problems. It would be a shame if all this time we've been avoiding Woma X Woma due to the fact that HG Woma X HG Woma is lethal, though.

Does anyone out there have a solid answer to this question?

---

I don't have any solid answer either, though I'd love to know. My thought has been that it's the homozygous "HG woma" that is lethal, because that mutation seems to mesh so well with the BEL complex and the pearl kinda sorta looks like a homozygous BEL (not that I'm suggesting that the "HG woma" is an allele on that same locus, just that they seem somehow ... Related?) AND that the HG woma does such crazy stuff, but the regular woma seems to be a more run-of-the-mill straight-up pattern mutation.

At the same time, I wonder if there is no visual homozygous "regular" woma -- that it's a simple dominant mutation, like pinstripe might be, and that the "super" form looks just like the heterozygous. That thought isn't really based on much, though, other than the idea that I bet NERD has already tried it (especially back when it was thought that both "womas" were the same), and if it made something wicked cool we probably woulda seen it by now. :P

Possibly. But the Woma mutation also looks very similar to the spider mutation, and spider is homozygous lethal also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I've been very curious about the womas myself. Did NERD produce the pearl from HG womas, or from womas? What happens when you cross a HG woma with a woma?

---

The pearl is the super form of NERD's HG womas. There is no super form of the 'regular' womas. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

:confused:

Not sure what you mean ... To me the "platty" gene seems to be the most "hidden" of them all, from what I've read ..!

I didn't mention platty 'cos it seems to be a totally different situation from that of the HG woma and the HG Citrus ... The platty gene actually does seem to be kind of a "hidden" one since as you say, the platty carriers DO apparently just look like normals (at least as far as I know, unless there's some secret marker trait that we all aren't privy to ... :rolleyes:)

---

i meant i wouldnt use the "" since the animal that carries the gene looks normal, thus making it a hidden gene lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Possibly. But the Woma mutation also looks very similar to the spider mutation, and spider is homozygous lethal also.

---

as far as i know thats only speculated, got any proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

as far as i know thats only speculated, got any proof?

---

Maybe we should assume any new dominant mutation is homozygous lethal until it's proven not to be just to be safe? Not trying to be snide, just thinking that might be the best way to look at it. Same for if both genders of any new mutation can reproduce; assume sterile until proven otherwise.

So do I understand right that the "original" woma that produced the pearl which appears to be homozygous lethal (lives a little while first) is what is now called HG woma? But the animals that where sold as woma and now called just woma are a different mutation that we don't know yet what happens to the homozygous version? Have many woma X woma breedings been done yet? Maybe the homozygous woma don't even make it as far as hatching. Or maybe it is completely dominant like pinstripe and someone will eventually prove a woma from woma X woma to be homozygous.

Both mutations are apparently still great for combos, just maybe avoid breedings with HG woma on both sides. But would be nice if one or both mutations would get a new name.

So, has it been confirmed that the Woma has no super form?

If so, that would make it like spider--co-dominant homozygous lethal.

If it has a super that looks like a regular woma, then it would be dominant, not co-dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Possibly. But the Woma mutation also looks very similar to the spider mutation, and spider is homozygous lethal also.

---

Do you have any conclusive facts that the spider is homozygous lethal, or is that simply your theory? I think stating that as fact without any real evidence (other than your previously stated presumption that since a super hasn't been produced, they MUST all die in the egg) takes quite a few liberties with presumptions and anecdotes.

But my point is that presuming spider or any other mutation without a proven homozygous version isn't homozygous lethal is taking the same liberties.

Unless you get apparent homozygous animals that all die like the HG woma it’s very hard to prove a homozygous lethal . The much easier thing would be to prove that they aren’t homozygous lethal by proving a homozygous spider. But 21 years into the spider project still no public homozygous so who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

So, has it been confirmed that the Woma has no super form?

If so, that would make it like spider--co-dominant homozygous lethal.

If it has a super that looks like a regular woma, then it would be dominant, not co-dominant.

---

I'm not hugely convinced.

I figure, even if enough people have done woma x woma (regular-style) breedings to state conclusively that there is no visually distinct homozygous form (which I'm not even 100% convinced of), I just can't imagine that enough people have held back a sufficient number of the woma babies from those breedings and bred them to normals enough times to prove that they're all heterozygous and that, therefore, there are NO homozygous animals and they must all be dying in the egg.

I mean, heck, the spider morph has been around for -- 21 years, wow, really?! -- and is immensely popular, with 100's if not 1000's of breeders working with spiders (at least a few of whom are probably doing spider x spider breedings, whether as a deliberate test or out of ignorance of the suspected homozygous lethal condition) and we STILL can't all agree whether or not they're homozygous lethal.

As was already stated, without a pile of dead babies to point to it's tough to conclusively prove the homozygous lethal condition. I guess you could calculate out statistically how many spiders out of spider x spider breedings you'd have to prove heterozygous in order to suggest strongly that there were no homozygous spiders ... Or, you could breed spider x spider, US for follicles early on, wait until after fertilization and US again to see how many follicles resorbed. A consistent 25% resorption rate with spider x spider versus controls might suggest homozygous lethal ... But again, it doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

But my point is that presuming spider or any other mutation without a proven homozygous version isn't homozygous lethal is taking the same liberties.

Unless you get apparent homozygous animals that all die like the HG woma it’s very hard to prove a homozygous lethal . The much easier thing would be to prove that they aren’t homozygous lethal by proving a homozygous spider. But 21 years into the spider project still no public homozygous so who knows.

---

Obviously it would be tough to prove, but wouldn't you see a lot of eggs that go bad in spider x spider clutches if they were homo leathal? I know there may not be too many people doing spider x spder clutches, but there must have been at least a few at this point. Would you consider a pinstripe to be Homo leathal as well?

I believe BHB has proven a homozygous pinstripe and reports it’s looking the same as the hets so the first proven completely dominant ball python mutation.

I did get an e-mail once from a large well known breeder providing results from one spider X spider clutch. Of 8 fertile eggs, exactly 1/4 where smaller and didn't hatch. Just one clutch so could just be a co-incidence. They where planning to try more spider X spider breedings the next year but I didn't check back to see how that went or if any of the now 3 year old babies from that first clutch have been bred and proven homozygous or not homozygous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

As was already stated, without a pile of dead babies to point to it's tough to conclusively prove the homozygous lethal condition. I guess you could calculate out statistically how many spiders out of spider x spider breedings you'd have to prove heterozygous in order to suggest strongly that there were no homozygous spiders ... Or, you could breed spider x spider, US for follicles early on, wait until after fertilization and US again to see how many follicles resorbed. A consistent 25% resorption rate with spider x spider versus controls might suggest homozygous lethal ... But again, it doesn't prove anything.

---

Why would the follicles be absorbed? They would not get the second spider gene until fertilization from the sperm occurred during ovulation. An egg containing a homo spider should not affect the way the egg is formed. You should still have shell formed just like always. The same way an unfertilized egg can still be perfectly formed. I would think if homo spiders died or never develop after fertilization the snake would still lay some evidence of there being an egg at some point. Once they ovulate something is coming out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Maybe we should assume any new dominant mutation is homozygous lethal until it's proven not to be just to be safe? Not trying to be snide, just thinking that might be the best way to look at it. Same for if both genders of any new mutation can reproduce; assume sterile until proven otherwise.

So do I understand right that the "original" woma that produced the pearl which appears to be homozygous lethal (lives a little while first) is what is now called HG woma? But the animals that where sold as woma and now called just woma are a different mutation that we don't know yet what happens to the homozygous version? Have many woma X woma breedings been done yet? Maybe the homozygous woma don't even make it as far as hatching. Or maybe it is completely dominant like pinstripe and someone will eventually prove a woma from woma X woma to be homozygous.

Both mutations are apparently still great for combos, just maybe avoid breedings with HG woma on both sides. But would be nice if one or both mutations would get a new name.

---

thats all well and good but, to state something as factually as the way it came across, you need proof. im perfectly content saying that we just dont know, and that yes, more test breeding does need to be done to help figure it out ( who knows maybe once i get a few extra spiders ill just breed them together every year and see what happens ). also the hg woma and woma have no relation, they simply look similar.

Pinstripe is dominant. Supers have been produced.

The thing is, I am not sure how many people have been working with womas that intensively--they never approached the popularity of spiders or pinstripes.

And yes, in a spider X spider clutch, you would expect some eggs not to hatch, if they are, in fact, homozygous lethal. But it would only be 25% of the clutch, on average. I think people simply haven't kept track or really noticed. It's hardly uncommon for an egg or two not to hatch.

Now, if there have been huge numbers of perfect 100% hatch rates in spider X spider clutches, then I would concede they are probably not homozygous lethal, but there is some other explanation. But until that is show, it is the most LOGICAL conclusion based on what we know of simple genetics.

Woma, however, is a different story. Has anyone here bred woma to woma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Pinstripe is dominant. Supers have been produced.

The thing is, I am not sure how many people have been working with womas that intensively--they never approached the popularity of spiders or pinstripes.

And yes, in a spider X spider clutch, you would expect some eggs not to hatch, if they are, in fact, homozygous lethal. But it would only be 25% of the clutch, on average. I think people simply haven't kept track or really noticed. It's hardly uncommon for an egg or two not to hatch.

Now, if there have been huge numbers of perfect 100% hatch rates in spider X spider clutches, then I would concede they are probably not homozygous lethal, but there is some other explanation. But until that is show, it is the most LOGICAL conclusion based on what we know of simple genetics.

Woma, however, is a different story. Has anyone here bred woma to woma?

---

Then your statement should probably be revised to say "it's hypothocized that spider is homozygous lethal because....." rather than stating it as fact as you did in your first post. That would be more accurate than stating it definitively - because no one knows definitively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

Why would the follicles be absorbed? They would not get the second spider gene until fertilization from the sperm occurred during ovulation. An egg containing a homo spider should not affect the way the egg is formed. You should still have shell formed just like always. The same way an unfertilized egg can still be perfectly formed. I would think if homo spiders died or never develop after fertilization the snake would still lay some evidence of there being an egg at some point. Once they ovulate something is coming out.

---

Yeah, you're right. They would come out, they would just either look unfertilized or look like slugs or have a dead, half-formed baby or what have you. The embryo doesn't affect the shelling process ... My mistake! :oops:

I guess what I was thinking of is that in chinchillas, there are two mutations that are said to be homozygous lethal (black velvet and mosaic) based on the fact that they have been around for ~50 years with oodles and oodles of breedings of all kinds, and no homozygous form has ever been produced. However, as with the spiders, there aren't any dead, deformed babies produced, just a lack of homozygous animals.

So, with them it's thought that the babies are being aborted and re-absorbed after fertilization (or worse, mummified) ... Or something. It isn't really clear what people think happens; it's just kind of "known" than you don't breed a black velvet x black velvet or mosaic x mosaic. (Largely I think because of the fear of "mummies" causing dystocias with future litters ... Also 'cos you know you've got a 25% chance of the baby aborting, which isn't a great risk to take in an animal that only has 1-3 babies!)

But you're right; not the same situation with oviparous animals.

Well, at the moment everyone is saying that spider is dominant, which it clearly isn't, so I figure it is better than that, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Well, at the moment everyone is saying that spider is dominant, which it clearly isn't, so I figure it is better than that, lol.

---

how do you know it "clearly isnt"? have you hatched out some crazy looking non normal/spider looking offspring from a spider x spider pairing (alive or dead)? because that would pretty much be the only way to tell for sure

But many have been stating that spider is dominant for years as fact with no public proof. To me that's very much the same as stating that spider is homozygous lethal. Neither seems to be proven fact. At this point without a proven homozygous spider the homozygous lethal explanation seems more likely to me given the nature of homozygous lethal being technically impossible to prove. But agreed, neither dominant or homozygous lethal should be stated as fact, spider seems permanently stuck in the "unknown" category.

yea, i guess proving it as HL would depend on how far into development it was lethal and other factors. i did think i heard of a guy this year though that thought his spider was gunna prove out as homozygous, but i guess well have to wait and see, and who knows, could be one of those internet rumors lol

All very interesting stuff! I think Brian from BHB has done a couple Woma to Woma pairings--he might be able to shed some light on some of these questions.

Cheers,
-Matt