Are designer clownfish more likely to die early?

[aaron186]

Are you by chance talking about German Shepards? These breeds reach weights of up to 90 pounds. A century ago they were almost half of that weight. No wonder they get hip and heart issues. Additionally they were actively bread to get this dislocated hip because it was aesthetically favorable.

Inbreeding doesn't amplify these issues. These issues were specifically selected by humans.

I’m a physician for reference. Anytime you inbreed something, and it doesn’t matter what species, you’re taking recessive genes and increasing the frequency of that expression.

Take this over simplified explanation - Let’s say hypothetically that I have a fish that is a carrier for a newly mutated gene for a heart defect… these mutations happen often but rarely produce a disease due to this:

Call the bad gene “b” and the good gene B. You need two copies of the bad gene to get the disease. 99% of fish have two good genes B/B. And the hypothetical new fish is now a carrier with the genetic make up of Bb. If the fish mates with the rest of population it will almost never produce a “bb” fish and 50% of the time produce another carrier that is Bb. Same odds occur next time those offspring produce a fish. The rate of carriers slightly increases but the chances of getting a bb diseased fish is very low and almost impossible.

Now let’s take that new fish with a mutation and inbreed it…

First offspring of a Bb x BB fish as stated above produces 50% Bb fish. Now I cross that fish with its offspring and I have a 50% chance I’m crossing a Bb with another Bb… there’s now a 1/4 chance I produced a fish with a heart defect. Then I mate that diseased fish with its offspring again…. the diseased fish has a 100% chance of passing a diseased gene and there’s a 1/2 chance the other inbred offspring is carrying. So in just 3 generations I’ve created a 50% chance of creating a new rare disease…. Amplify this with multiple genes and the possibility of new mutations too.

Hope this helps explain it a little better

 

[littlefoxx]

I adopted a darwin who is 12 and a black ice who is 6! I dont think they live any less than the normal clowns, not sure what happened to yours! Im sorry for your loss. However I do have a guy at my LFS that swears storms are dumb and constantly get themselves killed in power heads and stuff and die really really easy, but never seen that myself. We will see, Im getting a pair of storms soon and Ill let ya know if he is right or not, I just think he is a little nutty to be honest lol

 

[Tavero]

I think what they are getting at is unintended consequences.

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people seem to have the idea that inbreeding leads to more gene defects. But as a matter of fact, if someone is observing more genetic disorders during inbreeding, the defect were already present before that.

I’m a physician for reference. Anytime you inbreed something, and it doesn’t matter what species, you’re taking recessive genes and increasing the frequency of that expression.

Take this over simplified explanation - Let’s say hypothetically that I have a fish that is a carrier for a newly mutated gene for a heart defect… these mutations happen often but rarely produce a disease due to this:

Call the bad gene “b” and the good gene B. You need two copies of the bad gene to get the disease. 99% of fish have two good genes B/B. And the hypothetical new fish is now a carrier with the genetic make up of Bb. If the fish mates with the rest of population it will almost never produce a “bb” fish and 50% of the time produce another carrier that is Bb. Same odds occur next time those offspring produce a fish. The rate of carriers slightly increases but the chances of getting a bb diseased fish is very low and almost impossible.

Now let’s take that new fish with a mutation and inbreed it…

First offspring of a Bb x BB fish as stated above produces 50% Bb fish. Now I cross that fish with its offspring and I have a 50% chance I’m crossing a Bb with another Bb… there’s now a 1/4 chance I produced a fish with a heart defect. Then I mate that diseased fish with its offspring again…. the diseased fish has a 100% chance of passing a diseased gene and there’s a 1/2 chance the other inbred offspring is carrying. So in just 3 generations I’ve created a 50% chance of creating a new rare disease…. Amplify this with multiple genes and the possibility of new mutations too.

Hope this helps explain it a little better

You didn't need to bother explaining anything. Genetics was part of my curriculum. And you still missing the point.

As I have already written, genetic disorders can only be expressed if the gene defect is already present. But inbreeding itself doesn't increase the chance for gene defects. This was the original question I have replied to earlier.
Wild Endler guppy's are one of the most inbread fish in nature, because of their tiny habitats. And they are doing just fine there with no genetic disorders present. These only happen if humans start to specifically select for them.

 

[The_Paradox]

Not sure that’s entirely accurate. There are several studies showing a direct negative effect on telomere length in relation to generational inbreeding.

 

[aaron186]

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people seem to have the idea that inbreeding leads to more gene defects. But as a matter of fact, if someone is observing more genetic disorders during inbreeding, the defect were already present before that.



You didn't need to bother explaining anything. Genetics was part of my curriculum. And you still missing the point.

As I have already written, genetic disorders can only be expressed if the gene defect is already present. But inbreeding itself doesn't increase the chance for gene defects. This was the original question I have replied to earlier.
Wild Endler guppy's are one of the most inbread fish in nature, because of their tiny habitats. And they are doing just fine there with no genetic disorders present. These only happen if humans start to specifically select for them.

If you took genetics then you should know that spontaneous mutations and gene rearrangements happen spontaneously all the time. Most of them don’t result in genetic disorders. The same explanation above shows why inbreeding amplifies those. Humans selecting for traits is the exact same thing as inbreeding…

 

[Rollthedicereef]

If you took genetics then you should know that spontaneous mutations and gene rearrangements happen spontaneously all the time. Most of them don’t result in genetic disorders. The same explanation above shows why inbreeding amplifies those. Humans selecting for traits is the exact same thing as inbreeding…

That's what the death of my Blackstorm got me thinking about, she came into existence through gene selection based on well basically decoration "pretty patterns/colours" that have zero correlation to increased survival in a wild environment (it could be argued they increase chances of survival in our artificial aquariums as the prettier the fish the more likely humans will want it) but even then survival in terms of if they are able to live long enough be able to reproduce is still based on how it looks not how healthy long term it is in relation to a "natural" clownfish lifespan.

There's definitely inbreeding involved when it comes to designer clownfish and I'll be curious to see whether we see many of them reach lifespans of 10+, 15+, 20+ years.

 

[Pickle_soup]

Clowns are new, but I am sure there is some more research on Koi fish and bettas. We are talking about centuries and decades of inbreeding here.

 

[KrisReef]

Inbreeding has the potential to magnify the expression of deleterious genes if they are present in the gene pool. This is independent of the phenotype and is a known mechanism for accumulating genetic defects among inbred populations.

 

[Tavero]

If you took genetics then you should know that spontaneous mutations and gene rearrangements happen spontaneously all the time. Most of them don’t result in genetic disorders. The same explanation above shows why inbreeding amplifies those. Humans selecting for traits is the exact same thing as inbreeding…

E. Coli bacteria has a mutation/rearrangement rate of 1x10^-7. Thats once every 10 million cell divisions. Source Biology Neil A Campbell.
If my memory is correct, the rate for mammals was even lower. It was also only permanent in gametes cells (mutations in normal cells usually are fixed instantly and don't get passed on to offsprings).
I dont know your definition for "all the time" but for me it is significant higher than once every 10 million.
If there was a dna rearrangement present during every reproductive cycle, that species would be extinct after just a few generations.

 

[aaron186]

E. Coli bacteria has a mutation/rearrangement rate of 1x10^-7. Thats once every 10 million cell divisions. Source Biology Neil A Campbell.
If my memory is correct, the rate for mammals was even lower. It was also only permanent in gametes cells (mutations in normal cells usually are fixed instantly and don't get passed on to offsprings).
I dont know your definition for "all the time" but for me it is significant higher than once every 10 million.
If there was a dna rearrangement present during every reproductive cycle, that species would be extinct after just a few generations.

I don’t understand why you’re defending this so hard but inbreeding absolutely amplifies recessive genes and mutations. Maybe there’s something going on in your family?

 

[The_Paradox]

I don’t understand why you’re defending this so hard but inbreeding absolutely amplifies recessive genes and mutations. Maybe there’s something going on in your family?

He’s Hawaiian.

 

[Tavero]

I don’t understand why you’re defending this so hard but inbreeding absolutely amplifies recessive genes and mutations. Maybe there’s something going on in your family?

Dude, if you are trying to win an argument by insulting someone you have already lost

That's you at the bottom of the pyramid. Good job. You totally made a fool out of yourself.

 

[aaron186]

Dude, if you are trying to win an argument by insulting someone you have already lost

That's you at the bottom of the pyramid. Good job. You totally made a fool out of yourself.

Nah. That was a joke. But I don’t know why you’re so entrenched on this idea that inbreeding doesn’t amplify genetic disorders. It’s not really debatable

 

[The_Paradox]

Nah. That was a joke. But I don’t know why you’re so entrenched on this idea that inbreeding doesn’t amplify genetic disorders. It’s not really debatable

And to the point the point the original question was if your fish would have a shorter lifespan not lick windows. Telomeres are shortened with inbreeding which leads to replicative failures and shorter lifespan.

 

[aaron186]

I’m not interested in discussing inbreeding with you anymore. Correct. Good luck at the family reunion

 

[Tavero]

And to the point the point the original question was if your fish would have a shorter lifespan not lick windows. Telomeres are shortened with inbreeding which leads to replicative failures and shorter lifespan.

First time I've ever heard of that. Where did you get this from. If this was the case, designer koi fish wouldn't be able to reach a age of 30+ years (and other animals that are breed with focus on vitality). Telomers can also be regrown, therefore the length isn't fixed at birth.
The telomer length is only relevant for middle age and old hom o sapiens.

 

[Tavero]

I’m not interested in discussing inbreeding with you anymore. Correct. Good luck at the family reunion

Why are you in this thread then?
Good job for showing your true colors though. Now please go somehere else and stop bothering people who actually want to discuss this topic

 

[The_Paradox]

First time I've ever heard of that. Where did you get this from. If this was the case, designer koi fish wouldn't be able to reach a age of 30+ years (and other animals that are breed with focus on vitality). Telomers can also be regrown, therefore the length isn't fixed at birth.
The telomer length is only relevant for middle age and old hom o sapiens.

Inbreeding is associated with shorter early-life telomere length in a wild passerine - Conservation Genetics

Inbreeding can have negative effects on survival and reproduction, which may be of conservation concern in small and isolated populations. However, the physiological mechanisms underlying inbreeding depression are not well-known. The length of telomeres, the DNA sequences protecting chromosome...

link.springer.com

Telomere Length Correlates with Life Span of Dog Breeds

Telomeric DNA repeats are lost as normal somatic cells replicate. When telomeres reach a critically short length, a DNA damage signal is initiated, in…

www.sciencedirect.com

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1902452116

All things being equal shorter starting telomere length shows a correlation to shorter life in several species. MOA is debated but end result not so much.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Please keep all insults out of the discussion (and off of Reef2reef for that matter). Remember our terms of service. Disagreements should never result in personal attacks. A wisely handled disagreement can help to propel us all forward in our understanding (even if we don't end up agreeing). So, let's address each other with civility and respect even in disagreements.

 

[fish farmer]

I’m a physician for reference. Anytime you inbreed something, and it doesn’t matter what species, you’re taking recessive genes and increasing the frequency of that expression.

Take this over simplified explanation - Let’s say hypothetically that I have a fish that is a carrier for a newly mutated gene for a heart defect… these mutations happen often but rarely produce a disease due to this:

Call the bad gene “b” and the good gene B. You need two copies of the bad gene to get the disease. 99% of fish have two good genes B/B. And the hypothetical new fish is now a carrier with the genetic make up of Bb. If the fish mates with the rest of population it will almost never produce a “bb” fish and 50% of the time produce another carrier that is Bb. Same odds occur next time those offspring produce a fish. The rate of carriers slightly increases but the chances of getting a bb diseased fish is very low and almost impossible.

Now let’s take that new fish with a mutation and inbreed it…

First offspring of a Bb x BB fish as stated above produces 50% Bb fish. Now I cross that fish with its offspring and I have a 50% chance I’m crossing a Bb with another Bb… there’s now a 1/4 chance I produced a fish with a heart defect. Then I mate that diseased fish with its offspring again…. the diseased fish has a 100% chance of passing a diseased gene and there’s a 1/2 chance the other inbred offspring is carrying. So in just 3 generations I’ve created a 50% chance of creating a new rare disease…. Amplify this with multiple genes and the possibility of new mutations too.

Hope this helps explain it a little better

I actually work with a naturalized strain of rainbows that have a heart condition.

Little background....there is a wild run of steelhead rainbows in Vermont, naturalized in the 1950s. Some fish are also stocked in this drainage from wild or domestic parents.

About 25 years ago the domestic hatchery brood were tested and 30 percent had this heart condition, while only 3 percent of the wild stock had it. This would make one think that domestication/hatchery selection and lack of natural selection against the "less fit" fish was occuring.

We brought on a new line taken from the wild. Paired matings, raised separately and pit tagged for identification, 10 family members of each mating. We wanted to minimize any brothers/sister matings while developing the future line.

These fish were raised up to 7 inches before tagging, each family separate in 15 gallon circular tanks. Size variability was very different between families, some grew twice as fast as others and within the families there was some consistency, but you still have some fish in the same mating not eat and perish.

One tank of fish were rock stars, Family 28....grew fast and consistent size....great culture fish. Although when it came to tagging, these fish had the highest issue with that, 3 out of 10 fish rejected the tag with massive bacterial growths. Retagged new fish were fine.

Fast forward a year later, all the tagged family fish were swimming together in one raceway. The fish got challenged one evening. I was doing a formalin treatment several raceways above them and the settling area above them hadn't been cleaned in awhile. These rainbows historically are know to be touchy with chemicals, low oxygen and dirty conditions.

I came in the next morning and I had a dozen dead fish. Since they were tagged I was able to identify the families. Only 3 families were represented and 6 of those fish were from Family 28, there were 10 tagged to start with.

Makes me wonder if selecting for fast growth is not the right thing to do with these fish. This particular fish isn't known to reach monster proportions around here in the wild. I can't say if the heart condition had anything to do with the selective mortality, but I wouldn't rule it out.