I found this very interesting

So i thought id share. Its funny how so many people have such strong opinons on how certian genetics MUST work when in fact crazier things have happened
http://youtu.be/xyvq4CFkZDo

Strange. If it did in fact come from a normal x BEL...why is it a BEL? It SHOULD be mojave.

That's crazy! Great looking snake.

I think you might be the guy I talked to at the Lexington show a few weeks back about this phenomenon.

Science is awesome! Just when you got something "figured out" a variable presents its self in the form of nature. Amazing little surprise.

Cool! I'd never even considered that this could happen. How rare a phenom is this?

I cant watch the video at the moment, but I have heard of a mojave x dinker female that popped out a bel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakehobbyist

Strange. If it did in fact come from a normal x BEL...why is it a BEL? It SHOULD be mojave.

---

Turn your sound on when you watch the video, he explains the best theory we have at the time.


I'm curious what happen when it reproduces, if the theory is true.

Does it always throw the mojave gene, since the other gene is damaged, thus making it act like a true BEL?
Does the damage gene get passed as a damaged/not expressed gene, with the ability to keep producing this phenomenon?
Or depending on why it's damaged/not being expressed does it pass as normal, thus making the animal a mojave that looks like a BEL.
or is the theory completely wrong?

can't wait to hear the results of that animal's offspring. there have been a couple animals popping up with this going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Turn your sound on when you watch the video, he explains the best theory we have at the time.


I'm curious what happen when it reproduces, if the theory is true.

Does it always throw the mojave gene, since the other gene is damaged, thus making it act like a true BEL?
Does the damage gene get passed as a damaged/not expressed gene, with the ability to keep producing this phenomenon?
Or depending on why it's damaged/not being expressed does it pass as normal, thus making the animal a mojave that looks like a BEL.
or is the theory completely wrong?

can't wait to hear the results of that animal's offspring. there have been a couple animals popping up with this going on.

---

This is the 2nd time ive heard of this happening, and the other was in 2009 if i remember right. I believe it looks like a bel but technicly its still a mojave, so if u bred it to a male bel in 3 years u can still get normals. PS this was not my vid it was someones im subscribed to on youtube everyone. Im a bit of a genetics nerd so i like seeing this kind of stuff, it makes me smile lol.

So was the leucistic parent the father or the mother (suppose father is more likely, I can't stand to take the time to actually watch videos).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

So was the leucistic parent the father or the mother (suppose father is more likely, I can't stand to take the time to actually watch videos).

---

35 seconds in....male BEL

Darn, someone said normal X bel so I thought maybe it was a parthenogenic bel female.

Thanks! Hey, I finally broke down and went on facebook this year. Maybe in a few more years I'll start watching videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Turn your sound on when you watch the video, he explains the best theory we have at the time.


I'm curious what happen when it reproduces, if the theory is true.

Does it always throw the mojave gene, since the other gene is damaged, thus making it act like a true BEL?
Does the damage gene get passed as a damaged/not expressed gene, with the ability to keep producing this phenomenon?
Or depending on why it's damaged/not being expressed does it pass as normal, thus making the animal a mojave that looks like a BEL.
or is the theory completely wrong?

can't wait to hear the results of that animal's offspring. there have been a couple animals popping up with this going on.

---

I heard the theory...it just doesn't make sense to me. I LOVE genetics. I would marry genetics if I could (yes, I'm a nerd). If he only had one copy of the mojave gene...he wouldn't express it as a bell. It would still be like a mojave gene and a damaged wildtype gene. I guess logically his theory doesn't make sense to me. Something that makes more sense (if only to me), is that the mother either A. was a very bad example of a mojave (it would be nice to know what HER parents were) that was just assumed to be normal or B. there is some other gene linked to the mojave gene. One gene that controls the actual pattern and one unknown gene that's paired to it. Then the mother could have a damaged mojave pattern gene, but when the other gene is paired with the mojave, it then expresses the super form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakehobbyist

I heard the theory...it just doesn't make sense to me. I LOVE genetics. I would marry genetics if I could (yes, I'm a nerd). If he only had one copy of the mojave gene...he wouldn't express it as a bell. It would still be like a mojave gene and a damaged wildtype gene. I guess logically his theory doesn't make sense to me. Something that makes more sense (if only to me), is that the mother either A. was a very bad example of a mojave (it would be nice to know what HER parents were) that was just assumed to be normal or B. there is some other gene linked to the mojave gene. One gene that controls the actual pattern and one unknown gene that's paired to it. Then the mother could have a damaged mojave pattern gene, but when the other gene is paired with the mojave, it then expresses the super form.

---

excuse my comment, i misunderstood.

mojave is an incomplete dominant to wild type.

When two wild types are paired together, it looks normal.
When a mojave and wild type are paired together, they are both expressed as mojave.
When two mojave genes are paired together nothing is expressed but the mojave gene (BEL)

the theory is, when the mojave and wild type scenario comes up, the wild type gene is damaged in some sort of way where it is not expressed. So all that is expressed is the single mojave gene, which we know is a BEL.
the wild type gene isn't there to make it look like a mojave. you don't need 2x mojave gene to make it look BEL, just need there to not be a wild type gene. which normally the only way to do that is to fill it with another mojave gene.

in short you need the mojave gene and the wild type gene to make it look mojave, without the wild type, it's going to just express the mojave gene, which is BEL.

That makes sense. Same thought process, different route, slightly different angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Darn, someone said normal X bel so I thought maybe it was a parthenogenic bel female.

Thanks! Hey, I finally broke down and went on facebook this year. Maybe in a few more years I'll start watching videos.

---

i see what you were getting at, yea not the case here.

what interesting is this "nuller theory" as far as i could find, it just simply a theory we made up and never proven anywhere in the genetic world. Like there isn't a term or definition in the "offical" scientific world for this. Unless someone can point me somewhere, but i looked far and wide when this came up before.

btw wth is this facebook you speak of? sounds like a bad time honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

what interesting is this "nuller theory" as far as i could find, it just simply a theory we made up and never proven anywhere in the genetic world. Like there isn't a term or definition in the "offical" scientific world for this. Unless someone can point me somewhere, but i looked far and wide when this came up before.

---

I don't know if this will go over people's heads...but what happened sounds a lot like what happens in human genetics. Females are XX (we have two copies of the x-chromosome) whereas males are XY. Because females only need one copy of the x-chromosome to express the genes, they "turn off" the second x-chromosome so we aren't expressing both. It's called a "bar body." What it sounds like is happening, is that, for some strange reason), the wild-type gene is "turning off" either because it's damaged or maybe because it's not even there (perhaps something happened in the cell division before the mother made her follicles and her wild type gene was simply left out). That would mean there would only be one copy of the mojave gene and thus giving the BEL.

I don't know if that made sense...but if you generally can follow genetics, it might make some sense to you.

Snakehobbyist - I was thinking along those same lines myself.

This the guys website. http://www.arpythons.net/

The guy has a KRE shirt on in the video, so this is the one I saw at the show last month. He had her separate from the rest of what he had with a NFS sign on her cage. When I walked by I said, " Oh, that's a nice super mojave". That's when he told me the story behind her.

The vid was posted by john abrams, same person as arpythons, yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakehobbyist

I don't know if this will go over people's heads...but what happened sounds a lot like what happens in human genetics. Females are XX (we have two copies of the x-chromosome) whereas males are XY. Because females only need one copy of the x-chromosome to express the genes, they "turn off" the second x-chromosome so we aren't expressing both. It's called a "bar body." What it sounds like is happening, is that, for some strange reason), the wild-type gene is "turning off" either because it's damaged or maybe because it's not even there (perhaps something happened in the cell division before the mother made her follicles and her wild type gene was simply left out). That would mean there would only be one copy of the mojave gene and thus giving the BEL.

I don't know if that made sense...but if you generally can follow genetics, it might make some sense to you.

---

This is a little rambly; my apologies and I make no guarantees about accuracy ...

Yes, I think you're on the right track. :)

OWAL, I don't believe that the null theory was totally made up by snake people. The actual term is "hemizygosity;" in this case, we're specifically talking about (theoretical) autosomal hemizygosity. Here's an outside link to one definition, so you know I didn't just make it up :P (I have heard it referred to as the "null phenomenon," and I can't find any reference to that anywhere else so I do think someone in the reptile community might've made that term up. It's a nice made-up term, though!!)

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hemizygous

And yes, recessive sex-linked traits give a wonderful example of why this occurs. OWAL already touched on it once -- when we explain genetics, we often explain it as far as "copies" of a gene. For example, we like to say that the animal needs "two copies" of the albino gene to be phenotypically albino, because albino is recessive. However, this really isn't the case -- what is the case is that the animal needs NO copies of the wild-type gene. If the animal has even one copy of the wild-type gene, then it will be able to produce melanin effectively and will look normal. If it has NO copies of the wild-type gene, it will look albino -- whether it has two copies of the albino gene, or only one.

This is why some diseases show up so much more often in male humans than in female humans. Hemophilia is the classic example. One normal copy of the gene for factor VIII (F8) will allow the blood to clot normally. The gene is found on the X chromosome. Most human women have two copies of the X chromosome (XX), so they have two copies of the F8 gene, one on each X chromosome. If one doesn't work, they still produce enough Factor VIII to clot normally. In human men, who have only one X chromosome, if they lose the one copy they're screwed.

I am still trying to find out whether the autosomal hemizygous theory is proven in other species or not. I think that it is thought to be a factor in higher than expected ratios of certain recessive diseases in humans ... Still trying to confirm this though.

I also don't know whether the animal will be able to reproduce normally, and more specifically, what happens to the offspring that inherit the "null" mojave gene ... I would assume it would be unable to throw the wild-type gene, though, since in theory it doesn't actually have one.

And, IMO, if this animal DOES produce wild-type offspring, that suggests that we might be wrong as to what's happening here. (Unless someone can counter me on that, which I would welcome ...)

- - - Updated - - -

Also --

Thank you, Randy; I thought I was the only person on the Internet who lacks the patience to watch videos. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I also don't know whether the animal will be able to reproduce normally, and more specifically, what happens to the offspring that inherit the "null" mojave gene ... I would assume it would be unable to throw the wild-type gene, though, since in theory it doesn't actually have one.

And, IMO, if this animal DOES produce wild-type offspring, that suggests that we might be wrong as to what's happening here. (Unless someone can counter me on that, which I would welcome ...)

---

Nice info thanks, Just from quick reading it seems like Hemizygous refers to a normal condition. like in your link the example is "For example, the male is hemizygous for most X chromosome genes." which would be completely normal generation after generation. I'll read more into it later tho.

I guess im going to try and counter.

The BEL popped up out of nowhere. I think the mystery would be why did the gene disappear? and if it did disappear, wouldn't it still be able to pass the "null" empty slot. So if it was paired to a normal, the empty slot could be passed, thus it would have 1 copy of the wild type and look normal. Now take it farther, Pair that normal with the empty slot to a mojave, there is a chance of BEL again. All assuming the empty slot can be passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Nice info thanks, Just from quick reading it seems like Hemizygous refers to a normal condition. like in your link the example is "For example, the male is hemizygous for most X chromosome genes." which would be completely normal generation after generation. I'll read more into it later tho.

I guess im going to try and counter.

The BEL popped up out of nowhere. I think the mystery would be why did the gene disappear? and if it did disappear, wouldn't it still be able to pass the "null" empty slot. So if it was paired to a normal, the empty slot could be passed, thus it would have 1 copy of the wild type and look normal. Now take it farther, Pair that normal with the empty slot to a mojave, there is a chance of BEL again. All assuming the empty slot can be passed.

---

even assuming the 'null' hemizygous trait is hereditary, wouldn't this particular animal still only be able to produce mojaves and normals? unless it's paired with a sibling who also potentially inherited the trait, the wild-type slot would still be present and provided by the mate. I might be off, but I'm reading two discrete issues-the first is whether it would be capable of producing BELs when paired with a normal (which I don't think it would) and the second is whether the phenomenon is completely anomalous or heriditary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wwmjkd

even assuming the 'null' hemizygous trait is hereditary, wouldn't this particular animal still only be able to produce mojaves and normals?

---

heres how im seeing it in my head

M=Mojave
N=Null

	M	N
m	Mm (mojave)	mN (Normal with Null)

then if that normal with the null was breed to a mojave

	m	N
M	Mm (Mojave)	MN (BEL looking)
m	mm (normal)	mN (normal with null)

but as you saying, its assuming a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

The BEL popped up out of nowhere. I think the mystery would be why did the gene disappear? and if it did disappear, wouldn't it still be able to pass the "null" empty slot. So if it was paired to a normal, the empty slot could be passed, thus it would have 1 copy of the wild type and look normal. Now take it farther, Pair that normal with the empty slot to a mojave, there is a chance of BEL again. All assuming the empty slot can be passed.

---

Honestly, I think that if the animal could breed, he would contribute one of two things: the mojave gene, or the empty slot. Think about it: when he's going through spematogenesis (the production of sperm), his DNA is constantly being divided into single strands. His genes are spilt apart. Here's an image to follow what I'm saying. This is for a HUMAN thus the 46 chromosome. Snakes have a different number of chromosomes, so that 46 will change but the process is the same: http://img.sparknotes.com/content/te...atogenesis.gif

Now, by the time he's making sperm, some of those sperm cells will have the mojave gene in it and will be passed on to produce a mojave or super mojave baby (if paired with another mojave). The other sperm who don't have the mojave gene will do one of two things (I'm not sure if this is highly studied or not): 1. die because there is a chromosomal defect or 2. do like any other sperm and fertilize the egg. However, this new zygote (fertilized egg) would only have one copy of the gene...the gene it got from the MOTHER. So for example: the mother passed on a spider gene, the resulting baby would be a spider. If the mother is a normal, the resulting baby would be a normal. If the mother gave a cinny gene, the baby would be a cinny, etc. Now, if the mother happened to be mojave, the mother could contribute the mojave gene to the baby would would then express the "super mojave" look because it would be genetically similar to the father. Father gave it no gene, mother gave it the mojave gene. That would be impossible to determine if the baby was a true super mojave or just looked like a super mojave unless it was genetically tested. Which...doesn't exist to my knowledge for snakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakehobbyist

Honestly, I think that if the animal could breed, he would contribute one of two things: the mojave gene, or the empty slot. Think about it: when he's going through spematogenesis (the production of sperm), his DNA is constantly being divided into single strands. His genes are spilt apart. Here's an image to follow what I'm saying. This is for a HUMAN thus the 46 chromosome. Snakes have a different number of chromosomes, so that 46 will change but the process is the same: http://img.sparknotes.com/content/te...atogenesis.gif

Now, by the time he's making sperm, some of those sperm cells will have the mojave gene in it and will be passed on to produce a mojave or super mojave baby (if paired with another mojave). The other sperm who don't have the mojave gene will do one of two things (I'm not sure if this is highly studied or not): 1. die because there is a chromosomal defect or 2. do like any other sperm and fertilize the egg. However, this new zygote (fertilized egg) would only have one copy of the gene...the gene it got from the MOTHER. So for example: the mother passed on a spider gene, the resulting baby would be a spider. If the mother is a normal, the resulting baby would be a normal. If the mother gave a cinny gene, the baby would be a cinny, etc. Now, if the mother happened to be mojave, the mother could contribute the mojave gene to the baby would would then express the "super mojave" look because it would be genetically similar to the father. Father gave it no gene, mother gave it the mojave gene. That would be impossible to determine if the baby was a true super mojave or just looked like a super mojave unless it was genetically tested. Which...doesn't exist to my knowledge for snakes.

---

You were on an interesting track but you're forgetting that the spider, cinny, etc., genes are all on different "slots" (loci) than the mojave gene. So while you're right that, if the mom was a spider the baby could be a spider, etc., that has no bearing on what goes on over on the mojave locus.

@ OWAL -- yes, hemizygosity is the normal condition for the male mammal, as he is hemizygous for the entire X chromosome.

I'm learning all about hemizygosity ... Learning is fun! :D

Hey everyone,
I'm not sure whats going on with her. The null hypothesis seems to be the most likely explanation right now. Hopefully I can get her to breeding size in a few years and find out if and how she will reproduce. Either way she is going to be a keeper. Glad to see you all found it interesting as well.
thanks
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

You were on an interesting track but you're forgetting that the spider, cinny, etc., genes are all on different "slots" (loci) than the mojave gene. So while you're right that, if the mom was a spider the baby could be a spider, etc., that has no bearing on what goes on over on the mojave locus.

---

I was more using it just to demonstrate a point, not to say they were all on the same loci. Sorry if that was some confusion.

I would urge anyone who is looking at this as a snake with an "empty slot" to stop doing so, it will make it easier to understand the possibilities with this girl. There is not an empty slot at the loci on one of this girls chromosomes, there is DNA there but for whatever reason it isn't functioning properly and expressing the pattern/color that it should be. As far as I can see this is happenening for one of two reasons, one being that the copy of the gene is non-functioning as a result of the gene itself being transformed and the other being that it is non-functioning because certain envirnmental factors during development blocked it's function.

If it is the former then this snake will pass on (on the BEL complex locus) functioning mojave genes and non-functioning normal genes, so when bred to a mojave it would produce 1/2 BELs and 1/2 Normals. The BELs would be 1/2 normal BELs and 1/2 BELs with one mojave gene and one non-functioning gene and the normals would be 1/2 normal and 1/2 with one each functioning and non-functioning normal genes. When bred to a normal she would produce 1/2 normals and 1/2 mojaves with all of the normals having a copy of the non-functioning gene.

If it is the latter she will breed just like a mojave and the condition won't be passed down to offspring unless the same environmental conditions that caused the condition in the first place pop up again.

I'm inclined to believe that it is the latter but that is just my $0.02 based on my knowledge of genetics, which comes from what I've read online and in books about herpetoculture as well as 3 years and KU getting my BS in biology and taking genetics classes. Also, I hope that all of that made sense, and keep in mind that I could be completely wrong here, again it is just my $0.02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsarchie

I would urge anyone who is looking at this as a snake with an "empty slot" to stop doing so, it will make it easier to understand the possibilities with this girl. There is not an empty slot at the loci on one of this girls chromosomes, there is DNA there but for whatever reason it isn't functioning properly and expressing the pattern/color that it should be. As far as I can see this is happenening for one of two reasons, one being that the copy of the gene is non-functioning as a result of the gene itself being transformed and the other being that it is non-functioning because certain envirnmental factors during development blocked it's function.

If it is the former then this snake will pass on (on the BEL complex locus) functioning mojave genes and non-functioning normal genes, so when bred to a mojave it would produce 1/2 BELs and 1/2 Normals. The BELs would be 1/2 normal BELs and 1/2 BELs with one mojave gene and one non-functioning gene and the normals would be 1/2 normal and 1/2 with one each functioning and non-functioning normal genes. When bred to a normal she would produce 1/2 normals and 1/2 mojaves with all of the normals having a copy of the non-functioning gene.

---

The empty slot was brought up in a scenario where we would call it Hemizygous, we are all just theorizing right now, but my point was you could still get normals if that was the case if the "empty slot" could be passed in a Hemizygous case. We were just trying to find something similar else in the genetic world, I dont think whats going on would be considered Hemizygous, but it's the closest thing I've seen so far in the real genetic world. What I haven't looked into was if Hemizygous can be caused by other factors rather normal conditions.

also you would get mojaves in that mix also. there wouldn't be any normals without the non-functioning gene.

	M	N
M	MM (Real BEL)	MN (BEL looking)
m	Mm (Mojave)	mN (normal with null)

I think "deletion" would be a more appropriate term than "hemizygous".

A deletion occurs when a section of a chromosome has been cut out of the chromosome. Think of a piece of rope. A part of the rope is colored red and the rest is normal tan. Take a knife and cut out some or all of the red part. Then splice the two cut ends of the remaining rope together. The chromosome has no empty part; it has had a piece deleted, making it shorter than the original rope.

Chromosomes that have had a deletion have been found in both fruit flies and mice. Such chromosomes are passed on to following generations just like normal chromosomes. But the action of the deleted gene or genes no longer happens.

The computer I'm on now doesn't have speakers or headphones so I cannot hear the video sound track. :( I'll get it later, when I get on another computer.

Just goes to show you never really know what your going to get

Wow, that's just insane. Really cool how nature will give science a big "screw you" every once in awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Such chromosomes are passed on to following generations just like normal chromosomes. But the action of the deleted gene or genes no longer happens.

---

so if im understanding this correctly, the punnet squares above would apply to this right? or does it not pass to the next generation like that?

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't possible that the the "normal" female is a really normal looking new variant of the BEL complex? In which case we'd also say that the clutch hit bad odds in that 50% weren't BELs.

I understand the other explanation that the null phenomenon may have occurred in this baby, but then one would have to assume that the mutation occurred very early in development for the snake to be completely affected, and not look like a paradox. It will be interesting to breed it out, but one has to keep in mind that the mutation may not necessarily be expressed in all the cells of the snake, such as in the reproductive cells. Very cool stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakiMaki

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't possible that the the "normal" female is a really normal looking new variant of the BEL complex? In which case we'd also say that the clutch hit bad odds in that 50% weren't BELs.

I understand the other explanation that the null phenomenon may have occurred in this baby, but then one would have to assume that the mutation occurred very early in development for the snake to be completely affected, and not look like a paradox. It will be interesting to breed it out, but one has to keep in mind that the mutation may not necessarily be expressed in all the cells of the snake, such as in the reproductive cells. Very cool stuff.

---

its all theory right now, it's possible anything could of happened. but for the variant that looks normal to act exactly like mojave when paired up to another mojave? also the odds would be 25%

the current theory on paradox is that twins early in development merge into one snake, and it makes sense with how random but yet how often it happens. supposedly if you take dna from one part and dna from the other different part of the snake, the dna will show as siblings, not the same snake. This has been documented in other animals, call chimeras. This has nothing to do with what we are seeing in this thread.

we will be stuck waiting on more info, for now we gossip and theorize. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakiMaki

I understand the other explanation that the null phenomenon may have occurred in this baby, but then one would have to assume that the mutation occurred very early in development for the snake to be completely affected, and not look like a paradox. It will be interesting to breed it out, but one has to keep in mind that the mutation may not necessarily be expressed in all the cells of the snake, such as in the reproductive cells. Very cool stuff.

---

If there has been a deletion, it probably occurred when the egg cell was developing in the mother, before the egg cell was fertilized. Then the deletion would be in all of the baby snake's cells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

so if im understanding this correctly, the punnet squares above would apply to this right? or does it not pass to the next generation like that?

---

The Punnett squares in post 29 apply. Just change the word "null" to "deletion"