Apart from the 'why', please can someone explain to me why the cloned cow is not the same colour as the one it was cloned from? I mean, it is black and white the same, but the patches are different. In the more usual clones (like Sunflower and DrWeevil) colouring also tends to be the same. Although do identical twins have things like identical moles, or are those sort of things totally random?
I haven't seen pictures but I think the cow born was from a cloned embryo imported and implanted into a cow here so it wouldn't look like its 'mother' If you mean why doens't it look like the cow it was cloned from I have no idea - perhaps cow coat pattern isn't genetic in that 'spotty' may be inherited but 'distibution of spots' is down to some other factors?
As for 'normal' clones colouring etc are the same but lots of things are different whihc is why weevil and I don't actually look alike
Dolly was not the first cloned sheep. She was the first animal cloned from an adult cell rather then an embryonic cell. Megan and Morag were the first cloned sheep and came before Dolly.
I met Dolly at university as part of a project on cloning - along with Megan and Morag and some other sheep. The 'Dolly was the first cloned sheep' is my pet hate and was the first time I ever emailed a certain News broadcaster to complain
[ QUOTE ]
LOL - ask you sister where I get my info from...
[/ QUOTE ]
PMSL - That explains a lot
Found this in an old email and it made me laugh,
[ QUOTE ]
Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was slightly grey,
It didn't have a father,
Just some borrowed DNA.
It sort of had a mother,
Though the ovum was on loan,
It was not so much a lambkin,
As a little lamby clone.
And soon it had a fellow clone,
And soon it had some more,
They followed her to school one day,
All cramming through the door.
It made the children laugh and sing,
The teachers found it droll,
There were too many lamby clones,
For Mary to control.
No other could control the sheep,
Since their programs didn't vary,
So the scientists resolved it all,
By simply cloning Mary.
But now they feel quite sheepish,
Those scientists unwary,
One problem solved, but what to do,
With Mary, Mary, Mary...
As the evil one has pointed out the cloned cow wasn't cloned from the "host mother" but also I'm not sure but maybe coat pattern is passed on through mitochondrial DNA not chromosomal DNA.
And identical twins do not have the same pattern of moles etc
Seeing as I am doing cloning in Biology atm I might aswell say something
Maybe because the cow they cloned produces good milk so if they clone that cow they will keep having good milk or it produces good offspring cloning them will mean they can keep producing good offsring
Well yes, the whole point of cloning the cow was to increase milk production. Think the reason this is on the news is because the embryo came from a clone and a bull and is not a clone itself but was implanted into another cow. Also, there is some debate about whether the scientists involved went through the correct channels to gain ethical approval. Also worth bearing in mind that genetics alone does not guarantee good milk production (nature vs nurture and all that...)
I have to confess that I did slightly lose interest reading about this, but then I loathed genetics at university (well, that's not entirely true. I liked the "disease of the day" but the actual science part was just DULL
The cow was clonned for economic purposes like everyone has already said. Bare in mind that ancient cattle were much smaller and stalls built at a livestock market in 1970 are already too small, so we are selecting bigger and bigger animals by selective breeding!
The reason is doesn't have exactly the same coat pattern as the original animal is because there is a gene for skewbald pattern but not location, so the positions of the colour patches vary. This occurs at a specific point during development and is affected by events during that time, including contribution from the surrigate mother(hormones etc). Mitochondiral DNA does not usually contain coat pattern info, as all animals would look like their mothers.
Human twins are not entirely genetically identical. Mutations occur throughout a persons life(& development) so clones end up less identical as time goes on. Twins have three main forms, depending on when the ball of cells divides, very early on creates identical twins, slightly later mirror image twins and later still is conjoined when the division is not totally successful.
Human twins are not entirely genetically identical. Mutations occur throughout a persons life(& development) so clones end up less identical as time goes on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, to all intents and purposes they are (at least monozygotic twins are). If you did very specific sequence analysis then there would be differences in DNA from identical twins due to random gene mutations, but then if you took two random cells from your body and did sequence analysis there would also be differences as most mutations are not germ-line.
Identical twins do get less alike with age but to what extent this is due to mutations in DNA as opposed to environment/epigenetics is debatable. However, it is still very difficult to tell differentiate between twins using conventional DNA fingerprinting techniques (though I think they can use mitochondrial DNA now).
You lot have got me laughing out lud at my desk in work...everyone now thinnks I am slightly mad....actually...they knew that...they now KNOW I am mad!!!
The only way identical twins can be accurately identified at DNA level is to look at the methylation patterns on certain genes (and also something complicated to do with MHC genes) though I don't know if this has been used in forensics yet or if they need to do more research on it first.