Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
wild to cultivated changes?
Pat,
Thanks for this info. I have been following this thread closely, though I only understand some of it, but I wish I understood all! One thought occurred to me after reading your statement: If there is a protein that is in all flowers and only in flower tissue, we could find the gene associated with this protein and all flowering plants would have this gene in their DNA. Problem is a non flowering plant could also have this gene, but never turn it on. So does this mean that there could be a plant somewhere out there that is currently a non-flowering, purely-leafy plant, but if a descendent of this plant turned on the flowering gene it might actually flower, and we might get a completely new orchid species? I think I read somewhere that orchids are mainly or only identifiable as orchids because of the flowers, and so I am thinking that there could be a plant species out there that would be an orchid if only it did flower but it never does. Does this make sense, or should I just go back to open-mouthed lurker status on the continuation of this fascinating thread? Thanks, Joanna "Pat Brennan" wrote in message ... Al, I hope the head ache is a little better and this does not make it much worst. If this does, just remember I'm a farmer who is out of date (while writing this I am referring to a book coauthered by Watson) and has forgotten most of what I learned about this sort of stuff. That being said, I think you are thinking on much to simple of terms. I think it is a mistake to think in terms of flower templates just as I would not call a complex computer program a template. The making of a flower is more a process with genes being turned on and off at different times and the various proteins produced interacting with each other. A gene is a template for a protein. There is DNA transcription to RNA which is translated into a protein or an enzyme (which is itself a proteins). At the underclass level each gene is a template for a unique protein. If there is a protein that is in all flowers and only in flower tissue, we could find the gene associated with this protein and all flowering plants would have this gene in their DNA. Problem is a non flowering plant could also have this gene, but never turn it on. A flower is probably composed of 100's of proteins (50 to 1000 is a good guess, I do not know if counts have been made). To make a flower these proteins must be made at the right time, in the right mix, and at the right place. I do not think anyone really has a grasp on how this is all controlled, but I think people have played with gene precursors to affect the number of petals produced on a flower. When you are working in the lab with a piece of undifferentiated tissue, one hormone will cause it to grow into a plant while another will cause it to grow into a flower. I think this fits into this discussion, but I am not sure how or why. Pat B |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
34,000 wild and cultivated plants | Gardening | |||
PHOTO OF THE WEEK, Cultivated Iris | Gardening | |||
Wild V Cultivated | United Kingdom | |||
Where are department store orchids cultivated? | Orchids | |||
wild to cultivated changes? | Orchids |