So would you consider a Pied Genetically Incomplete Dominate?

So here me out. Incomplete Dominance in flowers would be Red Flower (Pied) X White Flower (Normal)...... In theory you should get all Pink Flowers (Het. Pieds... All have markers and look different).... and I would love to see pics of babies from a pied X normal cause everyone I have seen have markers and look a lot darker..... Visual Hets.

The Leopard gene acts Co-Dom but only sits on the Pied gene so what would you actually call it genetically?

Here is what I think would pop out from the Leopard Pied X Normal breeding.

50% of the clutch should be 100% Het. Pieds (with markers).
50% of the clutch should be Leopards 100% Het. Pieds.

It seems kinda like an anomaly. Anyone have any thoughts? From what I see every leopard is 100% het. pied yet you can not isolate the leopard gene. What would you consider that?

I need to take a genetics class lol.

Joe Ellis

I've never heard of a "leopard" gene...can you link to some info about it?

As for the pied gene...I've yet to see definitive proof that the "markers" are absolute. There may be some genetic visual trace for het pieds...but those same visuals CAN appear in normals as well....and I have seen het pieds that don't show any of the classic "markers".

That said...the breeders I've spoken to who regularly breed pieds seem pretty confident in their ability to spot the hets in a pos-het clutch...but they still sell them as poss-hets. It's simply not as clear-cut as the het ivory, for instance, or het red axanthic.

Everything I know is that a Leopard Ball Python is always 100% het. Pied. It is as if the only way the Leopard gene can show is if it is with a Het. Pied or a Pied. I know normals can look like Het. Pieds. all day and all night. Every Het. Pied I own has markers and every possible Het. Pied. that has markers proves out. Here is a link to some Leopard Het. Pied info.

http://www.jkobylkareptiles.com/snake_room.php?id=36

Hope that helps a little.

Kevin from NERD also seems to think that Het. Pieds might be there own morph. So I am now thinking could the Pied gene be a incomplete dominate gene? If that is what the pied gene is then what would you call the Leopard gene due to the fact that it can not be isolated. I am just throwing things out there.... I maybe 100% wrong on all of this. Just curious to see what others think.

Joe Ellis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I've never heard of a "leopard" gene...can you link to some info about it?

---

Thread on leopards vs. pieds from earlier in the year:

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...rd%2C+graziani

Ahhh yes...thanks for the links. I remember reading about that now...and probably forgot because it made my head spin. :rolleye2: LOL (Or it could be because the memory portion of my brain is made entirely of swiss cheese!)

It's certainly an interesting discussion...and I think we have years of breeding ahead before we start to pin down any definitive answers about the leopard.

And I'm not disagreeing with the possibility that het pieds are actually co-dom morphs resulting in the pied in its super form....it's just still my current opinion that the "visual" het pied is simply too variable and too subtle to consistently pick out in a crowd of normals. But that is simply my very inexperienced opinion based more on years of anecdotes and online imagery than on actual hands-on experience. As I said...those who actually breed pieds and have been working with them for years may be able to spot subtle differences that I can't.

Look at specters and het pumas and tell me that is not along the same lines?

Joe Ellis

Watch the you tube video that ralphy from maballs did with kevin from nerd. He talks about how he is starting to believe the het pied to be co-dom by the way it works with other morphs. Its quite interesting the way he talks about it. You tube "nerd interview part 1" to see. I'm not sure which one its in but def something to check out.

Sent from my SCH-R880 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Ahhh yes...thanks for the links. I remember reading about that now...and probably forgot because it made my head spin. :rolleye2: LOL (Or it could be because the memory portion of my brain is made entirely of swiss cheese!)

---

Oh, no problem. It's not as if I don't have the same problem.

I stumbled over that old thread while trying to find if I'd ever shared Greg Graziani's e-mail response to my query about leopards. I'm 99.9% sure I did post it at some point here...? But here it is again anyway:

Quote:

---

Leopard Gene

In 2002, we obtained a Piebald male that sired 2 clutches of eggs in 2005. Out of 14 offspring 7 were visual Leopards. With a 50% ratio we knew we were working with a new dominant gene. The name Leopard was assigned to this gene because of the leopard yellow color that was created when the Leopard Pastel and Leopard Spiders were produced in 2005.

In 2009, we produced 6 clutches of Leopard x Leopard for a total of 26 offspring. Out of the 26 offspring 21 were Leopards. There was no visual super form produced. Due to that fact we are considering the leopard gene to be dominant not co-dominant. The one question we have yet to answer is, “Can the Leopard gene be isolated from the Piebald gene or are all Leopards 100% Het Piebalds?” To answer this we will have to produce a large number of offspring from the Leopard Possible Het Piebalds and see if they all produce Piebalds.

To date the following Leopard mutations have been produced at Graziani Reptiles Inc.:
Leopard (2005)
Leopard Pastel (2005)
Leopard Spider (2005)
Leopard Piebald (2009)
Leopard Pastel Piebald (2009)
Leopard Spider Piebald (2009)
Leopard Cinnamon (2009)

We believe that the Leopards are all 100% het Piebalds. Our reasoning is the leopard pattern resembles the Piebald pattern. Our theory is there are 2, Piebald genes that are compatible, however one of the Piebald genes is on the same allele as the Leopard gene. If this is the case the genes cannot be separated, making all Leopards Het Piebalds. Only future breeding will prove of disprove our theory! Either way this is an exciting new project to be working with!!!!

Thanks,
Greg

---

I also agree that something more is going on with the Pied gene. I know that certain lines of Het Pieds always have markers. Some lines do not.

Another question to ask, What is the relationship between a Low and a high white Pied? If a Low white animal with no high whites in its background is bred to a high white with no Low whites in its background, what is the out come? I know that they are all going to be Pied, but is the low white dominate over the high white? I do not believe that it is random. There are so many questions and uncertainties in snake genetics. I think that is what makes it so much fun to breed them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonunit

I stumbled over that old thread while trying to find if I'd ever shared Greg Graziani's e-mail response to my query about leopards. I'm 99.9% sure I did post it at some point here...? But here it is again anyway:

Quote:

---

... In 2009, we produced 6 clutches of Leopard x Leopard for a total of 26 offspring. Out of the 26 offspring 21 were Leopards. There was no visual super form produced. ...
We believe that the Leopards are all 100% het Piebalds....

---

---

Wouldn't you then see pieds pop up in clutches of leopard x leopard? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Wouldn't you then see pieds pop up in clutches of leopard x leopard? :confused:

---

I'm sure there were pieds in there as Greg has had several leopard pieds, leopard pastel pieds, and a couple leopard spider pieds the past few years. However, I find it doubtful that leopard is an allele of the pied gene as Joe suggested. Because the leopard mutation popped up early in the breeding with pieds, it's very likely a good number of leopards are het pied, but I don't think enough leopard breedings have been done to say that all are 100% het pied; though there may be some chance that the two genes are located close to each other on the same chromosome, and that they are more often than not inherited together. From what I've seen of the mutation though, I believe it is an entirely separate mutation that just got mixed up with pied early on and as such many leopards out there are het pied (I have seen 50% and 66% possible hets for sale).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Wouldn't you then see pieds pop up in clutches of leopard x leopard? :confused:

---

Perhaps the reason you do not see pied's is because the leopard gene works like the platty daddy genetics. Platties can make lessers but lessers together do not make platties. It requires the platty sib to make a platty daddy. The leopard gene may be a dominant gene that allows the pied to come forth, but only when mixed with a pied gene...I believe it is possible in genetics for one gene to be dominant over another but recessive to others. I have always heard that baldness is dominant when mixed with the male "Y" gene but recessive when matched with the "X" in woman. I may be wrong but there it is just the same, something to chew on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonkatoyman

Perhaps the reason you do not see pied's is because the leopard gene works like the platty daddy genetics. Platties can make lessers but lessers together do not make platties. It requires the platty sib to make a platty daddy. The leopard gene may be a dominant gene that allows the pied to come forth, but only when mixed with a pied gene...I believe it is possible in genetics for one gene to be dominant over another but recessive to others. I have always heard that baldness is dominant when mixed with the male "Y" gene but recessive when matched with the "X" in woman. I may be wrong but there it is just the same, something to chew on.

---

With regards to the bolded statement, I believe that baldness is due to a number of genetic factors and highly exacerbated by testosterone (hence its appearance more commonly in men), but if you change the example of "baldness" to "hemophilia," you're right.

Actually what happens is that hemophilia is still "recessive" in men (XY), it's just that the Y chromosome is little and dinky and doesn't carry the "hemophilia" gene at all, so if the one and only copy of the gene (on the X chromosome) is defective, the man will express hemophilia. If the man happened to have Klienfelter syndrome and have an XXY karyotype with only one of the X's carrying a defective hemophilia gene, and the other carrying a normal hemophilia gene, the defective gene would act as recessive and the man would not have the disease.

Anyway, I do kind of like your premise about the leopards. I think it's conceivable that the gene could sit on the same locus as the piebald gene, and act as dominant to wild-type but recessive to piebald.

If leopard x leopard only equals leopards, but leopard x non-leopard piebald ONLY gives piebalds (and normals), and leopard pied x leopard pied can produce pieds AND leopards (non pied) that would suggest that they're on the same locus ... Right?

Otherwise I do think the linkage theory makes a lot of sense. :D

:rolleye2: It's enough to make one's head explode.

I just want a pied...a plain ol' every day, uncomplicated, sweet-as-pie pied... :tears:

:please:

Okay here is what I think is going on.

Imagine you have a Male visual Leopard (ALWAYS Het. Pied).

-Leopard pattern gene allele on one loci and the Pied gene allele on another loci on the same chromosome.

-We are assume the Leopard allele can not exist unless there is a Pied allele. (always carry over together with this line.... maybe complete linkage?)

-We will consider this its own morph (Leopard always Het. Pied) ....

-Leopard is a incomplete dominate pattern morph that is ALWAYS Het. Pied.


Now I am going to call Hets. from the Classic Pieds "Classic Het. Pieds"

- One Pied gene allele on a chromosome

- The Classic Pied gene allele is on the same loci as the Leopard's Pied gene allele.



Now if you breed the Male Leopard (Het. Pied) X Female Classic Het. Pied you get Leopard Pieds. This will be a pair of Pied gene alleles on one loci (one from the Male and one from Female) and a separate Leopard gene allele on another loci (From the male) that is incomplete dominate and can not exist without the presents of the Pied allele.
So now we have a homozygous Pied with one Incomplete Dominate Leopard gene allele. This would be Greg's original Leopard Pied that produced clutches with Half 100% Het. Pieds and Half Leopard (Het. Pied).

Now when you have two Leopards (Het. Pied) breed you will produce (Keep in mind that the Leopard allele will always have a Pied allele with it) 25% Super Leopard Pieds, 50% Leopards Het. Pied, and 25% Normals.

You can relate it to a Pastel X Pastel breeding and that is why you can still get 25% normals. But keep in mind that you can not separate the Leopard gene allele from the Pied gene allele.... so you can not get any Classic Het. Pieds or any Leopard Pieds. This is all assuming that the Leopard gene allele is incomplete dominate and not dominate and we are breeding Leopard (Het. Pied) X Leopard (Het. Pied)

I believe the Leopard Pieds Graiziani produced from the Leopard X Leopard breeding are Super Leopard Pieds. A pair of alleles from the Pied gene and a pair of alleles for the Leopard gene both showing at the same time together.

In Theory

Every Het. Pied from a Leopard (Het. Pied) X Normal will be Leopard (Het. Pied)
Every Visual Pied from a Leopard (Het. Pied) X Classic Het. Pied will be Leopard Pied.
Every Visual Pied from a Leopard (Het. Pied) X Leopard (Het. Pied) will be Super Leopard Pieds.
Every offspring from a Super Leopard Pied X Normal will be Leopard.
You can not have a Super Leopard on its own without it being Pied.

This is how I think the Leopard gene works. I maybe wrong but time will tell. I am not super up to date with my genetic terms so some maybe a little off.

Thanks

Joe Ellis