To take the Sour D project one step further, I have this project flow in mind:
-
Identification of the ‘real’ Sour D cuts using whole genome sequencing based on comparison to Chemdog 91, AJ’s Sour D, and agreed upon Sour D trait identification @silverstudent suggested
-
Detection of DNA methylation through tissue culture of the selected Sour D cuts and the Chemdawg 91 cut. (This step may be unnecessary because it’s probably safe to assume the ~27-30-year-old genetic age of the cuts has introduced significant senescence-driven DNA methylation.)
-
Restore clonal fidelity of the selected Sour D cuts and Chemdog 91 with genome-wide epigenetic reprogramming through passive or active DNA demethylation during tissue culture regeneration. And at the same time, eliminate any diseases affecting clone health and phenotype expression (fungi, bacteria, viruses, and viroids). So they grow, smell, taste, and produce cannabinoids like (or close to) the first Sour D and Chemdog 91 moms of the early '90s. (Assuming somatic mutations aren’t causing clonal decay and fidelity loss, a.k.a. in bro science as “genetic drift.”)
@silverstudent @cyclopath, are somatic mutations a concern regarding whole genome sequencing when identifying the ‘real’ Sour D cuts? In other words, could they skew results making identification more difficult?
Some interesting resources:
What is Genetic Drift and How Does it Apply to Cloning and Micro-propagation?
Accumulation of somatic mutations leads to genetic mosaicism in cannabis
Age-associated alterations in the somatic mutation and DNA methylation levels in plants
First Insights Into the Virus and Viroid Communities in Hemp (Cannabis sativa)
Active DNA demethylation: mechanism and role in plant development
Yes, that would be great. I’ll DM you in the near future for the introduction. Thank you!