Grafting as it pretains to coral propagation

[jeremai]

So, who's gunna go write a scathing rebuttal over at RC? Anyone? I'm too lazy, otherwise I'd be all over it...

 

And may I add, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is peeing himself over this thread...

[supernip]

Yup! That's why I say grafting a hunk of orange Monti cap to a purple monti cap....is no different than mixing a rottie and a poodle.....you're "fusing" 2 of the same species. Obviously, this is an oversimplification because I'm talking about breeding vs. grafting. But, invert physiology/immunology is way different than mammalian anyway so any comparisons are vague at best.

 

 

sorry i somehow misread your meaning. please continue the discussion

[tinyreef]

...and the gametes of each of the two color variety would never mix genetically, even in a fused colony.

i disagree with that. vollmer and palumbi's research paper support hybridization as possible/probable.

 

and michalek-wagner's "oops/drunk-scientist" experiment (imo) proves hybridization is possible. either that or she experienced an immaculate spawning event at townsville.

 

now i don't think it's a big deal (this RC guy's coral chop-shop) if they do because i believe hybridization occurs in the wild anyways. especially after those two examples noted above.

 

aren't all dogs Canis lupus familiaris?

actually this is a pet peeve of mine in regards to a lot of speciation, reef-related or otherwise. A-coral and B-coral look significantly different, thus they're labelled as two species. whereas an irish wolfhound and a chihuahua are considered the same species?

 

i never understood the scientific prejudice against domesticated animals.

 

yes, they were purposely bred to look and act like whatever "breed" of dog/cat/rodent/etc. because we conditioned/environmentally-challenged them but if nature does essentially the same thing it's automatically considered a separate species?

 

Yup! That's why I say grafting a hunk of orange Monti cap to a purple monti cap....is no different than mixing a rottie and a poodle.....you're "fusing" 2 of the same species. Obviously, this is an oversimplification because I'm talking about breeding vs. grafting.

i'm not sure what you're saying. are you saying corals (or groups of corals) should be bunched together under a more encompassing coral species like the canis example above?

 

i'm actually of that mind (for certain groups, not stony/softie but maybe alcyon/nephth, for example) but i'm just not sure you are from that statement or if you meant something else. just curious.

[Caesar777]

Tiny, it takes a lot for a new species to be named as such. Heck, even as a subspecies. Just a thought.

[tinyreef]

Canis lupus beaglei

 

 

 

 

is that so much to ask for?

[supernip]

actually beagle reefer, from what I've been learning in my bioclasses, there's a lot of debate on this subject. They're looking at other methods of classification now and the linnaeus system is close to being moot in some respects.

 

I think the trend right now is classification according to genetics, which is kinda messing things up. I can look into it if you request it. In terms how science deals with things, I don't think it takes much for anything to have a new name these days. They're probably treate with equal scrutiny as they always have been. The whole subject is under debate anyway. Sorry for the rambling. I often forget my points.

[jeremai]

I think the trend right now is classification according to genetics, which is kinda messing things up.

 

Why, aside from debunking the old system? Seems to me that classification by genetics is a far better system than classification by physical traits. You know, like metric is to standard.

[supernip]

oh dont get me wrong. I prefer the genetics approach but it complicates things. My bio teachers fight over which is more correct all the time. Classification by functionality and physical traits is a lot more intuitive but it has its hang up's, such as analogously evolved structures. Classification by genetics has its merits too, but some of the classifications look a little weird. I Think it's only going to evolve and we won't have that clear cut of an idea until we have a better understanding of what evolved from what and at what time period. It's a little hard to draw conclusions at this point. Or at least for the general science student like myself anyway.

 

And drawing from my physical anthropology class, the whole idea of what makes a seperate species/ subspecies is also being examined. I'll have to pull the books back out but I think the classical definition went something like "..would not normally breed in nature," coupled with the viable offsprings thing.

 

Afterall, classification is for our sake. It's very much meaningless to mother nature. And I think that's where the trouble arises in this debate. We're fixed to our biases as to what's natural or not. I think the only real argument for either side would stem from environmental effects.

 

I'm rather amused by the thought of isolated hybridization/manipulation, personally. But to propogate those corals and distribute them, perhaps back into the ocean is where I draw the line. Unless you can be sure these critters won't overtake the natural inhabitants, I would consider it highly unethical. Think of the feral animals in australia.

 

And not to forget Tiny's important contribution. Which of these really occur in nature, and at what rate. Those questions need careful examination as well. Maybe someday, some researcher will look at the genome of a coral or figure out what components are unique to what species; if they haven't already started doing so.

 

 

But going back to the original topic. I'm all for grafting, as long as you know what you're doing. And you're not just another hobbyist who simply drew an analogy from terrestrial plants and figured it'd work anyway. I guess that reiterates this thread pretty well. Let me know if I missed something.

 

 

 

Edit: BTW Tiny, what exactly is it that you do anyway? ALl this research is a little beyond the level of an interested hobbyist don't you think? Me thinks the beagle is a mad scientist.

[jeremai]

Let me know if I missed something.

 

Hmm, let me think... nope, that pretty much does a bang-up job, thanks.

[tinyreef]

Afterall, classification is for our sake. It's very much meaningless to mother nature. And I think that's where the trouble arises in this debate. We're fixed to our biases as to what's natural or not. I think the only real argument for either side would stem from environmental effects.

excellent point!

 

But going back to the original topic. I'm all for grafting, as long as you know what you're doing. And you're not just another hobbyist who simply drew an analogy from terrestrial plants and figured it'd work anyway.

i'd tend to agree. it's not like the guy is gene-splicing or anything.

 

like the original RC thread notes, how is it different than conventional fragging?

 

i don't agree it's a quantum leap from that basic level. is it more difficult glueing competing creatures together and not having an alleopathic war? yeah. but it certainly ain't cloning puppies or even simple selective breeding imo.

 

Edit: BTW Tiny, what exactly is it that you do anyway? ALl this research is a little beyond the level of an interested hobbyist don't you think?

i'm an adult-film producer. why?

 

nah, it's only hobby-level interest. i gave up science long ago for the rewards of family business and enormous personal debt.

 

maybe when i sell the business finally, i'll go back to school for some scientifical blah-blah. it would make mom happy (instead i went into biz with dad). most of my mother's family are ph.d's though (chemistry, physics, history, law, etc.).

 

unfortunately, i'm from the shallow-end of the gene pool (thanks, dad! <grumble> ).

[onthefly]

Grafting and hybridization are nothing new. This guy is just trying to apply techniques used for MANY species to coral propagation. Trees, roses, tulips, dogs, mice (nice job with the Nude mouse model Flo!), orchids, etc.

 

Tiny - you missed my intension. If you can't do allo-grafts, then there is no frankenstein (pronounced franken-shteen! ) factor.....it is "basically" no different that you getting your brothers kidney. Although, again, we're oversimplifing the graft process, since you'd probably be on immunosuppressive therapy for the rest of your life!

[MrAnderson]

my point is that he isnt knowledgably fusing the exact species together.

 

so sure, two of the same species fusing is "natural" but he doesnt know what species he has in the Acanthastrea echinata-types and the Echinophyllia species. maybe that's not his point, to fuse two of the same species.... so what is the point?

 

Actually, what is interesting is that fusing could theoretically be used as an ID assay. If you are certain of one sample's ID, but uncertain of another's (say maybe due to an adaptive growth morphology), if they fuse, they're the same.

 

Considering that what I've read so far (very little) indicates that similar but different species grow right up against each other, but do not fuse, indicating a genetic-based interspecies self/nonself molecular mechanism (like I said, functional analog of MHC, but between species, not individuals).

 

Obviously things get cloudy in the case of the experiment I cited above, where same-species allografts don't take. So maybe the assay wouldn't work, or work selectively for certain organisms.

 

Supernip, why do you draw the line at releasing them back into the wild? The gametes don't fuse, only somatic tissues.

 

Plus, each polyp is an individual organism living as a colony, so it isn't even truly a "graft".

[tinyreef]

otf, ok, i gotcha. i'd agree on that. i thought you were talking about something else.

 

mr. a, i think nip's concern is if the gametes combine not just a hodge-podge coral frag. but further, i think nip's concern is unnatural couplings that wouldn't/couldn't occur in nature. i.e. catdogs

[samstersam]

catdogs

 

ever watch that show? I hate it. Makes no sense whatsoever. One end is a cat and the other end is a dog????

[Six]

Actually, what is interesting is that fusing could theoretically be used as an ID assay. If you are certain of one sample's ID, but uncertain of another's (say maybe due to an adaptive growth morphology), if they fuse, they're the same.

polyp is an individual organism living as a colony, so it isn't even truly a "graft".

 

Ahh....! Now that is useful!

 

I like your thinking.

[supernip]

So I tried to reply and the software said no dice. eh

 

yes part of my concern was the hybridization issue as a lot of this thread seemed to drift in that direction. But also, couldn't a larger variation in zooanthellae mean faster growth; or when taken as a whole, the grafted specimen has a wider range of chemical weapons?

 

A part of my reasoning was looking only at non native species having the possibility of overtaking indigenous species. Perhaps I didn't use a passive enough of a voice to convey doubt in what I type, I apologize if this is a case. My posts are more questions than statements. I haven't learned enough about the subject to clearly understand what happens.

 

Although I understand, somewhat, that grafting includes only body cells. And you're essentially preserving the two species, isn't there a possibility that they can mutate and share genetic info? Like bacteria that forms immunities and shares that advantage with other individuals.

 

And curiously, are you sure that each polyp represents an individual creature? I always thought the zoanthellae was present in the thin layer enveloping the calcium skeleton as well. This is gonna take a lot of memory power on my part to try and remember some of the stuff I've learned. Maybe you could clarify it for me. It's been bothering me for a while as to what part of the coral I can consider an individual.

 

And thank you tiny for trying to defend my statement. Though I'm still on the fence about this whole "natural" issue. I sort of think that humans are another tool of evolution, and whatever creates a creature with an advantage is natural by me. I just think we should try to keep our influences to a minimum.

[MrAnderson]

Nip: yes, a coral polyp is an individual organism.

 

Good quote from Borneman's book:" The polyp is a single living unit of coral, and in most cases is a solitary animal with complete reproductive and biologic self-sustenance."

 

Some species of coral colonies develop different inter-polyp symbioses, but each polyp itself reproduces both asexually and sexually, by budding and releasing pleio-ploidy gametes, respectively. But in both cases, it's an individual polyp reproducing.

 

So really, the fusion we're discussing isn't even really a "graft". A true graft would have to be done with microsurgery.

 

tiny: gametes combining is sexual reproduction, and proximity of two polyps wouldn't change anything qualitatively, only the probability of reproduction. Also, separate species cannot reproduce sexually, so there's no danger of "ear-mouse", like above. A true chimera cannot be made just by touching two organisms together.

 

Also, when I said earlier that the gametes of two color varieties wouldn't mix, read "recombine", not "mate sexually". If something reproduces sexually, it's natural.

 

Also, bacteria transfer antibiotic resistance on a molecular scale, driven by adaptation. I don't think coral polyps have that kind of capacity for sharing genetic information. Eukaryotic cells generally don't have that same ability, although transfections can be forced in vitro.

[MrAnderson]

oops, my bad.

 

it was a hybrid of lobophyton and sarcophyton, not sinularia (no species info though).

 

and it was an issue of Coral magazine (specifically the dec-04/jan-05), not fama.

 

but it was the gbrmpa adn the scientist was dr. kirsten michalek-wagner's team.

 

sorry for the mixup.

 

Hey tiny, do you have a link for this? I'm trying to figure out what happened exactly... Otherwise could you please explain it in the most complicated technical scientific way possible so I can understand it? THX!

[tinyreef]

tiny: gametes combining is sexual reproduction, and proximity of two polyps wouldn't change anything qualitatively, only the probability of reproduction. Also, separate species cannot reproduce sexually, so there's no danger of "ear-mouse", like above. A true chimera cannot be made just by touching two organisms together.

 

Also, when I said earlier that the gametes of two color varieties wouldn't mix, read "recombine", not "mate sexually". If something reproduces sexually, it's natural.

actually, two separate species can reproduce. their offsprings are usually mules though (i know you probably know that, just stating the obvious). btw, that was the assumption from vollmer/palumbi with the acropora hybrid (aka acropora prolifera). it's a "mule" of a. cervicornis and a. palmata, and a dead-end evolutionarily speaking.

 

but the curveball with corals is that they can be prolific asexually even if incapable of sexual reproduction (e.g. most of the corals we see in the hobby are juveniles and not sexually mature).

 

i know you're not saying that a hybrid can necessarily develop just by proximity and (maybe) not every similar coral can hybrid but those that can will have an easier time with proximity. but again, so what? it happens in nature imo. even michalek-wagner's hybrid of lobo and sarco is most likely an existent species imho (e.g. sarcophyton digitatum would be a good guess).

 

frankly, i look at this rc guy's fragging style as merely a scoop of vanilla on top of a scoop of chocolate. big shmeal. it ain't the 32nd flavor imho.

 

otoh, if he mixed together chocolate, almonds, and marshmallows and called it "coral" flavor that may be acceptable. note: i know that's "rocky road" flavor, hence my point on prior speciation with hybridization.

 

btw, mr.a, i'm agreeing with you above. that "so what" statement wasn't a sting but rereading it, it could be taken that way.

 

Hey tiny, do you have a link for this? I'm trying to figure out what happened exactly... Otherwise could you please explain it in the most complicated technical scientific way possible so I can understand it?

go buy the back issue, you cheapo!

 

basically (anyone correct me because this is from memory), she was looking to breed a number of species of soft corals. unfortunately, the only ones that spawned male gametes was a sarco and the only female gametes was a lobo. so they figured they had a bust and would have to wait another few months to a year for the next spawning event.

 

one of her grad students or asst. had the "brilliant" idea to mix X and Y together (pun intended). not really scientifical imo but supposedly it worked and they culled like 30-colonies or something.

 

now she's just in a waiting mode to see what they look like and see if they can reproduce. i'd expect the ID article in about two years and the spawning article in about 7. i still say it's probably digitatum.

[MrAnderson]

Yeah I know about that thing called a mule, but you gotta realize that prezygotic species isolation is only the first step in species isolation. There are post-zygotic mechanisms that ensure that even if two species somehow reproduce, the offspring either isn't viable, or it can't itself reproduce. This applies to all sexually reproducing organisms.

 

I think we're talking about two different things here. Hybrids exist and all that, but I originally posted to address the issue of risk of germline recombination or "mutants" as supernip called them, among other entertaining ideas like coral histocompatibility. Also, a hybrid is not a new species, unless it meets some pretty hard criteria. As far as I know, a new species of anything has never been created by man, if that chick makes a new species of coral that can reproduce she'll get a Nobel Prize.

 

The mechanism of sexual reproduction doesn't provide for the aforementioned "mutations" (by transferring DNA), and neither does asexual reproduction, or even this "grafting". Nothing except for intentional transgenic constructs or mutagens injected directly into oocytes would make this happen, and judging from this guy's article and posts, that's way outta his league.

 

All in all, I don't think this is any kind of ecological threat. Not like creating transgenics...

[MrAnderson]

Also, Six, I just read your RC posts and agree wholeheartedly, I think this guy is just out to make a buck in a pretty vulgar way. I liken it to the "painted glassfish" injected with dyes... I'm sure the guy who came up with that thought it was pretty "cutting edge" too. He portrays it in a quasi scientific manner, but really it sounds like he's looking for a way to justify his little money-making experiment... He picked lords because they had too much laying around the shop??? Wha???

[tinyreef]

...but you gotta realize that prezygotic species isolation is only the first step in species isolation. There are post-zygotic mechanisms that ensure that even if two species somehow reproduce, the offspring either isn't viable, or it can't itself reproduce. This applies to all sexually reproducing organisms.

curious, how does that apply to selective breeding/hybridization of plants? aren't those hybrids able to sexually reproduce?

[jeremai]

curious, how does that apply to selective breeding/hybridization of plants? aren't those hybrids able to sexually reproduce?

 

It depends on the species. If a given hybrid is sterile, it is reproduced asexually (by cuttings). Even if it is sexually viable, most hybrids will not produce offspring with the same features of the parent plant, so asexual means are still preferred. Take roses, for example, or most fruiting trees - desirable flower, fruit, or growth traits are hybridized, then the cuttings are grafted onto sturdier base stock.

 

Most plant hybridization stops at the F1 stage, from what I'm aware, because the desired traits (color, shape) have been reached, so there is no viable reason to continue selectively breeding.

 

This is the experience I gather the author of the article was basing his cut-and-paste on, because he treats the corals (understandably) like plants. But what do I know, I went to an art school.

[tinyreef]

Most plant hybridization stops at the F1 stage, from what I'm aware, because the desired traits (color, shape) have been reached, so there is no viable reason to continue selectively breeding.

the selective breeding process stops but i thought F1 individuals (for such selectively-bred plants) can sometimes become able to sexually reproduce.

 

not saying they all reproduce sexually but i thought sometimes the breeding process produces organisms that can. whereas mr.a says they all can't. i'm not sure and just wanted a confirmation if possible.

[jeremai]

the selective breeding process stops but i thought F1 individuals (for such selectively-bred plants) can sometimes become able to sexually reproduce.

 

not saying they all reproduce sexually but i thought sometimes the breeding process produces organisms that can. whereas mr.a says they all can't. i'm not sure and just wanted a confirmation if possible.

 

The poppies in our front yard are (supposedly) F1 hybrids. They come up every year, though, and since they're annuals, I can only conclude that they are reproducing sexually.

 

It's not empirical, but hopefully it helps.