Enigma trait expression

[giantkeeper]

wow...there is a lot of genetics misunderstanding in this thread............

I will try to make a relatively quick rundown of very basic genetics.......

A dominant allele is a form of a gene that will hide a different allele ("form") of the same gene. A dominant allele in either a homozygous (2 of the same allele) or heterozygous (2 different alleles) arrangement will produce the SAME appearance.

A recessive allele is a form of a gene that will be hidden by a different allele ("form") of the same gene. A recessive allele will not be visible in a heterozygous genotype, and will ONLY be expressed as a visible phenotype when the animal is homozygous.

With incomplete and codominant alleles you have 3 different appearances, 2 different homozygous and a heterozygous. The heterozygous is some sort of appearance that's between the 2 homozygous appearances.

Heterozygous is PURELY a genetics term referring to the ARRANGEMENT of alleles that an animal has....it does NOT equate to the animal's appearance...any animal with 2 different alleles is heterzygous regardless of what the appearance is. When you are dealing with a dominant gene you have homozygous and heterozygous dominant animals that both have the same appearance but DIFFERENT genetics...the terms homozygous and heterozygous allow you to differentiate which is which. With a recessive allele the term heterozygous allows you to tell if an animal is carrying the recessive form.

With any of the possibilities you have 3 different genetic combination possibilities... Two homozygous, and a heterozygous.....if you use "A" and "a" as symbols, with A being dominant and a being recessive, they would appear as AA, Aa, and aa. AA is homozygous dominant, Aa is heterozygous dominant, and aa is homozygous recessive. AA and Aa will produce the SAME appearance if you are dealing with a dominant gene.

When breeding if you breed a homozygous dominant animal to a homozygous recessive animal (which i will just refer to as recessive now...) you will get
.......A.....A
a....Aa....Aa
a....Aa....Aa
The result in this case is going to be 100% heterozygous dominant animals that will all have the same appearance as the homozygous dominant parent.

When breeding a heterozygous dominant animal to a recessive animal you will get
......A.....a
a....Aa...aa
a....Aa...aa
The result here is 50% heterozygous dominant animals with the same appearance as the heterozygous dominant parent...and 50% recessive animals the same appearance as the recessive parent.

When breeding a heterozygous dominant animal to another heterozygous dominant animal you will get
......A.....a
A....AA...Aa
a....Aa...aa
The result here is that you get 75% animals with the same appearance as the parents, about 66% of them will be heterozygous dominant and 33% will be homozygous dominant. You will also get 25% recessive animals that will NOT look like the parents.......which means even when breeding two animals with an appearance caused by a dominant gene you will NOT always get 100% dominant offspring.

now...if you breed a homozygous dominant with a heterozygous dominant you will get
......A.....a
A....AA...Aa
A....AA...Aa
NOW you will get ALL dominant appearing offspring...and 50% will be heterozygous dominant and 50% homozygous dominant.

If you breed 2 homozygous dominant animals you will get 100% homozygous dominant offspring with the same appearance as the parents. if you breed 2 recessive animals you will produce 100% recessive offspring.

Genes with a "super" form are NOT simple dominant...they are either codominant or incompletely dominant.

This is NOT theory, this is fact when dealing with simple genetics. There can be many other factors such as linkage and multiple genes leading to one appearance...but that is how simple genes work. If enigma is a simple dominant morph then breeding an enigma to a normal will produce EITHER 50% normals and 50% enigmas OR 100% enigmas....you would ONLY get 100% enigmas if the enigma parent is homozygous dominant....and you would not be able to tell by looking at them which is homozygous and which is heterozygous because they would both look the same.

At any rate....I hope that made sense is helpful to at least one person.....lol

Wow, I missed some GREAT post's!

 

[bro paul]

OK...so I'm not that good with genetics...and while all this is interesting, I'm still having a hard time finding an answer to this question:

Some of you have probably seen my other post on my first enigma hatchling. It turned out to be a Red Eyed Enigma (Bell line)...and the sibling was a normal banded. The mother was an Enigma (non-red eye), obviously het for Bell, and the father was a jungle Bell albino. My question is this...can I also hatch out non-red eyed Enigmas from this pair? Or will the enigma trait only be expressed as the red-eyed version. I would imagine that since the Bell albino trait is recessive that I could just "miss the odds" and hatch normal enigmas too, right? Help me out here...

 

[Gregg M]

My question is this...can I also hatch out non-red eyed Enigmas from this pair? Or will the enigma trait only be expressed as the red-eyed version. I would imagine that since the Bell albino trait is recessive that I could just "miss the odds" and hatch normal enigmas too, right? Help me out here...

Paul, I do not see why you would not hatch non-red eyed Enigmas that are 100% Bell albino... I think you got lucky with the red eyed Enigma you hatched... I think the odds are more favorable to hatch non-red eyeds...

 

[cjreptiles]

OK...so I'm not that good with genetics...and while all this is interesting, I'm still having a hard time finding an answer to this question:

Some of you have probably seen my other post on my first enigma hatchling. It turned out to be a Red Eyed Enigma (Bell line)...and the sibling was a normal banded. The mother was an Enigma (non-red eye), obviously het for Bell, and the father was a jungle Bell albino. My question is this...can I also hatch out non-red eyed Enigmas from this pair? Or will the enigma trait only be expressed as the red-eyed version. I would imagine that since the Bell albino trait is recessive that I could just "miss the odds" and hatch normal enigmas too, right? Help me out here...

You should hatch out 50% albinos (be it red-eyed enigmas or just standard Bell albinos) and 50% non-albinos, as from your first two offspring you have already proven that the enigma is het. for Bell (as well as being the heterozygous form of enigma).

 

[Sandra]

Some of you have probably seen my other post on my first enigma hatchling. It turned out to be a Red Eyed Enigma (Bell line)...and the sibling was a normal banded. The mother was an Enigma (non-red eye), obviously het for Bell, and the father was a jungle Bell albino. My question is this...can I also hatch out non-red eyed Enigmas from this pair? Or will the enigma trait only be expressed as the red-eyed version. I would imagine that since the Bell albino trait is recessive that I could just "miss the odds" and hatch normal enigmas too, right? Help me out here...

From that cross the odds are:
25% enigma het Bell
25% Bell enigma
25% Bell albino
25% normal het bell

Thats what I am getting at... I think the people who are trying to help people understand the genetics are confusing people more than helping them with the het thing... Why call an Enigma a het for Enigma??? You know if you breed and Enigma to a normal, you are always going to get Enigmas...

Because it changes the results of the breeding. Or are you telling me that it's the same getting 100% enigma offspring that getting 50%? Maybe you don't care but I would!

I'm not saying that we should call all the enigmas het.enigma when we are talking normally, but it does matter if we are talking about genetics and breeding.

I also think that it would be insteresting that we labeled the enigma hatchlings from an enigma x enigma cross as 33% poss. homo. It could be interesting for some people.

And I don't know why do you think that we are confusing people with our explanations. What it's really confusing is when people describes hets as animals carrying a recessive gene but not showing it. That's just untrue. Maybe you don't care about understanding genetics but I'm sure that some people are finding these posts very interesting.

 

[Gregg M]

And I don't know why do you think that we are confusing people with our explanations. What it's really confusing is when people describes hets as animals carrying a recessive gene but not showing it. That's just untrue. Maybe you don't care about understanding genetics but I'm sure that some people are finding these posts very interesting.

You are 100% correct... I was wrong in my original thinking... All I am saying now at this point is that it can be confusing to people who do not grasp genetics well... Like I said, Stina explained it the best so far and put it in terms that even people who have no understanding of genetics could understand...
Basicly if you have an Enigma and you breed it to a normal there is a chance you can produce either 50% Enigmas or 100% Enigmas... That is if Enigmas are a true dominant gene...

I do have an OK grasp on how some gentics work and I do find it interesting... Your posts are good and informative as well as correct... I just think it can be confusing the way you explain it... I have to admit, I was a little thrown off at first...

From that cross the odds are:
25% enigma het Bell
25% Bell enigma
25% Bell albino
25% normal het bell

Now this I am not too sure about... I think the chances of producing a red eyed Enigma from this pairing is less than producing a non-red eyed Enigma...

 

[Sandra]

Now this I am not too sure about... I think the chances of producing a red eyed Enigma from this pairing is less than producing a non-red eyed Enigma...

Mm... I don't think so. Let's separate the two genes. We have on one hand an het. enigma and a normal, and on the other hand a Bell albino and an het. Bell.

Enigma x normal = 50% enigmas, 50% normals
Bell albino x het. Bell albino = 50% Bell albinos, 50% normals het. Bell

Then you have the same possibility of getting Bell albinos than getting non-albinos. Then theoretically there's the same possibility of getting red eyed enigmas than getting normal enigmas.

 

[Grinning Geckos]

Sandra is right again. I didn't want to spend the time doing the work myself, so I asked the genetics wizard! www.geneticswizard.com

From Paul's breeding...

Het. Enigma, Het. Bell,
x
Homozygous Bell,



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

25% Het. Bell, (aka normal)
25% Homozygous Bell,
25% Het. Enigma, Het. Bell, (aka standard enigma)
25% Het. Enigma, Homozygous Bell, (AKA red-eye)

 

[giantkeeper]

wow...there is a lot of genetics misunderstanding in this thread............

I will try to make a relatively quick rundown of very basic genetics.......

A dominant allele is a form of a gene that will hide a different allele ("form") of the same gene. A dominant allele in either a homozygous (2 of the same allele) or heterozygous (2 different alleles) arrangement will produce the SAME appearance.

A recessive allele is a form of a gene that will be hidden by a different allele ("form") of the same gene. A recessive allele will not be visible in a heterozygous genotype, and will ONLY be expressed as a visible phenotype when the animal is homozygous.

With incomplete and codominant alleles you have 3 different appearances, 2 different homozygous and a heterozygous. The heterozygous is some sort of appearance that's between the 2 homozygous appearances.

Heterozygous is PURELY a genetics term referring to the ARRANGEMENT of alleles that an animal has....it does NOT equate to the animal's appearance...any animal with 2 different alleles is heterzygous regardless of what the appearance is. When you are dealing with a dominant gene you have homozygous and heterozygous dominant animals that both have the same appearance but DIFFERENT genetics...the terms homozygous and heterozygous allow you to differentiate which is which. With a recessive allele the term heterozygous allows you to tell if an animal is carrying the recessive form.

With any of the possibilities you have 3 different genetic combination possibilities... Two homozygous, and a heterozygous.....if you use "A" and "a" as symbols, with A being dominant and a being recessive, they would appear as AA, Aa, and aa. AA is homozygous dominant, Aa is heterozygous dominant, and aa is homozygous recessive. AA and Aa will produce the SAME appearance if you are dealing with a dominant gene.

When breeding if you breed a homozygous dominant animal to a homozygous recessive animal (which i will just refer to as recessive now...) you will get
.......A.....A
a....Aa....Aa
a....Aa....Aa
The result in this case is going to be 100% heterozygous dominant animals that will all have the same appearance as the homozygous dominant parent.

When breeding a heterozygous dominant animal to a recessive animal you will get
......A.....a
a....Aa...aa
a....Aa...aa
The result here is 50% heterozygous dominant animals with the same appearance as the heterozygous dominant parent...and 50% recessive animals the same appearance as the recessive parent.

When breeding a heterozygous dominant animal to another heterozygous dominant animal you will get
......A.....a
A....AA...Aa
a....Aa...aa
The result here is that you get 75% animals with the same appearance as the parents, about 66% of them will be heterozygous dominant and 33% will be homozygous dominant. You will also get 25% recessive animals that will NOT look like the parents.......which means even when breeding two animals with an appearance caused by a dominant gene you will NOT always get 100% dominant offspring.

now...if you breed a homozygous dominant with a heterozygous dominant you will get
......A.....a
A....AA...Aa
A....AA...Aa
NOW you will get ALL dominant appearing offspring...and 50% will be heterozygous dominant and 50% homozygous dominant.

If you breed 2 homozygous dominant animals you will get 100% homozygous dominant offspring with the same appearance as the parents. if you breed 2 recessive animals you will produce 100% recessive offspring.

Genes with a "super" form are NOT simple dominant...they are either codominant or incompletely dominant.

This is NOT theory, this is fact when dealing with simple genetics. There can be many other factors such as linkage and multiple genes leading to one appearance...but that is how simple genes work. If enigma is a simple dominant morph then breeding an enigma to a normal will produce EITHER 50% normals and 50% enigmas OR 100% enigmas....you would ONLY get 100% enigmas if the enigma parent is homozygous dominant....and you would not be able to tell by looking at them which is homozygous and which is heterozygous because they would both look the same.

At any rate....I hope that made sense is helpful to at least one person.....lol

Christina,

Did I mention, I love this post? Anyhow, thank you for taking the time to lay this out for myself and everyone here.

Can you take it a step further and clarify the difference between Incomplete Dominance, and Co-dominance for me? For example, where does the Mack snow fall into place. The way I understand that type of trait, it is Co-dom...correct? What is an example of incomplete if that is the case as it relates to Leopard Geckos?

 

[Sandra]

Chris, I also had trouble understanding those two different types of mutation but it's very well explained in http://www.reptiliangems.com

Incomplete Dominance: When there is a blending of the two parental phenotypes, producing third phenotype different than either parent. One classic example of Incomplete Dominance, is when breeding some flowers, crossing a red flower with a white flower, produces a pink flower. In this case, one allele dominates the other, but only partially, producing a third intermediate phenotype, intermediate between those of the parents.

Co-Dominance: Is when both parental traits are FULLY expressed in the offspring. An example of Co-Dominance often given, is in cattle when one parent has red fur, and the other has white fur, the offspring is born with both red and white fur. As with Incomplete Dominance, a third phenotype is produced, but there is no blending. In other words, the red fur is still red, and the white fur is still white, but they are both present together. There is no blending with Co-Dominant traits. Because neither Allele dominates the other, they are both expressed fully in the first generation. In the example of the red and white cattle, the red hair is still red, and the white hair is still white, but they are both present together (hence the term Co-Dominant).

 

[StinaKSU]

Wow I'm so glad my explanation post seemed to be helpful to people!

Sandra, those are nice simple explanations Unfortunately codom and incomplete dom. aren't quite that simple in most situations...lol The fact of the matter is that the line between the two often blurs and you really can't distinguish between them a lot of the time. As far as leopard gecko genetics go all of the codom/incomplete dom traits are being claimed as codominant......I don't know that I agree with that...but it doesn't really matter either way when breeding. The outcome either way is some sort of "in between" trait between the homozygous traits.

 

[giantkeeper]

Wow I'm so glad my explanation post seemed to be helpful to people!

Sandra, those are nice simple explanations Unfortunately codom and incomplete dom. aren't quite that simple in most situations...lol The fact of the matter is that the line between the two often blurs and you really can't distinguish between them a lot of the time. As far as leopard gecko genetics go all of the codom/incomplete dom traits are being claimed as codominant......I don't know that I agree with that...but it doesn't really matter either way when breeding. The outcome either way is some sort of "in between" trait between the homozygous traits.

Chris, I also had trouble understanding those two different types of mutation but it's very well explained in http://www.reptiliangems.com

Thanks a ton to both you! I imagine this blurry line is what leads to a lot of the genetics confusion..

Thanks again!!!!!

 

[giantkeeper]

Chris, I also had trouble understanding those two different types of mutation but it's very well explained in http://www.reptiliangems.com

Holy crap...I have never seen it laid out that way.......

Half of what I think I know is wrong, and the other half is a lie :stars:

 

[StinaKSU]

Glad to be helpful

I just read some of reptilian gems stuff and I like these people!...lol I agree with them that none of the traits being called codom are....but I usually don't get into that b/c I've gotten into arguments with people (alex hue) over it and I honestly feel that it really doesn't matter anyway. Usually I just give people the definitions and let them decide for themselves. Also, as far as using the term "super" goes I don't really see any fault in it....its not a proper genetics term...but it gets the point across. The term I have a problem with is calling the heterozygotes codominants/codoms...at least when also using the term super...as far as I'm concerned the terms are incompatible and if you call one super you should call the other non-super or regular or something... likewise if you call the heterozygotes codominant you should call the homozygous form homozygous. That's just my opinion htough....

 

[[Username]]

Who'd a thought when I woke up I was gonna get a genetics lesson like this. Good job explaining things Stina and Sandra. Its all alot clearer now!

 

[bro paul]

Thanks for the help. I just wasn't sure if the Enigma trait interacted differently with the Bell gene (from what we are used to). The whole trait seems very odd and I've talked a bit with Kelli about what may actually be going on with it...and I'm still confused (but excited). I mean, many have stated that the red eye is a form of occular albinism...especially evident in the Red Eyed Enigmas (ree) that have dark (black) spotting (hence the name Enigma)...but I've also seen some REEs that look like albinos on the body as well...admittedly they have dark spotting, but it's the brown/maroon that's often seen on Bells anyway. Well, enough rambling...it's going to be fun seeing how this all plays out... (especially when combined with other morphs)

 

[trizzypballr]

Technically if what people are speculating is true about Enigmas being dominant, we will have to wait until someone actully has breeding size male enigmas considering that anyone who bought one, except maybe kelli? was only able to get a female. So if they hatch a male, and the gene is dominant, the genotype of the male could actully only be (Ee) so this means that if it is a true dominant trait, when breeding a male and a female together, as long as the female isnt pure (EE) as oviously bro pauls isnt, both parents would be (Ee) meaning with enough breeding, there should be somewhere around a 1 in 4 chance that breeding the enigma to enigma, there will be a normal pop out. I think thats the simplest way to prove the gene to be dominant The only way it could throw the test off is if its a pure enigma female, but like I mentioned above you will be able to tell if she is or not by if she throws any normals or not her first year producing the male

 

[Gregg M]

Mm... I don't think so. Let's separate the two genes. We have on one hand an het. enigma and a normal, and on the other hand a Bell albino and an het. Bell.

Enigma x normal = 50% enigmas, 50% normals
Bell albino x het. Bell albino = 50% Bell albinos, 50% normals het. Bell

Then you have the same possibility of getting Bell albinos than getting non-albinos. Then theoretically there's the same possibility of getting red eyed enigmas than getting normal enigmas.

Well arent we the genetics expert... LOL

I thank you for the correction and the explaination...:main_thumbsup:

Sometimes I am a dummy when things are not layed out and put infront of me... I was thinking the odds were smaller to get a red eyed Enigma from a het to poss het breeding... It actually is... I was not taking into account that Pauls was a def het... Thats where I became confused... Oh well...

I still dont think het Enigmas should be called "hets"... LOL

Thanks again Sandra!!!

 

[trizzypballr]

Well arent we the genetics expert... LOL



I still dont think het Enigmas should be called "hets"... LOL

Thanks again Sandra!!!

Im sure that the single allele Enigma isnt even considered at het, becuase its not recessive, until we can find the correct term for a dominant gene with only 1 of the allele showing the gene, i thing we should refer to them as single allele and double allele Enigmas

 

[GroovyGeckos.com]

I have all the answers but I am not sharing!

:main_laugh: I am with Jeremy, on this.