Coral Clones and Genetic degradation?

[BlueAbyss]

A 'clone' is any genetic copy, by whatever means, of the original... indeed, your frags are clones. So are most of my houseplants... grown from cuttings (or tissue culture). Same deal, exact genetic copy. There is no genetic tampering when you're talking about cloning something... that would be changing the genetics and thereby making any offspring not a clone but a genetically engineered organism.

I suppose it's entirely possible that the genetics could degrade eventually, but I doubt it... there is at least one small forest in the world where the trees are all one organism, exactly the same genetically but grown from offshoots.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by BlueAbyss

A 'clone' is any genetic copy, by whatever means, of the original... indeed, your frags are clones. So are most of my houseplants... grown from cuttings (or tissue culture). Same deal, exact genetic copy. There is no genetic tampering when you're talking about cloning something... that would be changing the genetics and thereby making any offspring not a clone but a genetically engineered organism.

I suppose it's entirely possible that the genetics could degrade eventually, but I doubt it... there is at least one small forest in the world where the trees are all one organism, exactly the same genetically but grown from offshoots.

OK that makes sense. I wasn't sure what it exactly meant.

[Ian]

While it is true that they are clones. genetic degradation should not be an issue. Genetic degradation refers to each successive generation being genetically weeker(less fit) than the previous one due do acumulation of defects through inbreeding or accumulation of multiple deletory mutations.
Clones by definition are genetically identical and therefore have the same strengths and weeknesses as the source from which they were taken. This does not rule out mutation and selection even among polyps themselves but it does mean that degradation should not be an issue.

IMO the reason for corals that have a long history of growth in captivity being bullet proof is just that they HAve been successfull in aquariums.They have the right genes to handle our poor replication of a natural environment and have outlasted corals that where less fit.

[BlueAbyss]

Originally Posted by Ian

...therefore have the same strengths and weeknesses as the source from which they were taken. This does not rule out mutation and selection even among polyps themselves but it does mean that degradation should not be an issue...

...have the right genes to handle our poor replication of a natural environment and have outlasted corals that where less fit.

When I first got into reefing I found it unusual that zoas can asexually reproduce into a different morph. I eventually remembered it's not unknown in the natural world. Some ornamental plant cultivars came about this way, as a 'sport' of another plant. Sometimes even just as a single unusual branch on an otherwise normal plant.

Some corals, just like some fishes, will adapt better to the artificial conditions we have created. Some specimens are bound to be more adaptable than even others of the same species, hence why we see a lot of the same corals in different peoples' tanks over and over.

Playing biologist is fun

[intarsiabox]

I guess anything that reproduces asexually is a clone then. Lots of organisms do it without any problems. I guess the genes stay pure if there is no outside influence so coral frags should be fine indefinetly unless they reproduce sexually? Although I guess reproducing sexually is what gets you all the variations.

[Myka]

I have often wondered the same thing, but have yet to find any sort of definitive answer. Lots of speculation from biologist wannabes (like me haha).