PDA

View Full Version : Poetin has been cloned--PICTURE added page 6



Joanne
Aug. 23, 2007, 12:56 PM
This was reported on eurodressage. She is almost 5 months old now.

Mozart
Aug. 23, 2007, 12:57 PM
And registered with Zangersheide maybe? I think they are the only registry that accepts clones.

Should be interesting.

Kimberlee
Aug. 23, 2007, 01:02 PM
Did they have Pictures???

Joanne
Aug. 23, 2007, 01:05 PM
No pictures. It has not been posted on the Cryozootech web site. You can buy a clone from them, although it is not known if Poetin is one of them.


http://www.cryozootech.com/index.php?m=home&d=home&l=en

YoungFilly
Aug. 23, 2007, 01:55 PM
Wow, crazy news today about Poetin and Gregor. Thanks for sending the link, I just saw that Gregor has also been put down. He was a beautiful stallion. I feel for Sarah Sturrman.

ideayoda
Aug. 23, 2007, 04:12 PM
Well now we can give the same horse to all the riders and see who succeeds with what, hmmmmm.

Calhoun
Aug. 23, 2007, 05:03 PM
I'm w/ ideayoda. . . give them all the same horse and see which training method is best.

Dressage Art
Aug. 23, 2007, 05:15 PM
Well now we can give the same horse to all the riders and see who succeeds with what, hmmmmm.

good one ;)

I'm happy to hear that Portin will live on. How much is it to clone the horse?

Melissa.Van Doren
Aug. 23, 2007, 08:43 PM
If I remember correctly from an old article, the cloning fee is somewhere around $150k...

Daydream Believer
Aug. 23, 2007, 09:00 PM
Well that is interesting. I wonder if the clone will be as nice as the original or end up having as many problems as the original as well. Honestly it gives me the creeps.

EssentialEQST
Aug. 23, 2007, 09:25 PM
I can understand cloning for organs (not an actual being, just the organ or tissue, etc)... but I think there comes a point when humans SHOULDN'T be playing human. :no:

horselips
Aug. 23, 2007, 09:30 PM
<snip>...Honestly it gives me the creeps.

Eh. It is just a "new" method of reproduction. No different than test-tube, in-vitro, or for that matter AI. When those first came out, people were all :eek: and :uhoh:

No way of getting around it: None of those methods are "natural" ;)

They've been doing it with plants and frogs for decades.

In another 10 or 20 years, people won't be batting an eye over this, either.

egontoast
Aug. 24, 2007, 04:55 AM
but I think there comes a point when humans SHOULDN'T be playing human. :no:

What should humans play at being then?:cool:

Lancaster9
Aug. 24, 2007, 05:43 AM
... but I think there comes a point when humans SHOULDN'T be playing human. :no:

:lol::lol: Most don't anyway, so why worry?! :lol::lol:

I kind of wonder if cloning whole animals will prove to be a fad once some of them show that they are not actually replicas of the original.... Our understanding of consciousness is deepening all the time, and I wonder if our ideas about that might impact horse training more eventually. After all, anyone who's trained a horse or ridden one understands that success with an animal is at least equally as much about it's mental makeup as it's physical one - sure that's impacted by genetics, but probably much more so by experience. Was anyone else disturbed by the news about replicating out-of-body experiences? Being able to manipulate consciousness, now that's something to ponder....

Valentina_32926
Aug. 24, 2007, 09:01 AM
Last I had read clones didn't live as long as the original - so why pay $150K for a horse which won't live as long as the average horse?

Anselcat
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:06 AM
If they used the same techniques as for Dolly the sheep (somatic cell nuclear cloning), the clone is not an exact replica of the adult animal.

This method uses a cell nucleus from the adult donor horse, and puts it into an egg cell from some unrelated horse (a surrogate mother cell, if you will). The surrogate mother cell's nucleus is replaced by the donor nucleus -- so the resulting egg cell has the nuclear (chromosomal) DNA of the donor horse.

But there is also DNA outside the cell nucleus. Mitochondria (the cell's "powerhouses") are outside the nucleus and contain their own DNA. Both males and females inherit all their mitochondrial DNA from their mother.

So the clone will have Poetin's nuclear DNA, but the surrogate's mitochondrial DNA. Even though Mitochondrial DNA is usually not mentioned in the press, it has significant effects. For example, some common causes of human mental retardation are due to problems with mitochondrial DNA.

I would really like to see a top race horse cloned twice, using surrogate cells from different mares -- one a very laid back QH or draft, and one a top racing TB broodmare. And see how the clones compare! That might show what effect the surrogate's mitochondria have on the babies!

Peggy
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:18 AM
My friend who raises and shows orchids says that the clones (called meristems for orchids) are generally thought not to be quite the equal of the original. Generally not as good--color not as good, longevity of blooms not as good, etc. Not sure if the species to species comparison is valid.

When you go to an orchid show, there is usually a show area and a vendor area. The commercial growers will have meristems of their show plants in the vendor area. They're usually little plants that haven't bloomed yet so they'll have a bunch of baby plants with a picture of their parent. Could this be the future of horse shows???

carolprudm
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:22 AM
Some people believe the female line to be extremely important in race horse bloodlines. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring. It doesn't come from the stallion.

I wonder if the surrogate was from the same mare line as Poetin's dam

Janet
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:34 AM
If they used the same techniques as for Dolly the sheep (somatic cell nuclear cloning), the clone is not an exact replica of the adult animal.

This method uses a cell nucleus from the adult donor horse, and puts it into an egg cell from some unrelated horse (a surrogate mother cell, if you will). The surrogate mother cell's nucleus is replaced by the donor nucleus -- so the resulting egg cell has the nuclear (chromosomal) DNA of the donor horse.

But there is also DNA outside the cell nucleus. Mitochondria (the cell's "powerhouses") are outside the nucleus and contain their own DNA. Both males and females inherit all their mitochondrial DNA from their mother.

So the clone will have Poetin's nuclear DNA, but the surrogate's mitochondrial DNA. Even though Mitochondrial DNA is usually not mentioned in the press, it has significant effects. For example, some common causes of human mental retardation are due to problems with mitochondrial DNA.

I would really like to see a top race horse cloned twice, using surrogate cells from different mares -- one a very laid back QH or draft, and one a top racing TB broodmare. And see how the clones compare! That might show what effect the surrogate's mitochondria have on the babies!
IIRC, in at least one case, (I think a "primitive" horse cloned in Italy) one mare donated the nuclear DNA, and the egg cell, and carried the embryo/fetus to term.

JCS
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:37 AM
Can someone post a link to the eurodressage article? I've been searching and I can't find it. Thanks.

ETA: Never mind, I found it.

NoDQhere
Aug. 24, 2007, 10:46 AM
If they used the same techniques as for Dolly the sheep (somatic cell nuclear cloning), the clone is not an exact replica of the adult animal.

Wow, this is interesting. I am not against cloning, but I also wouldn't be lining up to have clones "made" either. It will be interesting to see how these clones develop, although at this point it seems that the clones are being produced just for breeding. If the clones aren't expected to perform (other than in the breeding shed) how will we know if they are any good?

Anselcat
Aug. 24, 2007, 11:05 AM
IIRC, in at least one case, (I think a "primitive" horse cloned in Italy) one mare donated the nuclear DNA, and the egg cell, and carried the embryo/fetus to term.

Interesting --- so in Poetin's case, since she is a mare, she could have donated the somatic nucleus and the egg cell into which the nucleus was placed? To get a true genetic replica?

I'll revise my suggested experiment: clone a mare like Poetin three times, once using her own egg cell, once using a laid back mare's, and once using a top (but 'hot') dressage mare! And have all three trained by the same person. (any multi-millionaires out there want to sponsor this?)

BoyleHeightsKid
Aug. 24, 2007, 11:57 AM
JMO....
Cloning is wrong, wrong, wrong :no: We are looking for trouble when we start playing God.

*puts on flame suit*

elly
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:20 PM
In a recent article in a German magazin, they mentioned, that Poetin already has 4 full sister and 3 full brothers - forgive the question, but how many genetically identical horses do we need ?

Dressage Art
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:29 PM
In a recent article in a German magazin, they mentioned, that Poetin already has 4 full sister and 3 full brothers - forgive the question, but how many genetically identical horses do we need ?

One for each? I'll even take 2... for the right price ;)

For how much Poetin's full brothers and full sisters are going for?

Janet
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:31 PM
In a recent article in a German magazin, they mentioned, that Poetin already has 4 full sister and 3 full brothers - forgive the question, but how many genetically identical horses do we need ?
The full sisters and full brothers are NOT genetically identical.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:37 PM
You don't need to go to France for cloning.
Our vet has cloned a world champion cutting mare, that was out of a world champion cutting mare and the filly is a gorgeous sample of a good looking foal of it's kind.
The dam was a surrogate, the mare had died.

He said that earlier failures at cloning were because the original cells used in other tries were not quite appropiated for it.
He used certain skin cells that seemed to have done the trick.

If the filly makes it into training and trains and shows as her mother and grandmother did, we may have three generations of world champions.
Many "ifs", but who knows...

The great thing with research of any kind is that you never know where it will lead.
What we find may apply to so many other areas of what we do and who knows, may lead to a new or better way to treat humans also, maybe even those that object to research on principle.;)

elly
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:38 PM
Hi Janet -

I realize, that they are not identical, but I hope you do understand what I meant - we already have too many horses with the same/similar bloodlines - where will it end ?

Elly

Sithly
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:42 PM
I'm not against cloning per se, but I'm against allowing cloned animals and their offspring to be registered. We're still experimenting, and I feel we don't yet know enough about it to allow cloned animals to mingle freely in the normal horse breeding pool. We could easily end up with another Impressive.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2007, 12:52 PM
I'm not against cloning per se, but I'm against allowing cloned animals and their offspring to be registered. We're still experimenting, and I feel we don't yet know enough about it to allow cloned animals to mingle freely in the normal horse breeding pool. We could easily end up with another Impressive.

Well, registries can't stop registering offspring just because they don't like where they come from.
The AQHA fought against registering embrio transfer foals and lost.
If you have a foal with a known registered pedigree and can prove it is so, as an association, you will have an uphill battle to fight that the foal doesn't get papers.

In the TB business no one has wanted to sue, so they are still doing things the old way, by default.
If sometime someone decides to contest those registration rules, they can be fought on several angles, as proven by the lawsuits the AQHA had to fight, of white rule, etc.

"Another Impressive" can happen any place, any time, in any breed. Registration rules didn't have anything to do with it.
They are trying to curb the effect that mutation caused in some lines, at a snail pace, as their legal counsel advised, thru appropiate rules, backed by science, something they didn't have at the onset.

Sithly
Aug. 24, 2007, 01:03 PM
They are trying to curb the effect that mutation caused in some lines, at a snail pace, as their legal counsel advised, thru appropiate rules, backed by science, something they didn't have at the onset.


Exactly. That's exactly why breed registries need to keep cloned animals out until we know more about the long-term effects.

fish
Aug. 24, 2007, 02:44 PM
Well, registries can't stop registering offspring just because they don't like where they come from.
The AQHA fought against registering embrio transfer foals and lost.
If you have a foal with a known registered pedigree and can prove it is so, as an association, you will have an uphill battle to fight that the foal doesn't get papers.

In the TB business no one has wanted to sue, so they are still doing things the old way, by default.
If sometime someone decides to contest those registration rules, they can be fought on several angles, as proven by the lawsuits the AQHA had to fight, of white rule, etc.
.

Actually, people HAVE brought suits against the JC and the JC has always won precisely because they have never budged on the "natural cover" issue. Apparently as long as a registry sticks to the natural cover rule, they are allowed to use precisely that to protect their gene pool: i.e., the limits are "natural" as opposed to "arbitrary." Once a registry allows AI, it's very difficult to prevent any limits it tries to set on artificial repro methods from being judged as "arbitrary restrictions of free trade." That's why the AQHA lost its battle to restrict the number of embryo transfers registrable from a single mare/year. After all, how is it fair to allow stallions to produce hundreds of foals/year AI and restrict mares to only 3, and how would it be possible to select any number for either or both without that number being "arbitrary"?

Sandy M
Aug. 24, 2007, 02:54 PM
Even if the clone is the same "age" as the source, Poetin was quite young, so the relative longevity difference wouldn't be much. Whether the clone is the same quality, ability... well, we'll see, won't we?

bovon
Aug. 24, 2007, 02:59 PM
I wish there was an emoticon for throwing up..because cloning a horse makes me want to hurl...what happened to uniqueness and individuality. Each and every horse is different which is what makes learning and experiencing things about them so fascinating!

Velvet
Aug. 24, 2007, 03:25 PM
:lol::lol: Most don't anyway, so why worry?! :lol::lol:

I kind of wonder if cloning whole animals will prove to be a fad once some of them show that they are not actually replicas of the original.... Our understanding of consciousness is deepening all the time, and I wonder if our ideas about that might impact horse training more eventually. After all, anyone who's trained a horse or ridden one understands that success with an animal is at least equally as much about it's mental makeup as it's physical one - sure that's impacted by genetics, but probably much more so by experience. Was anyone else disturbed by the news about replicating out-of-body experiences? Being able to manipulate consciousness, now that's something to ponder....

I'm remember a university study on clones. It focused on a lot of different animals, but cows were up at the top of the study and we all know cows have very distinct personalities. Well, it turned out that the cloned cows all had unique personalities. You might be able to replicate the body, but they've already proven that they can't replicate the personality/soul/spirit. I find it interesting when I hear those reports. I know that from my experience with horses that the deciding factor on whether or not the horse is awesome or just so-so is the personality/soul/spirit.

I also remember them saying that it was showing how much more nature played a part in personality than nurture.

It's just all interesting. Although we think we can play God, we really can't. :D

Kind of like the old joke about God and the scientists. The scientists challenged God to a contest saying that they could do everything He could. God agreed to a contest and the terms were that the scientists and He would build a human being. On the day of the competition they were all in a completely empty space. The scientists looked around and then looked at God and said, "We need to have our tools to make a human." God replied, "You wanted the competition. If you want it to be fair, then you'll have to do what I do and start with nothing." (That's how I remember it, anyway. ;) )

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2007, 03:28 PM
I wish there was an emoticon for throwing up..because cloning a horse makes me want to hurl...what happened to uniqueness and individuality. Each and every horse is different which is what makes learning and experiencing things about them so fascinating!

Think what a clone really is and you won't be so nauseated.:yes:

A clone is an individual, with it's own set of characteristics, just as any other horse out there.
A clone is not an alien looking like another horse.:eek:

The filly our vet has loves scratches and is as good a foal as any other out there, you could not pick her out from the others and know which one is the clone.

Bluey
Aug. 24, 2007, 03:36 PM
---"I'm remember a university study on clones. It focused on a lot of different animals, but cows were up at the top of the study and we all know cows have very distinct personalities. Well, it turned out that the cloned cows all had unique personalities. You might be able to replicate the body, but they've already proven that they can't replicate the personality/soul/spirit. I find it interesting when I hear those reports. I know that from my experience with horses that the deciding factor on whether or not the horse is awesome or just so-so is the personality/soul/spirit."---

There are different kinds of genes, so being genetically identical doesn't mean that the result of how those genes interact will be the same, although many will be, that is the purpose of cloning, or breeding close relatives, inbreeding or line breeding further out.

Since each individual, even sharing the same genes initally, will express many of them in individual ways and express those that interact with each other to produce characteristics even with more variables, of course a clone will not be really "identical" in expression as the parent, only genetically, other than mutations that may occur.

Donella
Aug. 24, 2007, 03:48 PM
Science is my field, so quite frankley, the whole thing fascinates me. I think it would be cool to set up a study ( albiet an expensive one) to see just how much "nurture" comes into play in various species. We all wonder this..nature vs nurture. Such a question could possibly be explored this way because you have the "nature" aspect totally controlled.

Secondly, while they are not TOTALLY identicle, they are very , very close in terms of genetics. Some of the Mitochondrial ( these are organelles outside of the nucleus) dna will come into play is how I understand it. This must be why some of the clones have different markings? (Genetics isn't my feild).

hb
Aug. 24, 2007, 04:16 PM
Wouldn't two clones be just as similar as identical twins? I've known some human identical twins over the years and most people can tell them apart, by looks, plus I've never met a pair that had the same personality. It's not ALL genetics, environment also shapes an individual (horse, human, whatever).

horselips
Aug. 25, 2007, 12:28 PM
Some people are overly obsessed about cloning being "playing god".

These people often have double-standards: It isn't playing god to force a mutant (human or horse), a brain stem-less creature, or a brain-dead accident victim to live by medical (human) intervention?? Why, of course it is!

IA is "playing god", too. So is fertility drugs that allow a human female to have litters (this disgusts me).

You can't have it both ways. You can't just select and choose what parts you want to hang the "playing god" sign on to.
What parts "you" allow as to being "ok", and what parts god says are no-no, bad-bad.

Show me - specifically - where a god says cloning a horse is wrong, but AI is okey-dokey.


Now if only they could clone Man o War so I could see him race...
:winkgrin:

Kathy Johnson
Aug. 26, 2007, 10:50 AM
Meristem would be a nice name for the filly.

horselips
Aug. 26, 2007, 08:36 PM
Meristem would be a nice name for the filly.

Kathy, what does the name mean, if anything?

egontoast
Aug. 26, 2007, 08:59 PM
I'd be tempted to call her Patsy.





Patsy Clone

Caroline Weber
Aug. 26, 2007, 09:29 PM
Kathy, what does the name mean, if anything?

Meristematic tissue is found in plants and is where the growth and production of new cells take place (through mitosis, or asexual cell reproduction). I won't go into the different types of meristems, but they are found in certain areas of the plant (root tips, buds). Meristematic cells are undifferentiated (not yet assigned a particular function and design) and are analogous to stem cells in animals.

I do think it would be a rather witty name. Nice one, Kathy. :)

Peggy
Aug. 26, 2007, 10:10 PM
Kathy, what does the name mean, if anything?See also post #17. Short story is that orchid people refer to cloned orchids as meristems. So it would be a clever name.

purplnurpl
Aug. 27, 2007, 10:02 AM
you can have all the same genes, but they end up in a different order.
identical twins come from the same egg..the egg splits. all the goodies stay in the same order.
un identical twins come from two different eggs which is why they do not look the same.
a clone is an un identical twin.

so a clone is nothing more than an embryo transfer. without adding another set of genes.
and I too heard that the clones age very quickly. this should be quite interesting.

personally, I have a horse that is my whole world. but cloning him would never bring out the same ol Boomer. I didn't have him his first two years. THAT makes all the difference. He is wonderful due to his heart. his heart makes his athletic body athletic. there are pleanty horses that LOOK like they should be athletic as all get out but they lack trainabilty and will.
It's the heart and soul that brings true greatness to the table.

horselips
Aug. 27, 2007, 10:55 PM
I use to pose a theoretical question to people:


2 sets of identical twins Mary and Sherry; Steve & Tom, pair up and have children.

Wouldn't their resulting offspring be not just cousins to each other, but genetic siblings as well?

slc2
Aug. 28, 2007, 09:16 AM
identical twins are mostly, not completely, identical genetically. so no.

purplnurpl
Aug. 28, 2007, 09:55 AM
haha.

so if you slept with your sister's husband and accidentally got prego no one would know that you CHEATED!!! the kid wouldn't come out looking like the milk man.

hahahah.

horselips
Aug. 28, 2007, 10:09 AM
<sigh> :rolleyes:

Yes, slick dear, monozygotic twins are genetically identical. Unless a mutation occurs.

Try not to make this into a "The white horse lays in the lush pasture." ~ "no - the brown cow stands in a dirt feedlot!" type of a thing which you are so expert at. In fact, please, please put me on your ignore list, and I will go back to doing the same with you.

Gucci Cowgirl
Aug. 28, 2007, 11:34 AM
identical twins are mostly, not completely, identical genetically. so no.

How do you figure? My Genetics professor says they are getically identical, barring any mutations.

Dizygotic twins (2 fertilized eggs) differ genetically, since they are created when 2 eggs are fertilized simultaneously thus their genotype can vary greatly....but monozygotic twins are from one single fertilized egg - thus their genotypes are exctly the same

slc2
Aug. 28, 2007, 12:28 PM
nope. the egg divides, but the two halves don't necessarily start out with the same 'half' of genetic material or the genetic material being expressed or activated in the same way, nor do they continue to have.

but please, don't let facts get in the way, DO carry on.

google it, if you must.

"Identical twins are not quite as identical as once thought, according to a new study of DNA. " there are many studies that show that identical twins are not all that identical. mostly, but not entirely. but please, do hang on tight to those ideas.

hitchinmygetalong
Aug. 28, 2007, 12:36 PM
google it, if you must.



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Yeah, like the internet is full of nothing but FACTS. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Hony
Aug. 28, 2007, 03:05 PM
Was Poetin's lamanitis caused by something external or did she have a predisposition. Is it possible that the cloned foal could end up the same way?

Sing Mia Song
Aug. 28, 2007, 04:02 PM
identical twins are mostly, not completely, identical genetically. so no.

Wrong. Identical twins are genetically identical. However, just as with clones, they may not be phenotypically identical. That's why you can have twins with different freckle patterns and why cloned horses may have different markings.

If you look here: (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n6/full/nbt0606-605.html) you can see the five clones of Smart Little Lena all have different blazes. They are still genetically identical.

If you are truly interested in the science, and not the speculation, recommend going to Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) and looking for scholarly articles on the terms "horse" and "clone." Cesare Galli is the author of the paper on the clone born to her twin dam.

Regarding the early aging phenomenon, there are some clones born with shortened telomeres, where are thought in SOME circles to be an indication of early aging. There are other clones born with normal telomeres. As the technicques of producing clones progresses, the rate of successful clones born and their health quality increases.

And if I hear once more that Dolly died young because she was "aging early" due to her status as a clone, I think I'll scream. Dolly died of a respiratory illness common in sheep that also took out several non-clones in the same house. Yes, she had advanced arthritis, probably because she was also obese because people couldn't resist stuffing her with treats.

slc2
Aug. 28, 2007, 04:06 PM
i regularly use pub med and the articles about indentical twins not being identical were there.

hitchinmygetalong:

"like the internet is full of nothing but FACTS."

when they support your position, they are facts. when they support my position, they are lies, damnable lies.

egontoast
Aug. 28, 2007, 05:22 PM
The wonderful and terrible thing about google is that any of us can be an expert about anything. We have the queen of google on this board and she has her adoring followers and the dullest fan who always comes by to tag team any time anyone questions said queen. See below. I'm sure she'll be along shortly.

Ok, I'm no expert but I do know (I think) that white markings are somehow arbitrary and you can have genetically identical twins with different white markings. A real expert may clarify (not a google expert please) .

Aggie4Bar
Aug. 28, 2007, 06:10 PM
Ok, I'm no expert but I do know (I think) that white markings are somehow arbitrary and you can have genetically identical twins with different white markings. No expert here either (not even close!), but I don't think there are any known cases of identical twins in horses. I say that only because I recall a breeder on the Sporthorse forum having a set of twins that they thought might be the first identicals on record, but DNA proved otherwise. I've read that fingerprints and freckles in idential human twins differ as a result of the differences in environment each baby experiences in the womb. Maybe something similar influences the chrome with the cloned foals (provided mitochondrial DNA is the same)...?

Dalfan
Aug. 28, 2007, 06:23 PM
I'm sure she'll be along shortly.

Well, here I am. I usually won't offer an opinion on issues I am ignorant about. I see you don't have the same discipline. Just saying. :cool::);)

horselips
Aug. 28, 2007, 08:51 PM
Well, Eggy, of course Herself would be a genetics expert. And, of course, as usual, she is The Final Word. As the leading World Genetics Expert, we peons are expected to just accept the Word Of Truth, as Spoken by Herself, and that's the end of it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's a Pekin Road thing. You know: "I AM the QUEEN of the world!!"


Someone really should have gotten involved with the AQHA - they would fit in so perfectly.



All fun aside...

In identical twins (AKA monozygotic twinning) things like blazes and leg markings are not identical. Fingerprints in humans are not identical. Genetic makeup is identical.

But don't just take my word for it...Ask your favorite geneticist. ;)

~Freedom~
Aug. 29, 2007, 08:59 AM
i regularly use pub med .

What is pub med?

hitchinmygetalong
Aug. 29, 2007, 10:12 AM
Perhaps this (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/)?

I honestly do not mind people quoting from reliable internet sources or published works. I just think it is COMMON COURTESY to cite the source. REAL PEOPLE are behind those words - I'm sure they don't appreciate being quoted or copied without due credit.

hsheffield
Aug. 29, 2007, 10:55 AM
Okay, people. Not sure why it matters so much but here's the deal on genetic variability in twins:


turns out that the human genome project has found only a small percentage of DNA is 'turned on' in a way that we can measure (e.g. protein production) the rest of the DNA has been termed 'junk DNA' and until recently was thought to have no function (though now it looks like it might make things such as RNA or other nucleotides)

we don't know why some DNA goes to 'work' and why some doesn't.

we don't know which parts get turned on or why or when. so even if a set of twins STARTS off with exactly the same genetic material (DNA), what you end up with by the time it's differentiated (phenotypically or genetically) into an adult is a whole other story.


so there. I have spoken.


(p.s. if you keep going on about this I will start going into the Lyon Hypothesis and why all females are genetically mosaic....)

slc2
Aug. 29, 2007, 11:10 AM
then meet one, or at least one willing to read about it in other than the National Inquirer. no, i'm not a genetics expert, but neither are you. my only crime is not reading the same things you read, and thinking something different than you think. that is SO not allowed in 6th grade homeroom.

anyone can find information and read about this. why not quote sources? any sources i would quote, you would say are worthless jerks who are only quoted by stupid arrogant people who don't know anything. please try to get some rest and work on your next attack, and please, do check and see that there are three empty seats at the local 6th grade homeroom.

hitchinmygetalong
Aug. 29, 2007, 11:43 AM
why not quote sources? lacking in time.

That's ridiculous. You don't have the time? I'm stunned at that statement. Look at the sheer VOLUME of typing you have done just on this board. You don't have the time to cite a source? :lol::lol::lol:

hitchinmygetalong
Aug. 29, 2007, 01:21 PM
Nice try with the edit, slc, but I'm afraid I beat you to it. :D

mp
Aug. 29, 2007, 02:09 PM
Nice try with the edit, slc, but I'm afraid I beat you to it. :D

Aww, she just wasn't through, hitch. There's always more to say. :yes: Always.


no, i'm not a genetics expert

But you do play one on the internet. :lol:

and hsheffield, anytime you want to hit me with the Lyons Hypothesis, I'm ready. I know jack S about this stuff, but I occasionally have to write about it for a client. :p

slc2
Aug. 30, 2007, 10:28 AM
no, it takes much more time to go back and find stuff i've read than to type in something here at 125 wpm. it requires more than several searches and many different websites, especially when i don't recall exactly where the article was. it does take more time. i think you can probably understand that if you think about it a little bit :sadsmile:

this from ohio state's research news:

"One would expect identical twins to develop and express genes at the same levels, but in fact this changes over time," Plass said. "We think that methylation plays a genome-wide role in these changes."


They are studying how genes are differently expressed in identical twins. they have theories only, and no real idea why genes are expressed differently in identical twins.

suffice to say, they are not identical.

we do not just 'inherit' everything so simply through a fixed and unchanging set of 'genes' that are like a stack of playing cards we are dealt, which never change in how they are expressed. i think many people think we 'get' this and we 'get' that and that genetics is extremely simple. even not being an expert, i don't believe that for a minute.

they 'found' the gene for a disorder of female children, Rhett's syndrome. yes, they 'found' it. then they found not only does it constantly turn off and on as the infant grows, and that they have no idea if being 'off' causes Rhett's or being 'on' causes Rhetts, or if it turning off and ON causes Rhetts, or if the damn thing is SUPPOSED to flip on and off and control and mediate some sort of continuous process, or if it's affected by other processes or just winking on and off totally at random.

but also that it's found in entirely normal children, in mildly affected Rhett's kids, severely affected, and even in boys with mild retardation. 'genetics' is nowhere near as simple as one imagines. genes turn off, on, they are affected by other things, and yes, as 'identical' twins get older, they become more and more different in what genes are expressed, and how they are expressed.

every cellular process, everything that takes place, is mediated by genes, from thinking processes that send out little chemical messages, to every little step of every cellular operation. we 'inherit' genes but the process doesn't end there, it is far more complex.

and they aren't identical.

in fact the older they get the more different gene expression becomes.

the reason i read about it has nothing to do with being an expert in genetics. i'm not. however, these are simple articles anyone can read - if they are of a mind to learn something new, or to just stretch their understanding of the same old same old statements that are said over and over, without ever consulting any new knowledge. one of the reasons i love living when i do is that there is an explosion of knowledge and research and that there is a never ending world of new things to learn - and old ideas to discard. "identical twins are identical" is one of those ideas.

the research on this process could improve cancer treatment.

additionally, clones are not entirely well understood. they are still uncovering problems with them, and differences...animals are not just getting respiratory infections. they have cellular differences that cannot be explained away as simply as a previous post suggests.

this does relate to the original post. the bottom line being - you can 'clone' poetin (go thru the embryo transfer, etc), but you cannot have another poetin. there is no guarantee that this animal will mature and develop in exactly the same way, and at this point in time, no one can say for sure exactly why - there are only theories.

Gucci Cowgirl
Aug. 30, 2007, 10:43 AM
"One would expect identical twins to develop and express genes at the same levels, but in fact this changes over time," Plass said. "We think that methylation plays a genome-wide role in these changes."


They are studying how genes are differently expressed in identical twins. they have theories only, and no real idea why genes are expressed differently in identical twins.

suffice to say, they are not identical.

we do not just 'inherit' everything so simply through a fixed and unchanging set of 'genes' that are like a stack of playing cards we are dealt, which never change in how they are expressed.

I think you are confused between Genotype and Phenotype = Genotype is the actual set of 46 chromosomes we get in total from our parents. the GENETIC CODE.

Phenotype is the physical expression of those genes. Phenotype can vary in identical twins, and it does very often. but that doesnt mean they arent genetically identical.

Genes don't change. once you have them, barring mutations.

slc2
Aug. 30, 2007, 10:49 AM
you do all give me a chuckle now and then. demand sources, then make it clear that it does no good to site a source when people just want to not hear something.

from science frontiers:

But what about identical twins who are remarkably different? They can, for instance, differ appreciably in size, intellect, and behavior. In such cases, does nurture dominate nature? No! Identical twins may diverge even in the womb, where one may receive more oxygen and nutrients than the other. One also may be assailed in by viruses, bacteria, or drugs, while the other escapes. Even more drastic is the possi bility that one twin may pick up an extra chromosome soon after the original egg has split. Also, mutations may doom one twin to Down's syndrome or some other genetic affliction, while the other is unscathed. Identical twins may even be of different sex! Of course, such twins are genetically different, but they are still monozygotic (from the same egg). Blood tests will show them to be identical.

It used to be thought that the small differences that did exist between identical twins separated at birth were surely due to nurture, not nature. But, considering all the differences that can accrue in, it seems that the role of nurture in shaping individuals is much smaller than thought, possibly negligible. (Horgan, John; "Double Trouble," Scientific American, 263:25, December 1990.)

(the previous article on methylation of genes helps to explain the non-nuture differences)

Kiljoywashere
Aug. 30, 2007, 11:00 AM
Also, the mitochondria (being free floating, separate from the nucleus) present in the egg can assort differently between the twins, so one twin might get a mitochondria with different mitochondrial DNA than the other twin does, and then they would have some differences due to that.

Gucci Cowgirl
Aug. 30, 2007, 11:03 AM
you do all give me a chuckle now and then. demand sources, then make it clear that it does no good to site a source when people just want to not hear something.

One also may be assailed in by viruses, bacteria, or drugs, while the other escapes. Even more drastic is the possi bility that one twin may pick up an extra chromosome soon after the original egg has split. Also, mutations may doom one twin to Down's syndrome or some other genetic affliction, while the other is unscathed.

Like we have been saying, in special cases like mutations or infections, that can damage and alter DNA.

This does not support your original blanket statement of "Twins are not genetically identical". This source is absolutely correct, but it doesn't verify your statement, it verifies our counter-statement!

Phenotypical differences are very common, but GENETIC VARIATION in twins is a result of a mutagen or some other sort of affliction (virus, bacteria, meds etc), and NOT because monozygotic twins "aren't genetically identical"

cyberbay
Aug. 30, 2007, 11:18 AM
Not as piqued by the twins theories going on here, but this thread: What a field day on people who think cloning is OK. It's a topic for kindergardeners, I think...little children, who at that age think they can order the world around them. That's what cloning looks like to me. See it for what it is: another attempt to control, to be in control, and to think you can order the world around you. Talk all you want about cloning, but the real issue is why someone even needs to consider doing it ... Wow.

class
Aug. 30, 2007, 12:00 PM
wow cyberbay, so you don't take any type of medications then right? you don't landscape your yard or cook your food? i certainly hope you don't ride horses since god never intended them to be controlled like that. i hope you don't have air conditioning or drive a car either. wait! what are you even doing on the internet? it's so unnatural!

Anselcat
Aug. 30, 2007, 12:57 PM
2 sets of identical twins Mary and Sherry; Steve & Tom, pair up and have children.

Wouldn't their resulting offspring be not just cousins to each other, but genetic siblings as well?

I'll take a stab. Pretend there is one gene for hair, with only two forms of the gene (c for curly hair and S for straight hair).

Since you have two copies of every gene (one from dad and one from mom), you could genetically be cc, Sc, cS or SS. S is dominant and c is recessive, so these four different genetic possibilities would look curly, straight, straight, straight.

Whether the kids of Mary+Steve and Sherry+Tom are genetically identical would depend on how the forms of the genes sort out into the sperm and egg ... which form they receive from mom and dad. If all four parents are cS, then their kids could be cc, Sc, cS, or SS. So it's up to chance whether the kids are genetically identical at that gene. There tens of thousands of genes (that we know of), so chances of two kids getting the same forms of each gene are not likely. Same reason why you and your siblings are not identical, even though you come from the same parents.

Now if all four parents were homozygous for the same allele at every gene, then their kids could be genetically identical. But chances of that are slim to none!

mp
Aug. 30, 2007, 01:47 PM
it takes much more time to go back and find stuff i've read than to type in something here at 125 wpm.

wellnowweknowwhyyoudon'tbothertousecapitals.
personally,ithinkthespacebarisjustawasteoftime,too

horselips
Aug. 30, 2007, 06:46 PM
wellnowweknowwhyyoudon'tbothertousecapitals.
personally,ithinkthespacebarisjustawasteoftime,too

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

We know the only reason Herself posts on these threads is the deep-seated need to show all of us peons that not only is she always right, correct, superior to one and all and the world champion winner, but since we don't "matter", there is no need to show any of us the common courtesy of correct punctuation.


That's certainly one old mare that should never be cloned:winkgrin:

hitchinmygetalong
Aug. 30, 2007, 07:05 PM
(the previous article on methylation of genes helps to explain the non-nuture differences)

"non-nuture" --- I'm not familiar with this term. Can anyone elaborate? Thank you.

egontoast
Aug. 30, 2007, 08:21 PM
Can anyone elaborate? Thank you

not enough time much too busy besides you'd only question it so why should I bother but i do know the answer i just don't have time to tell you

~Freedom~
Aug. 30, 2007, 08:41 PM
Interesting posts. I am learning things I didn't know.

Dalfan
Aug. 30, 2007, 08:47 PM
Sheesh! The stalker tag-team is out in full-force tonight. :cool:

snoopy
Aug. 31, 2007, 08:49 AM
Sheesh! The stalker tag-team is out in full-force tonight. :cool:


Most be the change of season...or maybe a full moon in the near future...

cyberbay
Aug. 31, 2007, 09:07 AM
Yipes, class, I would say there is an enormous difference between taking an antibiotic and cloning. Using air-conditioning helps me survive very uncomfortable days. But, it doesn't change the nature of summertime. I use things that help me feel comfortable -- I try very, very hard to not use things that change the nature of the thing that is making me uncomfortable. I do the adapting and adjusting -- I don't approach a discomfort by making the problem change. [But, if a stick is wedged in my eye, yes, I will remove the stick...those sorts of situations you grasp, right?] I wasn't talking about 'natural' and 'unnatural' - I'm talking about overstepping boundaries.

Although cloning apparently isn't making a photocopy of, say, a horse, it, to me, tells me that that person fights the very nature of life. There is so much out there to enjoy -- to avoid the loss of something, to stand still in life, by making it stick around for your comfort level is just plain unhealthy....that's what I'm trying to articulate here. Cloning smacks of that.

You and I may disagree on this, but riding, when done right, helps bring out a dimension of the horse that would not happen in the wild. Same with any 'thing' that puts itself into a discipline. There's that saying, "Without discipline there is no art," but that's for another thread, I guess.

Someone also posted that we have cloning going on right now and everyone is comfortable with that. Well, I'd disagree. I know of plenty of people, me included, who are NOT comfortable with it and don't support it.

Pony Fixer
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:34 AM
Look what happens when you don't read a thread for a day---mayhem! Gaw, I love you all...

OK. I am going to make a statement. I have no references, as all my books are packed in the attic. AND as a disclaimer let me tell you all that I did receive my only B in college in genetics, but did get that A in developmental biology.

You are all right. Slick is in fact talking around her first innacurate statement that monozygotic twins are not identical and now finding actual real proof to amend and make us all look like we are SO last decade. Of course, those others who said they are identical barring mutations are also correct. You guys are talking apples and oranges essintially. Well, actually, it would be more accurate to say you are talking apricots and pluots.

And yes, there is a lot to be learned about phenotypic expression of genes and cell signalling in general. (Careful here, I do have an advanced degree and studied a specific cell signalling used in the immune system).

Eggy--about the blazes being different--this is actually developmental bio. So 2 identical bags o' genes have the signal to turn off the color to a cell that will eventually travel down a neural root to the face. Where exactly it deposits and how many are eventually there differs. For instance in twin A, the initial cell may end up dividing 16 times after traveling down to the area that will eventually be the face, while in twin B this cell only has the chance to divide 8 times, but didn't quite make it all the way to the same place as it's counterpart because some brown cell did have the chance to divide faster and sorta crowded it out. (I am really trying to not only write this is english, not science-ese, but also winging it since my aformentioned book is upstairs, but the gist is correct). Twin A may not turn off the color genes to the RF, while Twin B did so one has a sock and the other does not. If you take a sample of the skin from both fetlocks the genes will be the same, however.

Yikes. Next Herself will tell us again about the chestnuts not being analagous to dog paw pads, but that they are scent markers just because one rouge anatomist postulated this in 1972. The problem with google, or pub med even, beside the obvious, is that just because a medical article is peer reviewed does not automatically make the science good, nor does it mean that any of the other experts in that field lend it any credence. You actually WOULD have to be on the inside to know that, and what phone calls to my local experts help me decipher.

Anselcat
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:52 AM
... rouge anatomist ...

Wow, there really are experts in everything! ;) Are there also mascara physiologists?

PiaffeDreams
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:02 PM
I really think people ought to pay better attention to history. I mean didn't they see what happened to all those poor people on that island who cloned dinosaurs? and George Lucas did that documentary on the Clone Wars a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.....

I can see it now, thousands of Poetins, maybe some Salinero's and Bonfires..... taking over the dressage world.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::winkgrin:

egontoast
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:03 PM
Thanks, Pony Fixer, for that explanation. :)

SillyHorse
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:26 PM
Sheesh! The stalker tag-team is out in full-force tonight. :cool:
Since when does calling someone else on her BS make one a stalker?

claire
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:34 PM
Thanks PonyFixer! Interesting thread.

A while ago on NPR's "This American Life" they had a piece about a couple who had their favorite bull, Chance cloned. Unfortunately, the clone did not exhibit the same qualities/temperment that the original Chance the bull possessed.

Makes you wonder if a Poetin clone will exhibit the athletic skills/rideability/mind set (whatever) that set the original Poetin so far above average?

Or, is it some sort of genetic skew/aberration or genetic/environmental combination that could never be exactly replicated?

rileyt
Aug. 31, 2007, 01:33 PM
who came up with "Herself" for SLC? That's priceless!

snoopy
Aug. 31, 2007, 01:41 PM
why do you feed the flames...:confused:?

Pony Fixer
Aug. 31, 2007, 01:42 PM
I saw that TAL on the bull as well. Loved the first calm gentle bull so much they cloned him, the second one looked damn near identical, but almost killed the man multiple times because they treated him like the old bull.

Oh, and that's rogue anatomist. Ha! Although some of my profs at school also wore blush!!

rileyt
Aug. 31, 2007, 01:43 PM
Because its fun.

I always like it when a bossy know-it-all gets a little comeuppance.

Shoot me.

snoopy
Aug. 31, 2007, 02:00 PM
Because its fun.

I always like it when a bossy know-it-all gets a little comeuppance.

Shoot me.


Fun?!!!!:confused:....bullying should not be fun...
also rule 1 of these forums states what you are doing is not allowed.
Wouldn't it be better to stick to the TOPIC of the thread? Some of us here actually ENJOY hearing different thoughts on the matter...who cares where these thoughts come from...school, book, personal experience, or internet.
If you want to start a "bossy know-it-all gets her comeuppance" thread then please do so...we will see how long before that gets locked....but to do it under the disguise of this thread..shows what a coward you must be.
As for shoot me? There is a "get a life" bullet with your name on it.

rileyt
Aug. 31, 2007, 02:11 PM
Dear Snoopy,

Kum ba ya. Consider myself spanked.

snoopy
Aug. 31, 2007, 02:15 PM
Dear Snoopy,

Kum ba ya. Consider myself spanked.


Peace and love rileyt!!!!:D

Sakura
Aug. 31, 2007, 02:28 PM
What is pub med?

Beer? Probably Harp or Guinness ;)

Just wondering... My own personal clone question... Can the gender of a clone be manipulated, or must clones always be the same sex as the original?

~Freedom~
Aug. 31, 2007, 07:21 PM
who cares where these thoughts come from...school, book, personal experience, or internet.


Do realize that many want the most correct information with references so they can determine credibility themselves.

snoopy
Aug. 31, 2007, 07:37 PM
Do realize that many want the most correct information with references so they can determine credibility themselves.


Of course!!!!!!!! But information HAS to come from somewhere....all I am saying is that it is interesting to read differing points of view...where ever someone gets it from...as ADULTS...it is up to us as to what we do with that information, whether you agree with it or not. It just gets a bit tiresome when some have an ax to grind with a particular poster and it is woven into the thread at hand. If you disagree with someone's point of view...state the reasons/facts why...this forum is about DEBATE... Calling someone "herself" etc and discrediting one's post simply because she has rubbed you up the wrong way at some point does not contribute to what is proving to be a very interesting thread. I for one am very interested in this topic, and I am the first to hold my hand up and say I would be talking out my backside as I know nothing of genetics....that is why I do not post about this subject. But I am interested to hear as much info on the subject as I can...:D
I think given the nature of the subject matter..except for those who KNOW about genetics...a fair amount info may just very well come from second hand internet sources.:)

horselips
Aug. 31, 2007, 09:52 PM
who came up with "Herself" for SLC? That's priceless!


On this thread?
Might have been me. Of course, I vaguely remember being the only one (on a certain long-defunct bb back in '99) who used the term slick. Not saying I started that one. I don't post nearly enough to start anything.
Except a non-scheduled free-for-all now and then.


Stalkers?! Where??? Wait, I'll get my camera, then we can upgrade to paparazzi.

fiona
Sep. 1, 2007, 02:29 AM
Stalkers?! Where??? Wait, I'll get my camera, then we can upgrade to paparazzi.

Actually i believe the term is "Piafferazzi"

Thanks for all the info on genetics - colour, cloning et al - a 50/50 mix of science journal/ genes for dummies is about right for me.

Spar on.

Joanne
Sep. 1, 2007, 04:05 PM
The web site now has a picture


http://www.cryozootech.com/?l=en

neVar
Sep. 1, 2007, 05:21 PM
ooh now that is one nice baby

Eventer13
Sep. 1, 2007, 05:51 PM
Are they planning on using the filly as a broodmare, or are they going to compete her at all? From what I remember, weren't Poetin's offspring a little dissappointing (at least, they did not have talent even close to their mother's)? If that's so, would there be any reason for her owner to only use Poetin-clone for breeding?

Personally, I'd like to see the filly at the 2020 Olympics if she's anything like Poetin.

egontoast
Sep. 1, 2007, 06:00 PM
Going by fuzzy memory and no google sources, weren't there problems with Dolly the Sheep's clone? HAve these issues been addressed?

I'd be more excited if someone like Nelson Mandela was cloned.

chaltagor
Sep. 1, 2007, 06:19 PM
....all I am saying is that it is interesting to read differing points of view...where ever someone gets it from...it is up to us as to what we do with that information, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree with someone's point of view...state the reasons/facts why...this forum is about DEBATE... a fair amount info may just very well come from second hand internet sources.:)

There is a big difference between points of view and facts. When someone relentlessly states "facts" and never cites sources or is found to be wrong in their paraphrasing of texts ad nauseum then people will start to get irritated and call him or her on it. There's a reason for the posts you are upset with; the posters didn't just pick someone to poke a stick at out of the blue.

snoopy
Sep. 1, 2007, 07:28 PM
There is a big difference between points of view and facts. When someone relentlessly states "facts" and never cites sources or is found to be wrong in their paraphrasing of texts ad nauseum then people will start to get irritated and call him or her on it. There's a reason for the posts you are upset with; the posters didn't just pick someone to poke a stick at out of the blue.



So for EVERY one of your 439 posts you have ever made you posted your source?:confused:
In the same regard, should we be asking you to quote a source with every opinion you offer....I would hazzard a quess that the answer would be NO from you...and from the rest of us. All I am saying is this has turned out to be an interesting thread marred with childish bullying...But then that is my OPINION and the only source I can give you is to read the offending posts.
I will make something clear here...I am not standing up for anyone...just want to continue to enjoy this thread/topic without having to wade through the child play.

Joanne
Sep. 1, 2007, 07:36 PM
Are they planning on using the filly as a broodmare, or are they going to compete her at all? From what I remember, weren't Poetin's offspring a little dissappointing (at least, they did not have talent even close to their mother's)? If that's so, would there be any reason for her owner to only use Poetin-clone for breeding?

Personally, I'd like to see the filly at the 2020 Olympics if she's anything like Poetin.


Poetin had only one foal--a filly--born in 2005 by Jazz.

chaltagor
Sep. 1, 2007, 07:40 PM
So for EVERY post you have ever made you posted your source?:confused:
In the same regard, should we be asking you to quote a source with every opinion you offer....I would hassard a quess that the answer would be NO form you?...and the rest of us.

You missed the entire point of my post.

http://www.charliekilo.com/images/fail_georgia.jpg

snoopy
Sep. 1, 2007, 07:43 PM
You missed the entire point of my post.

http://www.charliekilo.com/images/fail_georgia.jpg

That is because you did not quote a source;). And was this an opinion or fact?;);):D

snoopy
Sep. 1, 2007, 07:45 PM
OK, I get what you are saying....:D

chaltagor
Sep. 1, 2007, 08:03 PM
Ok, I get what you're saying too. BFF? :)

snoopy
Sep. 1, 2007, 08:22 PM
Ok, I get what you're saying too. BFF? :)


Of course!!!!:D

egontoast
Sep. 1, 2007, 08:50 PM
Wouldn't it be better to stick to the TOPIC of the thread?


just want to continue to enjoy this thread/topic without having to wade through the child play

hmm, funny , in view of your multiple childish posts on this thread. Are any of them about the topic?

snoopy
Sep. 1, 2007, 09:43 PM
hmm, funny , in view of your multiple childish posts on this thread. Are any of them about the topic?

Yawn...

horselips
Sep. 1, 2007, 10:23 PM
Yawn...

Some of us have seniority. And we are also older. ;)
Keep your place, young'un, and stay out of playful cyber-jousting between certain posters that has been an ongoing thing, on several of these BBs, since before the turn of the millennium. This doesn't concern you, so you are cheerfully (or not) invited to ignore it.



Joanne, thanks for posting that 'site with picture.
I am looking forward to seeing how this filly develops.

Nootka
Sep. 3, 2007, 05:49 PM
Wow that whole Cryozootech website is interesting. I am very very curious to see what will be in the future of these clones. Seems to be mainly breeding and at a very young age at that. I guess if you are going to spend all that $$$ and the gelding/mare "model" proved himself that is what u must do.

Velvet
Oct. 14, 2010, 10:35 AM
I'm reviving this one only because I was wondering if anyone has heard anything new about this. I mean, this was originally from 2007 and the filly was 5 mos old. What happened? Anyone know?

:eek: I did find this: http://www.topdressage.tv/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1137&start=0

Totilas and Poetin baby? Where can I get one for cheap?? ;)

Pasha
Oct. 14, 2010, 10:44 AM
I LOVED Poetin and would be very curious to hear what happened to the clone too!

Velvet
Oct. 14, 2010, 10:49 AM
I'm SUPER interested in finding out if it really moves like Poetin did, and what the brain is like compared to Poetin. It's intriguing.

onelanerode
Oct. 14, 2010, 11:26 AM
It appears from Cryozootech's site that there is more than one clone of Poetin. If you click on the Cloned Horses link, there are two pictures, labeled Poetin 1 and Poetin 2.

I thought one was of the clone as a foal and one was more recent, but the picture of the foal shows a white pastern on the LF, and the older clone's picture doesn't have any white on the front legs.

Velvet
Oct. 14, 2010, 11:37 AM
Then does that make it an "imperfect" clone? I thought they really were supposed to be exact clones. Hmm...interesting!

Leather
Oct. 14, 2010, 11:44 AM
Then does that make it an "imperfect" clone? I thought they really were supposed to be exact clones. Hmm...interesting!

They are genetic clones, but they might not be identical physically. I believe that the expression of white markings can be influenced in utero.


Identical twins separated by time, clones and their donors may have phenotypic (physical expression of a trait) differences, such as differences in markings. Their genotype, or genetic makeup, is identical, but their phenotype, such as the placement of a particular marking, differs. A clone may not be indistinguishable from its donor, but it'll be the closest possible match.

Velvet
Oct. 14, 2010, 11:47 AM
Thanks, Leather! (Long time, no see! :lol: )