Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#93855 - 01/09/11 07:04 AM ey revisited
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Wieslaw's recent query re: wheaten and its apperance in the absence of other modifiers has rekindled my ponderings on eWh vs ey: and how this has sat somewhat uneasily with me

Most will say/quote/think something along the lines of "that's done and dusted: it's been conclusively proven and well accepted that there is no such thing as a separate eWh and ey - they are the same gene, but simply act either as a dominant or recessive in the presence/absence of melanisers"

To substantiate this view, most will then quote the work of Dr Ron Okimoto and/or Leif Andersson (from what I've been able to work out, essentially either Ling et al (2003) (+/- Dr Okimoto's direct posts here at The Coop) or Kerje et al (2003) respectively). Some will also cite Carefoot's earlier work in test breeding to demonstrate that this alternating gene behaviour is possible.

However, I feel that, to do so, is to possibly misinterprete what these researchers have found/claimed. Yes, there has been work to demonstrate that the melanocortin-1 receptor gene is what classical genetics has described as the E locus, and that the MC1R alleles from phenotypically wheaten chickens have been sequenced and in all cases, it appears that one wheaten allele has been involved (which, on the mode of inheritance, appears to be eWh). However this does not preclude the existence of another (or even several other) E-locus alleles that can produce a wheaten phenotype: including, but not limited to ey.

Certainly Dr Okimoto does not claim that "there is no such thing as a separate recessive wheaten allele." In fact, quite the contraty: he mentioned that (in "E locus order of dominance (again!) )

Originally Posted By: Ron O.
...
Recessive wheaten is a strange story, but Smyth has told me that he used to maintain a recessive wheaten line, and Morejohn had a Red Junglefowl line that segregated wheaten downed chicks from wild-type parents in 3:1.

There probably is a recessive wheaten somewhere. I found a Buff Rock line that segregates for a weird E locus allele that seems to be a double mutant. I got it from McMurray. It has the Fayoumi birchin mutation and the dominant wheaten mutation in the same gene. I don't know what the phenotype of such a bird would be like. The Fayoumi mutation would send signal all the time (produce black pigment) and the wheaten mutation would inhibit signal propagation. At least, that is the theory if wheaten is like red fur color in mammals.

....


From what I can ascertain, Andersson's group described E and not wheaten variants, and although Carefoot did postulate that there could be a single wheaten allele based on the results from a single hen which could, in different pairings, act either as a dominant or recessive wheaten, he did not state that this conclusively demonstrated that "there was no ey".

Kazjaps, in "Dominance of wheaten" give a very thorough and comprehensive review of the studies involving wheaten, and really, the only firm specific claim that the ey and eWh sequences are the same is made by Black Feather in Recent review of colour genetics

Originally Posted By: Black Feather
About eWh and ey, Gérard has written (2000) in the chapter about E (after translation) : "Carefoot (1981) suggests that the two alleles eWh and ey are only one, dominance or recessiveness are caused by interaction with other genes increasing or decreasing black."

In 2003, Kerje et al. have published a molecular proof that E locus is in fact the gene Mc1R (Melanocortin 1-receptor), as in mammals, with determination of sequences for alleles E, e+ and ebc.

In 2006, my lab has sequenced more alleles, including ey and ewh, and it seems that their coding sequences for Mc1R are not different.

S. Kerje, J. Lind, K. Schütz, P. Jensen, L. Andersson (2003)
Melanocortin 1-receptor (MC1R) mutations are associated with plumage colour in chicken
Animal Genetics 34 (4), 241–248


I, like Kazjaps am very interested in how the ey was sourced.

So, really, my questions are:

In the works that seem to be repeatedly cited as "proof there is no ey, only eWh", which breeds, and how many individual wheaten animals were sequenced?

Have any animals actually defined specifially as ey (eg. Morejohn's RJF or Smyth's recessive wheaten tester line) been sequenced? (I understand that these lines perhaps have been lost, but were skins/feathers of any of these birds ever saved: fancy things can now be done with archival DNA, theoretically this should be even easier with birds which have nucleated red blood cells).

Otherwise, it's not unlike if I(in Australia) were to go out to sample carnivores, in the hope of finding a grey wolf (not native to here), only to conclude that there are only dingos, and hence that "wolves" and "dingos" must be completely synonymous and that there are no such things as wolves, only dingos.

Cheers,
Htul

Top
#93862 - 01/09/11 10:35 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
You are not the only one who is a little sceptical. I think some of us (including me) have a smoldering suspicion, whether all the preparations before the actual experiments are always properly done . Unfortunately the history shows that it is not always the case.I have just read several publications on pubmed.gov,from not so long ago, 1990's and 2000´s. Authors of the publications provide 'bombproof' evidence and results for something, what turns out to be not true.
One of them here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8467400

Now it is accepted that e-locus is on microchromosome 11, so no linkage.


Top
#93870 - 01/09/11 10:51 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
RuffEnuff Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 01/27/06
Posts: 1154
Loc: Australia
oh dear stirring up a hornets nest again.

i just wish this melanizer that was supposed to affect the way wheaten behaves were identified and we were given some sort of visual description of it so we could test the theory that way. i regularly cross wheatens and eb and regularly have been confounded by the results.

Top
#93872 - 01/10/11 05:01 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: RuffEnuff]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Wieslaw: I agree, this is why most (good) scientists will avoid making the claim that their conclusions are "bombproof" - they otherwise look rather foolish if their claims are contradicted by subsequent research. Therefore, you generally find statements like "these results suggest" or "these results are consistent with" rather than "these results prove" in scientific papers.

Ruff: I think you know my posts a little too well - but always good to make us think more deeply about the things we take as fact. re: your wish for a visual desciption of these melanisers: unfortunately, if they are not so much 'melanisers' as 'modifiers' of gene expression, it may well be that, unless in conjunction with the very gene that they modify, their effects may not be phenotypically evident at all.

All, I must retract one of the statements I made earlier (lest I fall prey to the very thing that I suggest that we do not all do and misquote/misrepresent the conclusions of the aforementioned research). On re-reading Ling et al (2003), the footnote to Table 1 does indeed state: "Note that eWh and ey are identical in amino acid sequence".

Table 1 itself also lists "NHR, RIR, Buff Min(eWh)" as the line from which the allele was sequenced (though no further details are provided as to the further origin or numbers of individuals sequenced).

This, however, suggests to me that this analysis re: the identical nature of the amino acid sequence (note aa sequence and gene sequence identity are not the same thing: one is the protein sequence, one is the DNA sequence - though it is really the proteins that lead to what we see in the end) between ey and eWh is founded on the assumption that NHR and RIRs are ey and that Buff Minorcas are eWh? (at least based on the sidenotes that they have applied).

Perhaps this assumption is based on Brumbaugh and Hollander's (1966)description of buff (avaialable from here ) and the associated wheaten alleles.

On reading this, the paper suggests that RIR, Buff Minorcas and speckled sussex are all ey. However, when you read the study itself, the RIR and Buff Minorca crosses with RJF sound (at least to me) like they are actually behaving like eWh - the chick downs for these crosses are described as having "pale narrow striping" (however, these may be confounded by the other factors leading to 'buff'); whereas the description of the speckled sussex cross sounds more convincingly like it behaves as you would expect for ey. There is also mention of a specific ey tester line.

One very interesting point about this study is that it actually mentions the preservation of the skins from the study animals as a record. So, depending on whether or not these skins can be tracked down some 45 years later, it may well be possible to more conclusively determine if indeed ey (as defined by previous researchers) is identical to eWh (particularly if similar material can also be sourced from the RJF line described by Morejohn)

Top
#94109 - 01/22/11 07:03 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
I found a couple of old papers:

A GENE FOR YELLOWISH-WHITE DOWN IN THE RED JUNGLEFOWL
(G. VICTOR MOREJOHN)
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/47.full.pdf

*This one has photos of the ey wheaten mutant Red Jungle fowl (chicks & adults).
--------------------

WILD TYPE PLUMAGE PATTERN in the Fowl
(ELLIOT KIMBALL)
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/3/129.full.pdf

*This one has the Wh - wheaten test breeding, & many others.
(Note: there's the error in there that Kimball thought Columbian was an E locus allele (written as e).)

Top
#94304 - 02/03/11 05:24 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
In this document(scroll all the way down) :

http://www.inia.es/gcontrec/pub/CATALOGO_INIA_Gallinas_1290596384804.pdf

there is a picture of ey hens. As far as I guess from Spanish, they were imported from Massachusetts University in 1975

Top
#94309 - 02/04/11 12:16 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
All these breeds inherited the bad tail gene?

Top
#94340 - 02/06/11 03:36 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Sonoran Silkies Offline
Flock Leader

Registered: 10/09/08
Posts: 347
Loc: Arizona
Wow! Looks like they really had to work to select that many birds with ratty tails!

Top
#94341 - 02/06/11 03:53 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Sonoran Silkies]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
Me thinks it's environmental - the Smyth ey line is not related to the Spanish Breeds.

Top
#94363 - 02/07/11 07:03 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
Richard in MA Offline
Flock Leader

Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 332
Loc: Massachusetts
How, specifically do you suspect environmental? It seems that even the birds pictured on open range have the frayed tails. It appears that the feathers lack something that helps hold them together. They all seem too consistenly poor to be attributed to cage fraying to me.

Top
#94382 - 02/08/11 03:49 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Richard in MA]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
I think they were released to take a nicer picture... wink

Top
#94412 - 02/08/11 05:19 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
I don't like guessing these things, but as I mentioned - the Smyth ey test line should not be closely related to the Spanish breeds (the Smyth ey line imported from the USA in 1975).

As I understand it, these Spanish Breeds used by Campo et al. were in many cases rescued from diminishing landrace stock, ie collected from here and there for conservation. They are segregating many different mutations /genotypes, even within specific 'breeds'. Although some are new creations, eg the 'Melanised Prat' (combination of two breeds). I.e., these are not homozygous exhibition lines. So it would be extremely unusual that all these birds (originating from many different sources), would have the same mutation for a feather quality flaw.

How environmental? Yes, cage fray (they might only be let out infrequently, eg only for photo shoots), the photos taken at moulting times, a bad problem with rodents smile , feather pecking, diet, etc.

I recall that these Spanish researchers have done research on environmental factors /health using this stock (only mentioning if someone wants to research further).

Top
#98169 - 08/05/11 04:44 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Marvin Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 11/23/06
Posts: 1991
Loc: Nicaragua
I dont know if my hen carries eWh or ey now... Why? because her eb looking boy is showing signs of Melanotic... and eb was thought to be recessive to eWh...

Top
#98171 - 08/05/11 07:34 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Richard in MA]
Jenks Offline
Coop Cleaner

Registered: 05/13/10
Posts: 234
Loc: USA
8/ woo

Top
#98178 - 08/06/11 05:35 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Jenks]
Bushman Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1047
Loc: Wisconsin
Originally Posted By: Jenks
8/ woo


Means what???
_________________________
Pilgrim in a foreign land and true believer.
1st John 5:11-12

Top
#98182 - 08/06/11 11:04 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Bushman]
Marvin Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 11/23/06
Posts: 1991
Loc: Nicaragua
Originally Posted By: Bushman
Originally Posted By: Jenks
8/ woo


Means what???
She is not happy with my post... cry

Top
#98186 - 08/06/11 04:47 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Marvin]
Muffi Offline
Chicken

Registered: 05/29/10
Posts: 140
Loc: Massachusetts, US
Originally Posted By: Marvin
I dont know if my hen carries eWh or ey now... Why? because her eb looking boy is showing signs of Melanotic... and eb was thought to be recessive to ewh...


I thought that eWh was dominant to eb except in the presence of melanizers, then eWh is the most recessive e-allele.

Top
#98187 - 08/06/11 05:59 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Muffi]
Marvin Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 11/23/06
Posts: 1991
Loc: Nicaragua
Originally Posted By: Muffi

I thought that eWh was dominant to eb except in the presence of melanizers, then eWh is the most recessive e-allele.
That is correct... but does that make ey(Recessive Wheaten) and eWh the same thing? I have detected melanotic in my eb bird, I thought that it came from my Er Crowing OEG male but wouldnt Melanotice make a Er bird a self black bird?

has there been any studies on what malanizers have an effect on eWheaten? how about unknown melanizers...? now wonder this debate still raging...

Top
#98199 - 08/07/11 05:41 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Marvin]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Marvin
That is correct... but does that make ey(Recessive Wheaten) and eWh the same thing?


I was thinking the same thought. It does not. Recessive wheaton was FOUND in RJF(unless the author was lying about it), and RJF is not supposed to have extra melanizers. There are unbelievably many phenotypes of wheaton. There can be also differences in chick downs: some are striped and some are not.Who knows if it is a sign of something?

Top
#98201 - 08/07/11 07:05 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Marvin Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 11/23/06
Posts: 1991
Loc: Nicaragua
Originally Posted By: Wieslaw
Originally Posted By: Marvin
That is correct... but does that make ey(Recessive Wheaten) and eWh the same thing?


I was thinking the same thought. It does not. Recessive wheaton was FOUND in RJF(unless the author was lying about it), and RJF is not supposed to have extra melanizers. There are unbelievably many phenotypes of wheaton. There can be also differences in chick downs: some are striped and some are not.Who knows if it is a sign of something?
Correct...

Top
#98206 - 08/07/11 11:22 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Muffi]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Muffi
Originally Posted By: Marvin
I dont know if my hen carries eWh or ey now... Why? because her eb looking boy is showing signs of Melanotic... and eb was thought to be recessive to ewh...


I thought that eWh was dominant to eb except in the presence of melanizers, then eWh is the most recessive e-allele.


That would be true if a pure wheaten can not be melanized in the same way. The melanizer mimics the effect of the other e allele i.m.o. (adding black pattern to the body).

Top
#102006 - 02/07/12 05:25 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Htul, I have at last found the description of recessive wheaten chicks. It is in this document:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/74/1/43

I had downloaded it before it was 'closed'. It says that ''The ey/ey chicks are cream colored with a small head spot and/or narrow
dark back stripes''

PS. It is exactly what the chicks of the Spanish breed Murciana look like. I recall posting a photo of them in another thread.


Edited by Wieslaw (02/08/12 02:55 AM)
Edit Reason: added PS

Top
#102021 - 02/08/12 04:21 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Many thanks for that Wieslaw.

I've also found the following from Smyth (1976) (halfway down on pg 74 - there are also some line drawings on the previous page)

"ey - The recessive wheaten down resembles that of the dominant allele "(e_wh), however, head spots and faint back striping are more common in the ey/e Y chick"

-consistent with the extract from Campo and Orozco that you've put up (but that would make sense - given that Campo's ey line was sourced directly from Smyth)

Yes, I agree this description does fit with the Murciana pic that you posted (but where to get a Murciana from ?....)

But I also recall looking for chick down images of Murcianas - and at least some such as this one



from http://www.gallinamurciana.org/gallinamu...8&Itemid=34 are the more conventional down pattern to be expected in classic eWh chicks (so there's no guarantee that even if you could get hold of Murcianas, that they would necessarily give chicks like the ones you put up previously)

I think this is actually an important point that is frequently overlooked - it's no good saying "Breed X is eWh based" or "Breed Y is E based" etc - because the same phenotype can so easily (in many cases) be made with differing E bases. You have to consider subpopulations that you sample from (Smyth's eb and ey lines are different in that they were specifically bred for that purpose)


Edited by Htul (02/08/12 04:34 PM)
Edit Reason: Added comments on typical wheaten down in Murciana chicks

Top
#102200 - 02/14/12 06:03 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
This is from Morjohn:

Quote:
The author (1953) described a recessive mutation (yellowish –white down) discovered in a red jungle fowl cock os Siamese origin. The effects of this gene were to dilute the down of chicks of both sexes to a yellowish-white and to depigment or dilute the plumage of juvenile and adult hens to creamy-buff or cinnamon. Adult cock were not affected and were indistinguishable from normal wild type cocks. The gene was completely recessive, and in adult cocks homozygous for the gene, the undercolor of the plumage was not affected


Just to show that cocks are different too: in the colour of underfluff.

Top
#102363 - 02/22/12 12:17 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
I have just read through this thread and previous link from a few years back.
Previously KazJaps said:
"I find it strange that the hypothesis hasn’t been entertained that a single wheaten allele, plus a eumelanin restricting modifier is the difference between eWh & ey phenotypes/inheritance modes. I.e, only one wheaten allele was sequenced – it could be in theory a ey phenotype/inheritance mode allele, but the eWh phenotype/inheritance mode could be the result of the presence of a very closely linked eumelanin-restricting modifier (lol, yeh, messing with your heads) ."

And I must say I dont understand why this is not considered to be the truth. Every example given of a dominant Wheaten allele involves the presence of Mh, DB, Co or other melanin reducer or phaeoemelanin enhancer. All would make E+ specimens appear wheaten like. And I dont think it needs to be linked to E to give the appearance of dominance in the Wheaten allele.

However, in virtually every instance of allelic series in avian species, the real relationship between alleles is one of incomplete dominance. Pure dominance is rare because both alleles are always expressing and the gene product becomes a blend of both alleles. Therefore the debate might be simply one of semantics. In which case I would place Wheaten at the end of the series as it represents the 'opposite' expression for the E locus compared to the E allele.

Top
#102370 - 02/22/12 02:29 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Terry
And I must say I dont understand why this is not considered to be the truth. Every example given of a dominant Wheaten allele involves the presence of Mh, DB, Co or other melanin reducer or phaeoemelanin enhancer. All would make E+ specimens appear wheaten like. And I dont think it needs to be linked to E to give the appearance of dominance in the Wheaten allele.


x2

Top
#102371 - 02/22/12 03:10 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Terry
And I must say I dont understand why this is not considered to be the truth


I understand it perfectly. There has been so many truths in the course of time and they have fallen one by one. Either pure fabrication, lacking documentation, lacking description how, impossible to reproduce, no pictures,wrong conclusions, or simply wrong identification. If this is not a truth, then it implies that Morejohn and the Spanish guys and Massachusets University were simply lying. Which does not make the things more trustworthy. Are you trying to say that pure eWh does not exist and it has never been examined for dominance?

I would turn your sentence around and ask: why should something be accepted as the truth when NOTHING about it has been really examined???



Top
#102373 - 02/22/12 04:24 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
SilverSilkie Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 1125
Loc: Belgium
One chicken (and his genotype) is not the other (and his genotype) I suppose !!

Top
#102374 - 02/22/12 04:31 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Wieslaw
I would turn your sentence around and ask: why should something be accepted as the truth when NOTHING about it has been really examined???




X2 wink

Terry: the quote you allude to is out of context from the wider argument that Kazjaps was making: that the oft-quoted "Reeder hypothesis" about the mode of inheritance of "ey" vs eWh relies on the presence or absence of "recessive melanisers". Kazjaps' point was that none of the published researchers in that field made any such claim for these modifiers to be "recessive" as was stipulated by Reeder.

Hence, the immediately preceeding lines:

"I.e. none of these poultry scientists (Carefoot, Okimoto and Smyth) have stated a “recessive eumelaniser(s)’ was responsible for the two eWh & ey phenotypes/inheritance modes, only indicated that modifiers of eumelanin expression may be responsible.

These modifiers could be eumelanin restrictor(s) and/or eumelanin enhancer(s). "


are critical for providing context to that statement.

Further, (with all due respect to Kazjaps) it is actually not correct to say that "the hypothesis hasn’t been entertained that a single wheaten allele, plus a eumelanin restricting modifier is the difference between eWh & ey phenotypes/inheritance modes" (NB also Kazjaps' careful choice of the word "hypothesis" - and avoidance of suggestion that this is any way an 'absolute truth') : Smyth, in his claim that, in his experience, there were two separate wheaten alleles (in Crawford's PB&G pg 116) also added the disclaimer:

"However, consistent results using both eWh and ey by the author indicate that either two separate alleles do exist or that a single wheaten gene is very closely linked to a modifier of eumelanic expression".

The major point made though (as has previously also been made by Kazjaps) is that none of these later studies have focused on stocks DEFINED as ey (eg. Smyth's or Morejohn's ey) or even from stocks shown from test-crossing to behave as recessive wheaten: only use of breeds (and not even the same stocks of those breeds) where "ey" had previously been extracted by previous researchers.


Edited by Htul (02/22/12 04:36 AM)

Top
#102399 - 02/22/12 10:25 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Wieslaw
I am not saying any researchers are lying, but every observation made is done so from one's own perspective. I have read lots of papers, but cannot find or gain access to any that show specific research on the dominant Wheaten. Morejohn's papers focus on ey with no investigation of eWh although he mentions it. The Spanish papers I have found are only abstracts so I cannot read the details, but they appear to focus on breeds carrying Co. The same goes for various breeds quoted by Smyth as carrying eWh.
Obviously I would need to read the specific results of any papers on eWh by these people to see how far they went to remove other genes which would impact phenotype.
But with the work that has now been done on MC1R which has found only on wheaten allele, combined with the realisation that all these alleles are probably incompletely dominant to some degree, it becomes a matter of perspective as to how you classify the wheaten allele.

Personally I have Wheaten Modern bantams and they have always behaved recessive to eb in my yard. My Light Sussex mated to Columbian Wyandotte produce an intermediate phenotype, but obviously the presence of Co is confusing the picture.
Mating Light Sussex (eWh/eWh, S/-, Co/Co) to Silver Grey Dorking (E+/E+, S/-) produced the attached photo which is closer to E+ than to eWh
in my mind


So my Wheaten birds behave towards the recessive

Top
#102400 - 02/22/12 10:33 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
HTUL said
"The major point made though (as has previously also been made by Kazjaps) is that none of these later studies have focused on stocks DEFINED as ey (eg. Smyth's or Morejohn's ey) or even from stocks shown from test-crossing to behave as recessive wheaten: only use of breeds (and not even the same stocks of those breeds) where "ey" had previously been extracted by previous researchers."

And maybe they just missed having it in their test subjects as you suggest. But I doubt that birds with Wheaten that appears recessive are so uncommon as to be easily left out of their testing.
And I will look foolish when in a few years they announce the discovery of the sequence for ey ;-)
But if they dont and there is only one Wheaten sequence, which is really incomplete dominant (like all the other alleles of the E locus) and appears one way or the other in various combinations, then it becomes a matter of perspective where you place it in the series.
And since ey was first 'identified' and named, then that symbol would have precendence?

Top
#102407 - 02/23/12 06:24 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
Terry, can I ask what your eb breed/color was?

Top
#102409 - 02/23/12 08:00 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Terry
I am not saying any researchers are lying


Hi Terry, I know you're not. God forbid I made an impression of 'accusing' you for it.

Here is my result of crossing an e+/e+ cock to a pure Columbian Leghorn hen. The hen had rather strong black markings so she could have been eb, or eb/wheaton split.




Here is a result from the reciprocal cross : Columbian cock on a batch of duckwings. The cock was hatched nearly white, so I assumed he was on wheaton. Then he got partly dark underfluff, so he may also be split. Out of ca 10 pullets, there was no significant differences among them.






Here is the cock , he looks wheaton to me(very little black on the hackles)




Underfluff:


As far as the wheaton is concerned , the dominant 'sentiment' here on this forum has been that eWh was a REAL one, and ey is non-existing, although the publicized documentation is only for the opposite.

Do I recall correctly that it was Henk who posted a picture of a silver duckwing with one dose of Co on BYC, where the only effect was a white breast, everything else was unchanged?
Was she e+e+ Co/co+? If yes, will you post it here again,please, I can't find it again.


Top
#102410 - 02/23/12 08:34 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
I only have a little video of her:
http://edelras.nl/video/Dutch_drinking.wmv

windows media video
Another hen did not have the pseudo duckwing

Top
#102412 - 02/23/12 12:28 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Thank you!!

Top
#102413 - 02/23/12 12:47 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Henk,

There is another pic of yours that I am thinking of that may be relevant here:



from: Am I silver quail? (but also described elsewhere - I recall she was a eWh het, having a buff parent?)

Top
#102418 - 02/23/12 06:05 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Henk
The eb I spoke of was my Modern Bantams, attached photo. Your question made me reassess whether they are true eb or not. No salmon breast but come to think of it, the chick down is more like e+ than eb.
Either way, they still behave dominant to the Wheaten I have
Attached photo to consider

Top
#102420 - 02/23/12 06:17 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Wieslaw

When I look at all these photos, they all show an intermediate phenotype of some sort, which comes back to an incomplete dominance relationship.

But, the other consideration that has occured to me is the relative weigh that is placed upon down colour versus adult colour. Since the E locus was originally named based upon down colour, no doubt heavy emphasis is given to this by scientists and many others.

Whereas coming from a different perspective, I would place much less emphasis on down alone and give a greater value to the adult plumage pattern. Some of these photos we have been shown would have wheaten down at hatch, yet develop significant melanin in their plumage as an adult. So do you call them eWh because they looked like that at a day of age or e+ because they look that way for the rest of their life?

Its that matter of perspective again, which is no doubt why the issue will never be resolved.

P.S. my mating of 'Partridge' Moderns x Wheaten had 'chipmunk' down pattern as well as adult 'Partridge' colour

Top
#102430 - 02/23/12 09:28 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Terry,

Your pic of your light sussex X SG dorking hen is rather reminiscent of a silver version of the following pekin wheaten/wildtype het posted by choc in "e+/ewh - what does it look like?" (I've put them together for comparison):



as well as being reminiscent of the two pullets from Henk: the second pullet is probably the most valid comparison, due, as you have outlined to the presence of Co which could otherwise confound things. Co has been previously documented to produce "mossiness" in the presence of e+ - which would also be consistent with what you are seeing in your hen.

However, I would agree that e+/eWh is a co-dominant relationship rather than a true dominance/recessive mode of inheritance. This is not the (apparent) case with Morejohn's recessive wheaten-carrying junglefowl.

re: the modern game cross between wheaten and 'partridge' ('partridge' is one of those unfortunate terms that means completely different things to different people - and could be either be e+ or eb accordingly): the hen looks like she has a salmon breast - is this in fact the case?

Also, eb chicks can vary widely in their appearance: from practically "e+-like" to being quite distinct from e+: however, I believe e+ chicks (in the absence of other modifiers) should not have a broken eyestripe or headstripe, which otherwise can sometimes be found in e+-like eb chicks.

re: "And maybe they just missed having it in their test subjects as you suggest. But I doubt that birds with Wheaten that appears recessive are so uncommon as to be easily left out of their testing."

This is my exact issue: the only paper that does mention the sequencing of eWh Line et al (2003) makes very little mention of the provenance of the birds used for their sequencing studies nor indeed why they were chosen as representatives of eWh and ey, other than to mention, as an entry into a table under "Line" (corresponding to the entry for ey/eWh): "NHR, RIR, Buff Min(eWh)" - indeed, it is just assumed knowledge that the reader will presume this to mean New Hampshire Red, Rhode Island Red and Buff Minorca - presumably these birds were chosen to represent eWh and ey based on Brumbaugh and Hollander's (1965) description of the finding of ey in some of these breeds (but were they from the same stock? from the same lines? - who knows?: and in all likelihood, probably not). There is then also a little footnote to the table which mentions: "Note that ewh and ey are identical in amino acid sequence" without specification as to which birds were designated ey and which were designated eWh and if there were any phenotypic basis on which this assumption had been drawn (other than breed of origin).

Another issue (that I don't believe anybody has ever resolved) is why the amino acid sequence for the MC1R gene product from the eWh of Ling is identical to that specified by Takeuchi et al (1996) for brown leghorns, nor why the ey of Takeuchi et al's (1996) "Nagoya Cortins" (probably Nagoya cochins)has been completely ignored even though the amino acid sequence of this is distinct from that of eWh (as also mentioned in MC1R: 32 E locus "alleles"/variants....?! (where the eWh designation was incorrectrly attributed to Kerje et al ) and MC1R: molecular evidence for the existence of ey?

PS: I've also sent you a PM which can be accessed through the "My stuff" tab > Messages

Regards,
htul

Top
#102436 - 02/24/12 12:20 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Htul
Henk,

There is another pic of yours that I am thinking of that may be relevant here:



from: Am I silver quail? (but also described elsewhere - I recall she was a eWh het, having a buff parent?)


Well, this one is a het wheaten.
The e+/e+ Co/co+ pullets were dramatically darker stippled on the back; the main difference with the co+/co+ siblings being that the salmon breast area was completely white.
Very attractive i.m.o.

Top
#102439 - 02/24/12 01:26 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Htul said
>re: the modern game cross between wheaten and 'partridge' ('partridge' is one of those unfortunate terms that means completely different things to different people - and could be either be e+ or eb accordingly): the hen looks like she has a >salmon breast - is this in fact the case?


I certainly dont view them as salmon in the same context as our Silver Grey and Red Dorkings.

>Also, eb chicks can vary widely in their appearance: from practically "e+-like" to being quite distinct from e+: however, I believe e+ chicks (in the absence of other modifiers) should not have a broken eyestripe or headstripe, which otherwise can sometimes be found in e+-like eb chicks.

Obviously I need to look far more closely at the chicks in future as well as the adults birds and reassess my view of them

re: alleles of MC1R
The geneticists look at any change in DNA sequence as an allele, but from the applied prespective, the important thing is if the phenotype changes and DNA sequences that correlate with those. Which of course you know.
How many alleles is it for Tyr in humans now? about 80? And how many actually produce distinct phenotypes?
But then your point that slight differences which do not at first seem important in creating change in the base phenotype, might interract different with other mutations - particularly any that have direct functional involvment with MC1R - like Agouti (when they find it - could it be Mh or Co?). That has great merit. and Pg must have some interraction with MC1R as well.

Top
#102441 - 02/24/12 02:11 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
You will notice in Morejohn's paper that he extracted/segregated E locus alleles back to E locus allele alone - the rest wild-type (including with the ey Cornish, ie got rid of other modifiers). The same seems the case with the cited Light Sussex - Pease & Cock (1951) research (ie no Co when describing E locus allele - Black Red male, salmon hens). It was Carefoot that didn't seem to extract E locus alleles back to rest wild-type.

Smyth and others had eWh tester lines too (without Co, etc, ie the rest wild-type). From memory, I think they extracted eWh from recessive white commercial stock (with eb, Co, Ml & various others). eWh was found to be incomplete dominant to e+. They also had eb tester line (rest wild-type), and had ebc (rest wild-type - removed Db from Sicilian Buttercups), ER-Fayoumi, etc. Although I don't recall them making specific E tester lines, eg usually use W.C.Black Polish, Black Minorca, etc for E. Sometimes (in the early days), they may mention occasionally some minor modifier segregating in a tester line. And there was one Red Jungle Fowl line with a red enhancer segregating (R. Okimoto mentioned this). So they do take into consideration any variations in tester lines.

The ey recessive wheaten Red Jungle Fowl line (used by Morejohn, Brumbaugh & Hollander) didn't have Co etc modifiers. It appears to be a mutation that occurred in wild-type Red Jungle Fowl.

Co is incomplete dominant. The following is the phenotype when CJR crossed Millefleur (Co/Co) with wild-type (Light Brown Dutch Bantam e+/e+ co+/co+):


Het. Co/co+ males looked very similar to Buff Columbian (Co/Co), but not quite a clean buff ground colour (ie, tend to be a bit patchy). I couldn't work out the pure Millefleur E locus alleles from chick down, but closest to eb Co s+, not buff eWh Co s+. There never seemed to be e+ Db or eb Db chick down segregating in the Millefleurs, nor the crosses. So CJR's Millefleurs seem to be eb Co/Co mo/mo, as suggested by the Dutch breeder she obtained stock from (& European geneticists).

Top
#102443 - 02/24/12 02:43 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
The main problem at the moment with chicken MC1R DNA sequences is that there is no consistency with E locus allele references. I.e. one paper will cite a specific sequence as being E allele, yet it is clear from other research that the sequence is the ER -Leghorn allele. The same is occurring with ebc & eb (same sequence referring to either). So datum reference points need to be cleaned up, i.e corrections need to be made to some papers, get them all singing the same song.

Hate to keep being repetitive, but there is a second wheaten allele sequenced by R. Okimoto. It's just that it is wheaten mutation coupled with the ER-Fayoumi mutation. I can't see two known mutations, known to modify wild-type individually (one add phaeomelanin in hens, one add eumelanin in both), not producing a distinctive phenotype when combined. It probably wouldn't be the same allele sequence as in the recessive wheaten Red Jungle Fowl line (unless two mutations occurred at the same time).

Plus another eb variation (one less mutation) was sequenced. But unfortunately the alleles weren't extracted on to wild-type.

Top
#102444 - 02/24/12 03:48 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Kazjaps
The main problem at the moment with chicken MC1R DNA sequences is that there is no consistency with E locus allele references


In my opinion one of the main problems is, that some of the researchers are not real poultry breeders , and they simply do not know what exactly they are dealing with. They should start with reading this forum, and THEN research.

Top
#102445 - 02/24/12 04:03 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3229
Loc: Netherlands
The entire forum? Would be nice to see the-coop references in scientific literature... wink

Top
#102446 - 02/24/12 04:24 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Yes, the entire forum. I did it, there are no excuses why they couldn't.

Top
#102447 - 02/24/12 04:46 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
SilverSilkie Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 1125
Loc: Belgium
Why the real poultry breeders from this forum not become researchers, this would be much more easier , no !

Top
#102448 - 02/24/12 04:55 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Terry
.....I certainly dont view them as salmon in the same context as our Silver Grey and Red Dorkings.


That may well be true - but nor is it of the colour of breast you would expect in an eb pullet (and perhaps, as you've alluded to previously: the issue of codominance is at play)

Originally Posted By: Terry

re: alleles of MC1R
The geneticists look at any change in DNA sequence as an allele, but from the applied prespective, the important thing is if the phenotype changes and DNA sequences that correlate with those.


That's the thing - Kazjaps has beaten me to it: but there have been no studies focused on "extracting" the MC1R variant in question, and putting it on an otherwise wildtype background and few enough, even with the classical alleles. No doubt, this is due to the great expense and time investment that would be required - but I, for one, would find it extremely interesting to go into a poultry show filled with 'brown leghorns' (or even better, red junglefowl) that varied only in their posession of one of the 32 MC1R variants (that have been found thus far - no doubt there are more 'out there'). Unfortunately, my interest alone is not going to fund that kind of research.

Wieslaw: many of these researchers probably would not even be poultry breeders per se (indeed, their workplaces may even forbid them from keeping poultry as a biosecurity measure). But Kazjaps has the essence of the problem: the attribution of certain stocks to a specific E locus variant seems relatively aribitrary, and not based on 'extracted' phenotype: only based on what breed X is "meant" to be according to previous researchers or maybe limited phenotypic data, that doesn't factor in other modifiers (I recall that Kerje et al allocated the individual(s) sequenced for ebc as being ebc due to
The ebc allele
is associated with the buttercup phenotype which is very
similar to the wild type but the light parallel back stripes are
irregular and wider and the dorsal head stripe is broken and
irregular compared with the pattern observed in wild type
chicks (Smyth et al. 1980)
.

This may be true - but there are probably modified eb that also fulfil these phenotypic criteria (especially since the ebc was not derived from Sicilian buttercups, but from a synthetic broiler line). Further, there is also no mention in these papers - other than Guo et al (2010) - of how many individuals of each breed were sequenced to account for any within-breed variation.

Top
#102449 - 02/24/12 05:13 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
I agree with SilverSilkie - that would be much easier! (afterall, that's how Carefoot started publishing his papers)

Top
#102450 - 02/24/12 05:14 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Htul, it is exactly the example that comes to my mind each time the subject comes up. I think the guys in Sweden have made such a number once or twice, where they were not fully aware what the in-sent sample was from or something like that.

If they are not allowed to keep birds, then it would be EVEN MORE advisable for them to read this forum.

Top
#102487 - 02/24/12 06:23 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
KazJaps said
>"The ey recessive wheaten Red Jungle Fowl line (used by Morejohn, Brumbaugh & Hollander) didn't have Co etc modifiers. It appears to be a mutation that occurred in wild-type Red Jungle Fowl."

I see your point, it might have been a true recessive, rather than an incomplete dominant like the other alleles. Perhaps if this line was maintained and sequenced today it would be different to eWh.
And perhaps all the other Wheaten birds found and assigned ey by later researchers were assumed to be this same mutation, when in fact they were the incomplete dominant eWh allele.
You almost need an historical DNA bank from the specimens used in the early research. Didn't someone mention something about skins being collected? ;-)

Top
#102490 - 02/25/12 09:49 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Terry
So do you call them eWh because they looked like that at a day of age or e+ because they look that way for the rest of their life?


I called my Columbian cock eWh because he was from pure breeding stock and was hatched (nearly) white. Of course I have no possibility to sequence him. I base my opinion on descriptions made by people on this forum. Pure Columbians are said to be always made either on eb or eWh. There is supposed to be a difference between them in the amount of black in the hackles (more on eb) and underfluff colour(white on eWh). My cock had white underfluff, which turned gray at the end. It is said that it can suggest eb/eWh. Poultch even said it can suggest Pg(which I doubt in my case)
I call his children e+/ , because I know that mothers were duckwings , and one ER(which hatched totally different). Other batch of chicks from black hens hatched black, whit more or less white faces.

Top
#102498 - 02/25/12 04:28 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Poultch Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 01/25/10
Posts: 660
Loc: New Zealand
Have you mated him to a furnace hen Wieslaw?
his undercolour is far too subtle to be split eb.
Pg can hide easily on Co wheatons.

Top
#102499 - 02/25/12 04:49 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Poultch]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
If by furnace you mean melanized wheaton then no. I do not have furnace or wheatons. My rooster was bought as an egg from a man who had bought the rooster's father from Germany. The man had some females with white underfluff and some with dark(on purpose, but I do not remember the explanation what should be good about that)

Top
#102527 - 02/27/12 08:45 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
KazJaps Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 08/30/02
Posts: 2870
Loc: Australia
Just one more comment on MC1R sequences of E and ER alleles.....

Going from memory, the Leu133Gln mutation (found in ER-Fayoumi) was sequenced quite early on. This was a unique MC1R mutation, not known to occur in mammals. The Glu92Lys (E92K) mutation was also sequenced early. This mutation has occurred in other species, eg causes black fur in mice. So when this same MC1R Glu92Lys mutation was found in chickens (before E), its not surprising to find someone calling it E - for extension/extended black, when comparing the mutation with other species. But then comes along another chicken MC1R sequence where they find two mutations that have occurred in other species, the previous Glu92Lys mutation coupled with a second one Met71Thr. Met71Thr by itself is also known to cause black extension, eg black wool in sheep. The following from R. Okimoto:
Quote:
The most dominant allele at this locus is the E extended black allele. It differs from wild-type e+ by two mutations that change the amino acid sequence of the gene (Met71Thr and Glu92Lys).....

...Our hypothesis is that you need both mutations to get the blackest bird and that if you have only the Glu92Lys you end up with the birchin black phenotype.


But the problem is that some scientists don't seem to recognise this, ie 3 different MC1R sequences giving black downed chicks and black extension to adults.

---------------------

Bit off topic, but for Terry ....
Originally Posted By: Terry
But then your point that slight differences which do not at first seem important in creating change in the base phenotype, might interract different with other mutations - particularly any that have direct functional involvment with MC1R - like Agouti (when they find it - could it be Mh or Co?). That has great merit. and Pg must have some interraction with MC1R as well.


Co was DNA tested against ASIP (Agouti), and found not to be a mutation of ASIP....

Characterization of Japanese Quail yellow as a Genomic Deletion Upstream of the Avian Homolog of the Mammalian ASIP (agouti) Gene.
(Genetics 178: 777–786 (February 2008))
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/777
Quote:

ASIP expression in chicken: Dorsal and ventral skin samples were taken from 10 chickens, 2 males with a mottled phenotype and 8 females with a Columbian phenotype.

......The presence of an apparently functional ASIP gene in chickens poses the question of why no good candidates for mutations at this gene are known among the large numbers of described pigmentation variants (Smyth 1990).



I wonder if Co (or maybe even Mh) is on CBD103 (K locus in dogs)? In dogs, there are three alleles on CBD103: K^bk (dominant black), k^br (brindle), k^y (yellow- phaeomelanin). Plus research suggests the dominant red mutation occurring in Canadian Holstein cattle may be Beta-defensin related too (DEFB103).

A couple more candidates for red intensifiers:
ATRN (Mahogany in mice)
MGRN1 (Mahoganoid in mice)

Db turned out an unusual one, a mutation on SOX10, and not previously known to give a Db like phenotype in other species.

Top
#102531 - 02/27/12 09:00 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
KazJaps said
"Co was DNA tested against ASIP (Agouti), and found not to be a mutation of ASIP...."

Are you referring to the report that ASIP expression was found in 8 Columbian fowl. This does not preclude Co as being Agouti, since only null mutations of Agouti would block ASIP expression, other alleles would still have expression, just altered in some way, but still likely to show up in their test for its presence.

It is interesting that a number of studies in mice and Jap quail show that MC1R is epistatic for Agouti if MC1R is occupied by an extended black allele. It seems the continuous expression of MC1R in these cases prevents ASIP from having any action. This would correlate with the view that Co has no action on ER.

But also your other suggestion of CBD103, it is also modulated through MC1R, which is epistatic to it in similar circumstances as well. An interesting comment I found in the article on the K locus in dogs was :-

"CBD103 is a member of a large family of secreted peptides with structures similar to that of Agouti and is highly expressed in dog skin."

Whilst the normal function of any one of these similar peptides might not have anything to do with pigmentation, if they are so similar to Agouti, then mutation could alter their function in some cases and result in effects on plumage. Therefore the possibilities are enormous and no doubt we will be surprised when the true identity of the Co locus is found.

Top
#105972 - 10/12/12 05:49 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
tyuks Offline
Feather

Registered: 01/13/11
Posts: 24
Loc: Hungary
So if I am getting the odd wheaten (like 1 in 4) from wildfarbig x brown leghorns (that I suspect may have some eb based on irregular eye stripes) does this mean:

A. One of the parents is e+/eWh and a melanizer from the wildfarbig (I think Ml from the black heads)is making it recessive? And the wheaten offspring are e+/eWh that don't carry the melanizer?

or

B. Both parents are e+/eWh and it is acting as a simple recessive in the presence of melanizers?

or both A and B

or this is the debatable ey.

Two generations ago I had the first one pop up in purchased Araucana eggs (supposedly pure but I hatched a straight comb in the same batch, so who knows). She is the grandmother of this batch. She was yellow down with thin black dorsal stripes. Like matchstick thin. She was also Co/co and red enhanced.

The one wheaten hen I've kept has willow shanks. Dad was id+/Id.

Top
#105973 - 10/12/12 06:33 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: tyuks]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Hi tyuks. As far as I know nobody can answer your question with certainty. You are actually in a position to tell us once you find out. It would be lovely if you could make some crosses to pure e+.

Top
#105974 - 10/12/12 07:56 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
tyuks Offline
Feather

Registered: 01/13/11
Posts: 24
Loc: Hungary
Funny, I'm sort of a roo collector, and that's the one thing I don't have. Out of 10 different phenos. The 3 e+ I have have Mh or Ml or B.
I'll have to pick up a brown leghorn roo at the open air market this Sunday. End of season... should be cheap.
Thanks for the reply.

Top
#105988 - 10/13/12 08:18 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: tyuks]
Lanae Offline
Chicken

Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 123
Loc: Willits, California
Hi Tyuks,

The standard color of the black breasted red araucana here in the US calls for a bird based on wheaten, but with Mh. Which is a darker color than the wheatens you find in other breeds. That correct color has all but been lost out to the breeding of the wild type bbr in the araucana. I find it wonderful that you have hatched a wheaten hen. There is a book written about araucana and it states that the correct wheaten color will pop up in wild type breedings from time to time and you can breed the wheatens together to stabilize the color and then only wheatens will hatch. So it sounds like it is some sort of hidden recessive.

Lanae

Top
#105989 - 10/13/12 08:54 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: KazJaps]
SilverSilkie Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 1125
Loc: Belgium
Originally Posted By: KazJaps
Just one more comment on MC1R sequences of E and ER alleles.....

Going from memory, the Leu133Gln mutation (found in ER-Fayoumi) was sequenced quite early on. This was a unique MC1R mutation, not known to occur in mammals. The Glu92Lys (E92K) mutation was also sequenced early. This mutation has occurred in other species, eg causes black fur in mice. So when this same MC1R Glu92Lys mutation was found in chickens (before E), its not surprising to find someone calling it E - for extension/extended black, when comparing the mutation with other species. But then comes along another chicken MC1R sequence where they find two mutations that have occurred in other species, the previous Glu92Lys mutation coupled with a second one Met71Thr. Met71Thr by itself is also known to cause black extension, eg black wool in sheep. The following from R. Okimoto:
Quote:
The most dominant allele at this locus is the E extended black allele. It differs from wild-type e+ by two mutations that change the amino acid sequence of the gene (Met71Thr and Glu92Lys).....

...Our hypothesis is that you need both mutations to get the blackest bird and that if you have only the Glu92Lys you end up with the birchin black phenotype.


But the problem is that some scientists don't seem to recognise this, ie 3 different MC1R sequences giving black downed chicks and black extension to adults.




(Glu92Lys, Met71Thr) = E/E (Extended Black)
(Glu92Lys) = ER/ER (Birchen)
(Met71Thr) = ?/? (Black with leakage) ?

Top
#105998 - 10/13/12 12:54 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Lanae]
tyuks Offline
Feather

Registered: 01/13/11
Posts: 24
Loc: Hungary
Originally Posted By: Lanae
Hi Tyuks,

The standard color of the black breasted red araucana here in the US calls for a bird based on wheaten, but with Mh. Which is a darker color than the wheatens you find in other breeds. That correct color has all but been lost out to the breeding of the wild type bbr in the araucana. I find it wonderful that you have hatched a wheaten hen. There is a book written about araucana and it states that the correct wheaten color will pop up in wild type breedings from time to time and you can breed the wheatens together to stabilize the color and then only wheatens will hatch. So it sounds like it is some sort of hidden recessive.

Lanae

Hi Lanae,
I was sure I remembered reading something (before I read this thread) about Araucana having recessive wheaten. This hen is rather dark, more like the cubalaya type wheaten. She has some black ticking in her back.

She may have Mh, but she's a different color than other red enhanced wheatens I have hatched (Marans). The Marans are definitely more on the red side (like your industrial layers. But I think it could be Mh as the cockerels I hatched with her had some restriction in the breast, teardrop spangling in the wild types. I may breed her back to her father who is e+ and see what I get.

All the pure wheaten araucanas I see here now are the typical darker hackle, wheaten upper half/ cream lower half that is typical wheaten. European Araucanas (no ameraucanas here) often have beards/muffs.

Top
#105999 - 10/13/12 01:11 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: tyuks]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
Just wanted to add, that double dose of Ml make the wheaton colour on females darker, too, without eumelanizing it(according to some studies)

Top
#106004 - 10/13/12 08:57 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Lanae Offline
Chicken

Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 123
Loc: Willits, California
Tyuks,

I would love to see a pic of your wheaten hen. You can send it to my email at lanaecash@yahoo.com if you would like. I will soon be posting new pictures of my wheatens to my website www.cashsblueeggs.com right now I only have pictures of the really dark ones on there.

I had read that the araucana Black Breasted Red was based on recessive wheaten also, but cannot remember where I read it. It is the same wheaten as the Black Breasted Red Cubalaya, Black Breasted Red Malay, and the Black Breasted Red Aseel but each of them varry in darkness with the Cubalaya and the Araucana being the lightest of this type of wheaten.

Wieslaw,

My wheatens are super dark and it is a real struggle for me. I have been told repeatedly to hatch alot of eggs and choose the best but my wheatens are poor layers so the process of lightening them up thru selection is long and laborous. I have recently purchased two of what I hope to be genetically correct wheaten roosters and will begin hatching in earnest this fall. I just set 8 eggs from two of my wheaten hens in my incubator. Hopefully egg production will pick up as I have 12 wheaten hens and only 1 is close to correctly colored.

Not cool to hear that Ml could be what is affecting my hens. Here I was just thinking they were too mahogany and now something else to consider.

Lanae

Top
#117013 - 02/13/18 01:40 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Lanae]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
I have one barred wheaten who segregated from creles.

Coming back to eWh, it was written in old documents, that eWh cocks were supposed to have white underfluff in contrast to all other e-locus genes.
On one of the sites on wheaten marans it is said, that they are dominant wheaten, but it is stated , that their underfluff is dark grey. Can anybody confirm it?

Top
#117017 - 02/18/18 08:14 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Smooth Mule Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 02/13/10
Posts: 660
Loc: Missouri
I can ask my friend about hers..
this would be the Black Copper variety, correct?



Edited by Smooth Mule (02/18/18 08:15 AM)
Edit Reason: addition

Top
#117020 - 02/18/18 09:32 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Smooth Mule]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3844
Loc: Denmark
No, not Black Copper. Wheaten. You can ask your friend, if anybody crossed it to Brown Leghorn or Welsummer, and what was the result

http://www.maransofamericaclub.com/wheaten-marans.html

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >


Moderator:  Admin @ The Coop, Henk69 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 86 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box