jcart003 wrote:

In reality there is no way that a cutting from your
diseased plant would be genetically altered. The DNA damage you
mention is on a single cell level and is random. Most mutations are
fatal, and therefore the damaged cell would die. If it didn't die it
would still be only one cell out of a billion or so. The reason for
not using diseased material is to avoid spreading disease, mostly
viral.



So, if I understand you correctly, the statement:

"There is a possibility that the disease has affected the genetic make up of
your plant which could mean that the plant (and clones made from it) will grow
slowly forever more. You might want to consider throwing your diseased plant
away and start again with healthy cuttings."

....is essentially untrue? And that, in the case of viral disease, a clone from
an infected plant would be affected by the virus, but not by any genetic
mutation that might have been caused in the parent plant by the virus?



Now if you were to do (agghhhhh an over 40 moment! I can't recall
the term!) the type of cloning (using the meristem, and seperateing it
to single cells) that they do in labs now you could create a
genetically altered plant from the scenario you laid out... reactive
ox. sp. causing DNA damage..... it would be shot inthe dark.... but
that is one way to get a new/unusual clone ie in orchids.


Tissue culture? So, in fact, from what you're saying, it takes a purposeful
attempt to cause mutation in the parent cells that would get passed on to the
clones, and even then it's an iffy proposition?

I see from your address that you're an educator or researcher? so I could quote
your response as a professional opinion from a knowledgable individual? (I
don't want to pry and ask you to identify yourself...)

Better yet, do you have any suggestions as to sources of info (links) on this
subject, preferably not too technical? I did a little bit of reading on the
subject of adaptive mutation today that would seem to question whether, in
fact, "the concept of genetic response to environmental stress died with
Lamarck", as Iris said earlier; but I couldn't even begin to try to argue that,
as I'm a dirt gardener, not a scientist.



I will stop here as I feel myself on a ramble through
bio/genetics..... there are lots of interesting permutations of
this...if you are a nerd.



Or, for that matter, ramble on if you wish, I at least will read your response;
I'm no nerd, I'd have to know more about the subject to even aspire to that
status ;-) , but as I said before, I was surprised at the statement above
regarding "disease-mutation-affecting-growth", doubted its veracity, and would
like to learn enough about the subject to be able to refute it.

Thanks for all the responses (except for yours, bayhill ["The reason the
economy became so robust had nothing to do with Clinton." etc.]... you're lost
in the wrong thread).

Bill