Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
Philip, you seem to be very doubtful SuperThrive is the culprit?
|
I'm merely wording things as carefully as I can.
I have no reason to doubt that Superthrive could be the culprit, and I've mentioned it many times.
If fact, didn't I tell you that you didn't need to use it? If I never suspected it as being a culprit, I would've been far more direct. I have no problems doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
It seems like anything related to it is anecdotal to you.
|
In lieu of a formal paper that is searchable about the subject matter, and considering how shaky the ingredient labeling can be for Superthrive, and prior to any knowledge of Ray's experiment, healthy skepticism is not out of line.
I never ruled out Superthrive as being a driving force in the floral deformities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
Based on Ray's experience where he voluntary administered Auxins and it caused deformed flowers, would you say that this is also a genetic mutation?
|
It doesn't rule out what is known about the expression and silencing of genes through the epigenetic process.
I did say whether or not there is a genetic mutation/genetic error, silencing and expression of genes can go through the process of epigenetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
It has nothing to do with the Auxins?
|
I have never implied this. In fact, I have implied quite the opposite. Have you read my statement about possible cloning effects? I believe you even quoted me on this. What do you believe is in cloning media? Cytokinins and auxins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
Are you saying all our plants have genetic mutations, but they don't appear unless triggered by Auxins?
|
Not in all cases, but you're not far off the mark.
I'd personally avoid overgeneralizing by using the words "all our plants".
Remember I mentioned that the histones have histone tails with epigenetic factors. Those epigenetic factors act as sites for chemical interactions with the external environment. Should there be a strong correlation between the use of Superthrive and the floral deformities, then the external environmental driver would be the synthetic auxins present in Superthrive. In other words, the auxin(s) in Superthrive could be activating those nucleosomes to move further away from each other when they interact with the epigenetic factors on the histone tails. This would allow for certain genes to be expressed more.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide a more detailed explanation that furthers this connection. I don't fully understand the biochemistry of epigenetics well enough, although I've heard the term methylation come up a few times in my biochemistry class when I was on the subject of genetics.
Whether that portion of the genetic material that is being expressed or silenced is genetically damaged or contains a genetic error that was made during the DNA replication process or not, it doesn't matter, one of the ways genes are expressed or silenced is through the epigenetic process.
So, yeah, your reasoning is not terribly off and it does explain why Superthrive is doing what it is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu
If that's the case, I'd consider the Auxins (or SuperThrive in my case) to be the root cause...
|
Hence why I say it is possible all the time. Why did you think I kept saying "I wouldn't be surprised if it is the culprit"?
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------
There is also a reason why I posted the links regarding the chemistry of the auxins. I knew that there was a carboxyl component to both auxins. It could play a part in methylation.
I was hoping a trained chemist could explain this further...