- Koraput, in Orissa state, India, is about to be recognized as a globally important agriculture heritage system, which is nice.
- Chemical-free farmer has enough.
- How much is that drought-tolerant maize really worth?
- UK now has home-grown olives, seven varieties. Luigi says: “And so it begins …”
- Food security for the faint of heart. A book for people, not policy-makers.
- What was the cultural significance of the iceberg salad? Answers win a great book.
- CIAT touts its chayote success story in Vietnam. Nice film.
Cracking the code of dog diversity
Another contribution from Michael Kubisch.
Ever wondered why your rat terrier looks so different from your neighbor’s mastiff? Well, eons of selective breeding, of course, which have resulted in genetic differences between these two and other dog breeds. Man’s best friend was undoubtedly among the very first animals to be domesticated, although the huge variety of breeds found today is probably a much more recent phenomenon. Which part of the dog genome, or more pertinently which genes, were involved in generating this diversity remains largely a mystery — but one that many geneticists would like to solve.
A first glimpse has now been provided by a group of scientists who compared genomic data from dogs belonging to ten different breeds using what is called single-nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs for short. SNPS are very helpful because the presence of a particular SNP sometimes is indicative of the presence of a specific allele at a nearby gene. Similarly, if there are SNPs that differ between two dog breeds it is possible that nearby genes may be different as well and that those genes may have played a role in what sets these breeds apart.
The study revealed 150 areas of the dog genome containing more than 1000 candidate genes that appeared highly variable between those breeds that were examined. Not surprisingly perhaps, several of these genes are known to determine things like coat color, size, skeletal morphology and behavior. However, interestingly, several candidates included genes that are known to act as regulators of other genes, suggesting that some evolutionary changes are not the result of variant alleles of genes but changes in how these genes are controlled. More interesting insights are sure to follow.
Nibbles: Spud, Mali’s farmers, Pollan, Geneflow, Taiwan botanic garden, Pollinators squared, Vegetarianism
- A makeover for the potato.
- Mali’s farmers want improved landraces, not fancy-shmancy hybrids.
- Biofortified does Pollan. And Pollan does Oprah…
- The long-term consequences of introducing new genes to populations are not all that bad. Relevance for crop wild relatives? More research needed…
- The Dr. Cecilia Koo Botanic Conservation Center (KBCC) in Taiwan described.
- Almond tree produces poison in nectar to attract insects? Go figure. In other pollinator news, they’re declining in Central Europe.
- What would a world without domesticated livestock look like? ILRI DG questions vegetarians.
Does germplasm documentation need a social networking makeover?
The story so far:
John Cho is a plant pathologist and taro breeder at the University of Hawaii. A few days ago he posted a youtube video on his Facebook wall. It shows some very successful trial results from the Dominican Republic. The experiment in question is the evaluation for taro leaf blight resistance of some hybrids from Dr Cho’s breeding programme. Unfortunately, the interview with pathologists Drs Graciela Godoy and Miguel Martínez of the Instituto Dominicano de Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales (IDIAF) is in Spanish, and John doesn’t speak that language. So he asked his Facebook friends to help, and one of them, an agronomist from Puerto Rico, sent him a translation.
But it doesn’t stop there. A discussion develops. Here it is, reproduced verbatim, time stamps and all, with the kind permission of the participants:
John Cho – Muchas garcias, looks like 3 of my taro hybrids are very tolerant to taro leaf blight in the Dominican Republic. That is great! Let’s hope that IDIAF will start breeding for tolerant materials with Bun Long attributes.
January 22 at 4:44amJohn Cho – Carlos, I checked to see what hybrids corresponded to the tolerant ones mentioned by Miguel and they are the following: H2 is 2002-21f, H4 is 2000-109, H6 is MS3. I think that I also sent those 3 to you for trials as well.
January 22 at 4:54amCarlos Emilio Ortiz-Malavé – 21f did well here, MS3 grew too slow to be considered in the afirmative. 109 was not among the ones we received in the the first lot. Ill b checking If I have it among the ones you sent May 2008. I ran out of $$ for evaluations, but Im asking for permition to continue. I let you know on the results of these actions.
John Cho – Carlos, the genetic background are the following: H2 or 2002-21f = India x [Pwetepwet x Maui Lehua]; H4 or 2000-109 = [Red Moi x PH15-11] x Maui Lehua; H6 or MS3 = Maui Lehua x Sushi. Background for the parents are the following: India = a variety collected by Vincent Lebot in 1991 from the marketplace in India; Pwetepwet = a Micronesian line tolerant to TLB; Maui Lehua = a hybrid variety selected from a cross between 2 Hawaiian varieties (thought to be a cross between Piialii and Lehua Maoli); Red Moi = a Hawaiian variety; PH15 = a TLB tolerant variety from Papua New Guinea; Sushi = a TLB tolerant variety from Micronesia.
Yesterday at 3:36amCarlos Emilio Ortiz-Malavé – Thank you John for the information, part of which you provide me for the Res. Note under evaluation. I should stress that among the Hawaiian Hybrids we tested 19F was by far the best adapted -really the best regarding over all horticultural performance- although 21F did well. Did you sent 19F to de Dom. Rep.? This will be my choice as parent for crossing to Lila-BunLong
18 minutes agoCarlos Emilio Ortiz-Malavé – John; Im wondering if 109 at the Dominican Republic is the same genotype as 19 in Puerto Rico (that is, with an “0” missing between 1 and 9. Thats because this 109-19 wast among the best performers. And because looks to me that we should have the same genotypes. Illl check the original documentation and be back with you.
about a minute ago
And so on. Now, my question is this. What is likely to lead to more use of a germplasm collection: this kind of open-ended discussion, or tables of accession x descriptor results?
Just asking.
FAO publishes two key animal genetic resources references
Our FAO animal genetic resources colleagues have been busy. From DAD-Net, news of “Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal genetic resources:”
Genetic improvement is an essential component of the management of animal genetic resources and can make important contributions to food security and rural development. Yet, the majority of developing countries have not been successful in sustaining breed development programmes. The objective of these guidelines is to help countries plan and develop effective genetic improvement programmes and to maximize the chances that such programmes will be sustained. They are intended for use by policy-makers and organizations involved in livestock development. They provide practical advice on how to identify livestock development objectives and strategies and define breeding objectives that are in line with them, match animal genetic resources to production systems and identify the most appropriate breeding scheme, initiate or improve straight-breeding or cross-breeding programmes and evaluate investment decisions.
And, once you’ve managed the beasts sustainably, of course you need to market them: Adding value to livestock diversity – Marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods.