Ultra Mystery...

On the definition of "allele"

Alleles are different variations of the same gene. Ultrahypo and amelanistic would not be the same allele. There would be three different alleles -- the normal allele, the amelanistic allele, and the hypomelanistic allele. All of the three alleles have the same location in the genome, the a (for amelanistic) locus. Of course, no more than two of the three alleles would be found in any individual corn snake.

This assumes that ultrahypo and amelanistic are actually alleles.

I vote for tabling the name question until after ultrahypo and amelanistic are proven to be alleles.

Serpwidgets said:

This is why I wanted to make a genetics chapter that explains it from the ground up. IMO my book's Quick Genetics section will become more and more valuable as these types of new mutants are discovered. If you look at it in the way everyone likes to think of recessive traits, it's a bunch of total nonsense. If you look at it the "right" way, it totally falls into place.

The correct terminology is: (see also, page 18 of my book)
When a gene pair is made of two identical copies, it is homozygous.
When a gene pair is made of two different copies, it is heterozygous.
(Those are the only two cases that are possible. It is also impossible for them to be double homo or double hetero on a single locus.)

Therefore, Homozygotes are:
AA
aa
uu

and Heterozygotes are:
Aa
Au
au


It's the same situation as Motley Stripe. Check out the "Mag" demonstration of alleles on pages 16-17.

Click to expand...

Jackson Labs has a web page on gene nomenclature for the mouse at http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/gene.shtml. Sections 1 and 3 are the most useful to us. It has answers to questions that haven't been thought of in herp genetics.

Upper and lower case letters were all right for Mendel, but the system breaks down when there are three or more alleles at a given locus. Following the mouse genetics symbology, three alleles could be symbolized like so:
normal allele = a*+ (the letter a with a plus sign as a superscript)
ultrahypo = a*u (the letter a with the letter u as a superscript)
amelanistic = a

(I haven't been able to figure out how to actually do superscripts on this forum. So the * character serves to set off the superscript.)

A corn snake that is heterozygous ultrahypo/amelanistic would be a*u//a.

I haven't seen Serpwidget's book, yet, but the same principles would be followed for motley and its two alleles.

I have to vote with Paul at this point, hold off on naming until we get some more proof.

A couple of things:
1- You're welcome to use these for the superscripts.
(img)http://serpwidgets.com/freepics/au.gif(/img)

and
(img)http://serpwidgets.com/freepics/aplus.gif(/img)


So the genotypes would be
//
//a
//
a//a
//
a//



2- Not trying to be a wiseguy, but what specific breeding trial(s) would need to be done that haven't yet been reported? IIRC, a single cross of Motley X Stripe was sufficient proof that they're alleles. We're now looking at something like 25 crosses of Ultra stuff. What cross with what results would be necessary?

3- An "Ultramelanistic" corn would look like a black ratsnake...

I'm just thinking of another Bloodred fiasco, name something too quickly and it may end up being less then correct.

AMEN to avoiding impulsive names . . . .

It won't hurt to continue to solicit breeding data before we jump the gun and name this wrong. What if someone that has more data is on his/her summer vacation and could throw a wrench in the works in a few weeks? What do we gain by getting this situation name tagged "yesterday"?

Wild Type already has a name, Amel has a name, and Ultra has a name.

I think the only name that people are trying to figure out is what to call the presumed heterozygous a//. I'm not as concerned about that, because it's like arguing over what to call the offspring of Motley X Stripe. Personally, I will probably just call it Ultra/Amel.

It will be interesting to see if the // and a// genotypes can be visually identified and separated from clutches. I'm not sure it will always be possible, just like it's not possible to look at a motley and say that you know it doesn't have a striped parent, "just by looking at it."

Don, the odd (caramel/no caramel) results you posted earlier kinda fell out of sight/out of mind. My comment on that is that it's reasonable to think the caramel didn't pop up in the other clutch out of "bad luck." Definitely worth checking into, since there are two reasonable explanations.

-----

Rich, are these by chance related to the Ultra lines, too? The JPEGs are named "amel hypo."
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7444

Serpwidgets said:

Rich, are these by chance related to the Ultra lines, too? The JPEGs are named "amel hypo."
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7444

Click to expand...

Honestly, I have no idea. I noticed those pics a little while back and was curious about how those babies turned out. But darned if I could remember what clutches they came from nor if I even kept any of them. Sometimes when I get completely overwhelmed with babies, I just start throwing things into bags and shipping them out. So I guess they just turned out looking like regular Hypos, and I certainly didn't have any reason to hang onto them.

I tried a few years ago to take notes along with the picture taking sessions of the babies hatching out, but I soon learned that it does me no good at all if I lose those notes. :/

So, sorry, but I have no idea at all about those guys.

BTW, Chuck, good job figuring this one out. I still have some fuzziness around the edges about it, but hopefully I'll get some time to pose some questions when I can get my brain wrapped around it. In the meantime, what is needed to pretty much prove this? Might as well start making plans for breeding projects next season.

It will be very interesting to see if we'll be able to tell what is what in the Ultra/amel mutation. I have a feeling it will be very subtle, if decernable at all.
I wonder how this fits in with the T-/T+ albinism?

I can take credit for suggesting that an allele like this would eventually pop up, but I think Kat was the first to specifically suggest that UltraHypo could be an allele to Amel. She and Joe had at least discussed it as a possibility before I was involved in the conversation. All I did was run with the idea and try to find existing data to prove/disprove it.

Clint, the T+ was the one I was thinking about when I was dreaming of a hypo-like allele to amel. Maybe T+ is the same thing as UltraHypo and we don't know it yet. :shrugs:

Does anyone know of any of his tests or results with those?

Let's see... to /disprove/ the theory, we'd have to create a het ultra double homozygous amel that was provably so... not an easy task, actually...
Or to pair an ultra with an amel-morph and NOT get an expected number of ultras.
Or breed for F2s with presumed ultramels, and NOT get the expected results (true ultras, ultramels, amels).

Uh... hmm. Not sure what else... it's 8:40 in the morning, so my brain's not fully awake yet... lemme see if I think of anything better tonight.

-Kat

Looking back over the nice spreadsheet brilliantly created by Hurley, the second entry in for Mike Shivers says ultra X hypo equals = ultras?!?! How would this prove the current theory? Was the hypo perhaps het amel?

Also, the spreadsheet says Shivers crossed an Ultra Caramel het caramel(?) to an ultra caramel het caramel(?) and got butter motleys? and ultra caramel mots? Were the hets supposed to be motley? or the snakes were homozygous motley?:shrugs:

As far as proving the theory, i think we have substantial evidence for, but we might want to try and find some against, as Kat suggested. The ultra X amel morphs yeilding unexpected results would be good. Let me ponder some more...

It does get tricky doesn't it?

I'm glad you decided to bring this to this forum, I'm enjoying the ride even if I'm not involved.

The more data, the better. I had a pair of het Motleys bred last year and out of the dozen or so babies, not ONE was Motley! Well, this year about 50% were Motley from the same pair. If I had decided one was not het from one seasons breeding I would have been mistaken.

As far as naming goes, I'd like to see it develope slowly, something may turn up that is perfect. It usually just appears and sticks without trying.

P.S.

we'd have to create a het ultra double homozygous amel that was provably so

Click to expand...

Not trying to be nit picky but is this possible?
If my understanding is correct, there can only be 2 alleles at one locus making it impossible to have 2 amel and one Ultra at the same location.
Am I on the right track here?

Very true Clint! I don't think we need to search for or formulate a name... it'll just come with time. I too am enjoying the discussion even though I am not involved first hand . And I believe you are right, it can only be homo amel (aa) or het amel het ultra (a)

I was thinking about some breeding trials. Now please correct me. But what I understand is
=normal
a= het amel
=ultra (visual ultra)
aa=amel
= ultra (super ultra)
a= Ultramel

So if we breed:

--- a//(ultramel) X aa (amel)
we should yeild 50% ultramels, 50% amels.

--- X a
we should yield and a

correct?

Normal X Ultra = ?

Unless there is proof somewhere that I missed, isn't Ultra a simple recessive gene? Only compatible with the amel gene at the locus and not the normal gene?

There will be many issues that need ironing out as this is proven.

Technically, the Ultras in the spread sheet that are listed as Ultra het amel are really het Ultra het amel.

This will take some time.................

I just went through Hurley’s Spread Sheet and found 12 instances where Ultras X Homo Amels or het Amels resulted in hypo type Corns produced in the same clutch that were not expected by five different breeders. This is pretty strong evidence that the Ultras and Amels are alleles. There are more breedings between the two coming to add to or disprove Kat’s theory. I have emailed other breeders that I know of that have Ultras and hopefully we can get some more proof soon.

These 12 breedings can be explained away by the explanation that in each case the Ultras were also homo or het for Hypo AND the Corn that they were bred to was Homo or Het for Ultra or Hypo. That would be 24 possible Het situations that proved to be Hets in each and every case. These Corns were not known to be 50% or 66% chance possible hets, accept the Ultras have a remote chance to be het for many things. Most of these Corns were actually presumed to not be carrying the Hypo or Ultra genes.

In some of these breedings, the Ultras involved in the breedings have been proven to not be Homo or Het for Hypo. In these breedings, the only way to explain away the results is that the Corn they were bred to was Het or Homo for Ultra. The chances of this are slim to none. The Ultra gene is not wide spread.

There are many different levels of proof, but if Ultra X Amel or Het Amel breedings continue to produce Ultramels, how many breedings will it take to be acceptable proof? I do expect that a breeding between and Ultra X Het Amel or even and Amel, will eventually not produce an Ultramel, but this is totally expected considering the genetic match ups are total chance. Statistically, we might expect 2 or 4 Ultramels in a clutch, but it would not be all that odd to get zero, even if they are alleles. I once produced 10 out of 11 albinos from a Het amel X Het amel breeding which statistically is a very long shot at best.

If we get several more breedings between Ultras and Amels or Het amels that produce Utramels this year, it is going to be very convincing. Next year, I am sure that many Ultras will bred to Amels which will add volumes of proof. How many people out there have Amels that are het for Ultra or even Hypo. I have a couple that are known to be het for Hypo, but I have a lot that are known to not be carriers. We should start to get, and should already have gotten, many breedings that do not produce Ultramels if they are not alleles.

elaphe4herps said:

Looking back over the nice spreadsheet brilliantly created by Hurley, the second entry in for Mike Shivers says ultra X hypo equals = ultras?!?! How would this prove the current theory? Was the hypo perhaps het amel?

Also, the spreadsheet says Shivers crossed an Ultra Caramel het caramel(?) to an ultra caramel het caramel(?) and got butter motleys? and ultra caramel mots? Were the hets supposed to be motley? or the snakes were homozygous motley?

Click to expand...

Shivers results are very lacking because we don’t know the make up of the rest of the clutch. We have to interoperate his statements. I got the impression that since “every” time he bred Ultra X Hypo he produced “Hypos” indicated that the Ultra he used was het for Hypo. Shivers was trying to imply they were compatible, which we know they are not.

We don’t know how many Hypos were produce. If the entire clutch was hypo or if only a couple were produced we could come to different conclusions. Some of his Hypos could have been het for amel which would have given him the same results as if the Ultra was het for Hypo if the Ultra and Amels are alleles. We don’t know how many breedings “every time” is. Is it 1 or 20? It is probably only a couple.

It seems as if the Motley gene was bred into the Ultras by Andy Barr before Shivers got his hands on them, so some of Shivers Ultras were het for Motley and they matched up. I don‘t think that Shivers ever called his snakes Ultra Caramels. Both Shivers and Falcon called them Ultra “Ambers”, but they should have been calling them something different because an Amber is Homo for Caramel and Hypo. The Ultra “Ambers” are actually an Ultra Caramel until a new name is adopted like “GoldDust” which I am warming up to.

These Butters and Butter Motleys that Shivers produced from the Ultra Caramels, may be Butters or they could be Ultramel Caramels as well if Ultras and Amels are alleles. There seems to be more “Butters” or “Butter” Motleys that exist from this line than there should be statistically. About the only difference between the two would be a slight difference in eye color that may be very difficult to see when they are adults. Are the eyes pink or ruby?

I think that now that the connection has been made (or at least the possibility), the proof as we see it now in past breedings will show us the way to more definnitive proof.

I agree that the info in the spread sheet is pretty overwhelming and I'm not refuting it. As I study that sheet (Thanks Hurley!) it does seem to come together.