Lonelygirl15

trainer101 wrote:Loki,

Thanks for jumping in here. I think that what we are seeing in the TravelerJ/WalterD storyline are the efforts of the Order/OpAphid to pursue a track that would make the defective X (x) chromosome the dominant trait.

That'd kill the females too, then.

But I do think that the plotline will follow something close to that - too many coincidences, almost, for it not to.

Loki wrote:I remember learning about X-linked traits back in high school biology... we were learning about Punett Squares at the time. *frowns* Sometimes I wish I had a photographic memory, it would totally help when I'm trying to remember something like this...

X x

X XX Xx


Y XY xY


Where X is a normal chromosome and x is the affected one... 50% chance of an unaffected child being born, 25% chance of a female carrying the recessive, and 25% chance of a male with the disease... XSCID, was it?

Of course, that logic only holds if the trait really IS a recessive. If it's dominant, well, that's a whole nother story...

P.S. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, it was just sort of train-of-thought after reading through most of the posts around here. *is a bored migrant from the OpAphid ARG* I don't know much about DNA sequencing, but *shrugs*... maybe this is relevant, or maybe it's not... if not, feel free to ignore/delete it.

You made me look up recessive genes :p
So if:

both parents have to be carriers of a recessive trait in order for a child to express that trait

Then there would be entire generations bred to give birth to children with the genes? The male and female has to both carry it, yes? Am I the only one creeped out by the impending in-breeding?



And how would it be spread? hmmm


Hi Loki

TOSG wrote:

trainer101 wrote:Loki,

Thanks for jumping in here. I think that what we are seeing in the TravelerJ/WalterD storyline are the efforts of the Order/OpAphid to pursue a track that would make the defective X (x) chromosome the dominant trait.

That'd kill the females too, then.

But I do think that the plotline will follow something close to that - too many coincidences, almost, for it not to.

You're right, after I posted that I realized that what I meant was their intent to make the defective Y chromosome prevalent in the entire male population until there is no male population.

janesalteredstates wrote:
Then there would be entire generations bred to give birth to children with the genes? The male and female has to both carry it, yes? Am I the only one creeped out by the impending in-breeding?

In general for recessive traits, yes, both parents do need to be carriers (or sufferers) of the genetic disease. BUT, with X-linked diseases, only the mother needs to be a carrier. So, that opens up a lot of interesting possibilities for plot devices.

TOSG wrote:

janesalteredstates wrote:
Then there would be entire generations bred to give birth to children with the genes? The male and female has to both carry it, yes? Am I the only one creeped out by the impending in-breeding?

In general for recessive traits, yes, both parents do need to be carriers (or sufferers) of the genetic disease. BUT, with X-linked diseases, only the mother needs to be a carrier. So, that opens up a lot of interesting possibilities for plot devices.

Ah, oops. Answers my dumb question. Thanks

I just want to mention, I am so appreciative TOSG, and Trainer, of how patient and helpful you are with us who are so clueless about genetics. THANK YOU

I'm certainly no geneticist, but thanks! (I'm pretty good at wacky theories though)

trainer101 wrote:I'm certainly no geneticist, but thanks! (I'm pretty good at wacky theories though)

Ok, then, so tell me, are the Illuminati women who are breeding to eliminate men from the gene pool?

Luminous wrote:I just want to mention, I am so appreciative TOSG, and Trainer, of how patient and helpful you are with us who are so clueless about genetics. THANK YOU

Thanks!

Genetics isn't exactly my specialty, but I'm glad to share what I know.

Luminous wrote:

trainer101 wrote:I'm certainly no geneticist, but thanks! (I'm pretty good at wacky theories though)

Ok, then, so tell me, are the Illuminati women who are breeding to eliminate men from the gene pool?

That's a question for "BREE". (I know you know what I mean)

You know too much. I think you're canon

Time to to call it a night

This is a visual for the explanation of what has been said about sex-linked genes.


The sex-linked trait does not necessarily have to be recessive. There are some that are dominant, such as the human form of rickets. To understand sex-linked, one of the easier traits to notice is color blindness.

This is actually present in my family. My mother is one of the "rare" females that end up with both affected X chromosomes. Because she has two "bad" X's, no matter how many brothers I have, they will ALL be color blind. Because of my father though, I am not. He is not color blind and therefore has a normal X. I had to receive that normal x because I am female. This means that the chromosome I received from my father covers up the "bad" X I received from my mother.

I could go on and on about how there is a 50% chance of any boys I have being color blind, but that could get really confusing really quickly.

Overall, I hope that the image helps. I saw what loki had written and figured that this might be a little easier to understand.

Wow... I'm glad I could say something useful!

I think it's pretty easy to see how you could get 100% of male (and female) children with the recessive trait as a dominant within a few generations.

1st generation: Xx + XY (25%)
2nd generation: Xx + xY (50%, however 25% of female offspring will be affected, while the other 25% are carriers)
3rd generation: xx + xY (100% of offspring will be affected, no carriers)

The problem really is that there's no way to get 100% of male offspring to be affected without similarly affecting the female offspring.

Loki wrote:Wow... I'm glad I could say something useful!

I think it's pretty easy to see how you could get 100% of male (and female) children with the recessive trait as a dominant within a few generations.

1st generation: Xx + XY (25%)
2nd generation: Xx + xY (50%, however 25% of female offspring will be affected, while the other 25% are carriers)
3rd generation: xx + xY (100% of offspring will be affected, no carriers)

The problem really is that there's no way to get 100% of male offspring to be affected without similarly affecting the female offspring.

Affecting female offspring wouldn't be the only problem. In theory, it is possible to get 100%, but then there are problems with inbreeding. This in itself can cause so many problems. Somewhere in my room there is an article about an occurance in Utah where this two families would only marry each other. I'm not sure of when it started (it was either in the late 1800s or 1950s. At this late of night those random dates are sticking out) but in most recent years, there have been more occruances of mental retardation and disformities within the children.

In an organism, such as a human, it is difficult to strive to have 100% because along with that trait there are plenty more that come along for the ride (not to be confused with codominance). Another reason this can't work is because mutations can occur at any time. All it takes it just one little DNA base to chance an entire sequence.

Actually, if you start off with a large enough base pool, you wouldn't ever run into the problem of inbreeding.

Remember, it doesn't have to be just one pair, it could be 20, or 50, or 100 pairs...