Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Moderator:Mods

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:
Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:15 pm

trabots wrote: I can't resist, I have an addiction to proving the rest of you wrong. Quite a challenge however when the forum members who know better don't post and therefore there is no real consensus. If an outsider were to read the lack of coherent argument in these threads they would not dream of participating. Have any of you thought that is why we can't get the Deons and Terrys and John Friskes etc etc
to actively participate? Come on Stefan, Ben why won't you do as I have pleaded with Recio to do; analyse my logic without bringing in scenarios which currently have never been seen in mutation aviculture before.
Hi Willy,

your last explanation (blue is fully removing the psittacine and so emerald can't bring it back) sounds logical. Sometimes the key is so easy to find. :D
I think have focused on a "high level" resolution and have overlooked the easy ones. :P

madas

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:34 am

Hi Willy
If the green parent of Aaron's chick is SF Emerald Green (ignoring the complicating genes) is it not possible for the chick to be SF Emerald also? Surely, the obvious additional step we have to take is a careful visual inspection of that Green parent to see if there is any sign of the influence of a structural emerald gene.
In saying this, I am also mindful of the statement on this thread that an Emerald Green Alex exists that was difficult to identify as such. I would have thought we should particularly be looking for any evidence of the same markers.
As I have said repeatedly, I actually think you are correct, but I don't think it is scientifically valid to dismiss the the alternate argument without absolute proof.
Kind regards
Mike

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:08 am

Hi Ben
I finally got hold of Raelene and had a nice long talk. The answers to the queries you raised are detailed below with a bit of embellishment that I hope is helpful.

My EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail hen (I am now 99% sure that is what she is) was paired to a Violet Dark Blue Cleartail cock (she picked him not me). They had 7 chicks, 2 Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails, 2 Dark EmeraldBlue Cleartails, an EmeraldBlue Cleartail, a Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail and a Dark Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail. I am 99% confident of the chicks' makeup because I have a couple of Dark EmeraldBlue Cleartail chicks from another pair where the genetics are simple and so far all 4 look exactly the same.

The EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail hen's parents were a Grey EmeraldBlue Cleartail hen and a TurquoiseBlue split cleartail cock.

The parents of the Grey EmeraldBlue Cleartail hen were an EmeraldBlue split cleartail hen and a Grey Cleartail cock.

The EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail hen was one of a clutch of four: an EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail hen, 2 Grey TurquoiseBlue split cleartails and a Grey EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail cock. Interestingly all 4 turquoise and 3 grey.

Hope that helps

Kind regards
Mike

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:11 am

Mikesringnecks wrote: In saying this, I am also mindful of the statement on this thread that an Emerald Green Alex exists that was difficult to identify as such.
But then it still could be a rec. mutation of the blue locus. Some ADM rec. pied splits show yellow feathers in the flights. But this mutation is commonly accepted as a rec. mutation and no one is asking if it is dominant. So perhaps Lee was a lucky man a got a bird which is showing some expressions of a rec. mutation in a hetereozyguos bird. Only a thought.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:50 am

If the green parent of Aaron's chick is SF Emerald Green (ignoring the complicating genes) is it not possible for the chick to be SF Emerald also? Surely, the obvious additional step we have to take is a careful visual inspection of that Green parent to see if there is any sign of the influence of a structural emerald gene.
Mike, Aaron's Green parent was bred from an EmeraldBlue x Green pairing, ignoring the other mutations. In this pairing 100% of the young will be Green split either Emerald OR Blue NOT both. The bird is a Green phenotype now proven split for Emerald.

All of this Emerald is Dominant business is a waste of everyone's time now that Recio has confirmed that based on my logic Emerald has to be Parblue with his qualification that this is based on there only being one Blue locus. The finding of another Blue locus would upset the accepted knowledge of many other mutations than just Emerald.

With the Grey happily combining with Emerald showing Emerald is not structural this avenue of thought is also extinguished.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:17 am

Molossus, the Grey mutation destroys all structural colour in a feather. It is odd that it still called a structural mutation but that is because it involves structure. That is why there are no blue colours in a Grey or Grey Green. If Emerald was structural logically Grey would destroy that structure also. As Grey leaves psitticins as they are, the Grey EmeraldBlue confirms that Emerald is a psitticin based mutation, either altering the psitticin itself or altering the quantity or distribution of psitticin. No mutation known does multiple things out of the 3 main colour altering mechanisms of psitticin, structure and melanin.

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:19 am

trabots wrote:
If the green parent of Aaron's chick is SF Emerald Green (ignoring the complicating genes) is it not possible for the chick to be SF Emerald also? Surely, the obvious additional step we have to take is a careful visual inspection of that Green parent to see if there is any sign of the influence of a structural emerald gene.
Mike, Aaron's Green parent was bred from an EmeraldBlue x Green pairing, ignoring the other mutations. In this pairing 100% of the young will be Green split either Emerald OR Blue NOT both. The bird is a Green phenotype now proven split for Emerald.

All of this Emerald is Dominant business is a waste of everyone's time now that Recio has confirmed that based on my logic Emerald has to be Parblue with his qualification that this is based on there only being one Blue locus. The finding of another Blue locus would upset the accepted knowledge of many other mutations than just Emerald.

With the Grey happily combining with Emerald showing Emerald is not structural this avenue of thought is also extinguished.
Hi Willy
Are you not assuming EmeraldBlue here again and ignoring the remote possibility of Aaron's green parent's parent being SF Emerald Blue rather than EmeraldBlue?
Kind regards
Mike

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:15 am

Are you not assuming EmeraldBlue here again and ignoring the remote possibility of Aaron's green parent's parent being SF Emerald Blue rather than EmeraldBlue?
Mike, you are persistent. I have already proved that an 'Emerald looking' bird cannot be Blue for the simple fact that Blue eliminates all psitticins and an EmeraldBlue certainly has plenty of psitticins. The possibility is beyond remote, it is impossible with the current status of there being only one Blue locus.

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:30 am

trabots wrote:Please have a look at this article on structural colour in birds. This quote is the clincher:
These fundamental modifications cause violet and blue light to be selectively reflected from the feather surface in the case of violet/blue feathers, while white feathers reflect all visible light. In short, violets, blues and whites are structural colors, or schemochromes.
No mention in any article I could find of structural colours in feathers other than those at the blue end of the spectrum.
Probably because your search parameters are not wide enough, Willy.

http://www.sibleyguides.com/2011/09/the ... mingbirds/

The article leads with:

"After all the discussion of orange-throated and red-throated hummingbirds, I thought it would be helpful to add a brief and simplified summary of how the brilliant iridescent colors of hummingbirds are produced. These are structural colors, not pigment, which means they are reflected by microscopic structural features of the feather surface."

Image

Now go ahead and tell me that bird has a gorget in the blue end of the spectrum. Or better yet, explain to the forum that this post is irrelevant because it isn't a ringneck.
trabots wrote:
Are you not assuming EmeraldBlue here again and ignoring the remote possibility of Aaron's green parent's parent being SF Emerald Blue rather than EmeraldBlue?
Mike, you are persistent. I have already proved that an 'Emerald looking' bird cannot be Blue for the simple fact that Blue eliminates all psitticins and an EmeraldBlue certainly has plenty of psitticins. The possibility is beyond remote, it is impossible with the current status of there being only one Blue locus.
Yes Willy, just like in the budgerigar where we have two blue alleles. And blue eliminates all psittacin. So Blue1Blue2 shows no psittacin. Why is it called a cream face? Because it is showing psittacin even with two mutated blue genes slotted into the blue locus. Oh wait, I have again uses a non-ringneck example. My apologies, I suppose once again this isn't relevant. :roll:

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:01 am

Johan S wrote: Yes Willy, just like in the budgerigar where we have two blue alleles. And blue eliminates all psittacin. So Blue1Blue2 shows no psittacin. Why is it called a cream face? Because it is showing psittacin even with two mutated blue genes slotted into the blue locus. Oh wait, I have again uses a non-ringneck example. My apologies, I suppose once again this isn't relevant. :roll:
Hi Johan,

nice example but Willy is still right. If you have a true homozyguos blue bird (in budgies blue1) you can never bring back any psittacine to its phenotype by combining it with other mutations (sex-linked, dominant or rec.). Except with an allele ot the b-locus. And thats what Willy has said and was nicely corroborate by your example of the blue1blue2 hetereozyguos budgie. :P So as a result emerald could only be a parblue allele of the b-loucs

Cheers

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:06 am

madas wrote:
Mikesringnecks wrote: In saying this, I am also mindful of the statement on this thread that an Emerald Green Alex exists that was difficult to identify as such.
But then it still could be a rec. mutation of the blue locus. Some ADM rec. pied splits show yellow feathers in the flights. But this mutation is commonly accepted as a rec. mutation and no one is asking if it is dominant. So perhaps Lee was a lucky man a got a bird which is showing some expressions of a rec. mutation in a hetereozyguos bird. Only a thought.
Also some split opaline males show a very slightly lighter body and some tail dilution, as another example.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:49 am

Or better yet, explain to the forum that this post is irrelevant because it isn't a ringneck.
Now go ahead and tell me that bird has a gorget in the blue end of the spectrum. Or better yet, explain to the forum that this post is irrelevant because it isn't a ringneck.
No Johan, let's get real and simplify things to what has been found in parrot species so far, that has been my criteria all along. I can't find a smiley for smart ****.
Yes Willy, just like in the budgerigar where we have two blue alleles. And blue eliminates all psittacin. So Blue1Blue2 shows no psittacin. Why is it called a cream face? Because it is showing psittacin even with two mutated blue genes slotted into the blue locus. Oh wait, I have again uses a non-ringneck example. My apologies, I suppose once again this isn't relevant.
Each of Blue1Blue1 and Blue2Blue2 eliminate all psitticins, that is why they are Blues. You are referring to the heteroallele Blue1Blue2 which quite obviously leaves some psitticins. Ask Recio why as he is interested in the compounding of psitticins in Parblue heteralleles. What's stuck up your cloaca today Johan? You can be really useful by accepting or not my logic that Recio, now Stefan has already qualified. All of the rest is relevant but not necessary to the fact that the logic proves that Emerald is Parblue in IRNs.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:00 am

Also some split opaline males show a very slightly lighter body and some tail dilution, as another example.
If a bird always shows even just a hint of aberrant colour in EVERY Greenmutant then the mutation is dominant. If as you say in Opaline where only sometimes is there 'leakage' in the heterozygous bird, then it is still recessive. I went through all of this with the Pied Rainbow lorikeet with the heterozygous bird being able to breed or not breed homozygous Pieds with or with out being a 'streaky head'. The Pied rainbow is technically therefore a recessive mutation. I hope for sure that Molussus' Alexs turn out to be the same as the IRN Emerald but that won't make it dominant unless he can show that he can pick every single heterozygous Green bird.

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:37 am

trabots wrote:What's stuck up your cloaca today Johan?
trabots wrote:Johan you know where to stick those Deep feathers I sent you.
Dear Willy, I sincerely hope that you feel better after that little outburst.

Perhaps now you can show us a picture of a proven green / emerald to convince the open minded that it is indeed recessive and not green emerald / blue or turquoise??? And then we tackle your patched emeralds. :idea:

Recio
Posts:966
Joined:Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:09 am
Location:France

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Recio » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:47 pm

trabots wrote:
Also some split opaline males show a very slightly lighter body and some tail dilution, as another example.
If a bird always shows even just a hint of aberrant colour in EVERY Greenmutant then the mutation is dominant. If as you say in Opaline where only sometimes is there 'leakage' in the heterozygous bird, then it is still recessive. I went through all of this with the Pied Rainbow lorikeet with the heterozygous bird being able to breed or not breed homozygous Pieds with or with out being a 'streaky head'. The Pied rainbow is technically therefore a recessive mutation. I hope for sure that Molussus' Alexs turn out to be the same as the IRN Emerald but that won't make it dominant unless he can show that he can pick every single heterozygous Green bird.
Hi Willy,

You should review the concepts of penetrance and expressivity.

Recio

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:12 pm

Now go ahead and tell me that bird has a gorget in the blue end of the spectrum. Or better yet, explain to the forum that this post is irrelevant because it isn't a ringneck.
IMO this is a reflective type feather structure rather than the refractive type found in parrots. Any iridescence in parrots is minor and physically is probably reflective.
Dear Willy, I sincerely hope that you feel better after that little outburst.


That really helps doesn't it?
Perhaps now you can show us a picture of a proven green / emerald to convince the open minded that it is indeed recessive and not green emerald / blue or turquoise???
Ben is waiting to image that bird as he has posted. How is that image going to convince? What are you going to be looking for? The bird is Green wildtype but I know somebody will see something to support their "open minded" point of view.
Please, please save your non to the point discourses for the other threads on the subject.


Too no avail by Johan:
If we look at this statement, this is where the difference of opinion lies. I will stick to the facts, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Recio reporting back to the forum that you personally looked at heterozygous emerald and parblues under UV and your observation was that you clearly saw a difference in the colour of UV fluorescence between emerald and (other) mature parblues. This was prior to you joining from personal communications with him. Deon has also shared his opinion and pictures showing a difference under UV as well. Further to this, emerald shows UV reflectance right from the start, while (other) parblues only shows yellow fluorescence when approaching maturity. Going along with your yes/no to get to answers quickly, I'll ask if you would confirm that you observed the same as Deon. Yes/No?
Yes. As I pointed out, you and others can't look at things constrained by what we know. You are now back on the different psitticin track and theorise that Blue might not block all types of psitticin.

I said:
Recio, there is proof that the Blue mutation eliminates both kinds of psitticin right in front of us. We have a wildtype Green which is obviously possessing of possibly both flourescing and non-flourescing psitticins yet the Blue mutation eliminates both. If that is not enough we have the rainbow lorikeet or any number of South American birds which only have non-fluorescing psitticins and the Blue mutations for these birds eliminates it totally.
And then we tackle your patched emeralds.
Unlikely. I will go it alone on this one.
You should review the concepts of penetrance and expressivity.
Recio, do you agree with what I said or not? I didn't draw the line regarding expressiveness but that is how I thought the gurus had defined it. The genetics are exactly the same, WildtypeMutant or MutantMutant just that the former can never be picked or sometimes be picked. Only when the expression can always be picked is dominant status conferred.

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:13 pm

Hi Willy
Its me being persistent again. I'm not trying to annoy you any further, but I have a fundamental and simple problem of logic with the use of Aaron's single chick as an absolute "genetic logic" proof that emerald is a par blue gene. As I keep saying, I "believe" that it is par blue gene but I also believe we need proper proof.

I accept that two blue genes at the blue locus remove yellow pigment. Can you accept that, if emerald were in fact to be a structural gene producing structural yellow, it could be visualized in a phenotype that includes two blue genes that remove all pigment based yellow. If you can't, we have a problem.

However, assuming you can accept the above assertion, the phenotype seen in Aaron's chick could be caused by either Violet EmeraldBlue or Violet SF Emerald Blue (I think Blue here means 2 blue genes, as you know I'm not experienced with the word system you all seem to favor). Similarly, both the chick's green parent and the grandparent could owe their phenetic outcome to a structural emerald gene. Therefore, quite obviously, there is no proof by way of "genetic logic" that emerald is a par blue gene.

Surely, as I have posted several times already, the great value of Aaron's chick lies in the fact that we know for certain that its green parent is split for emerald and we can use that fact to pursue whether that gene is structural or not.

Having said all that, I also suspect that Recio will then say that the unlikely structural emerald gene could be entirely recessive with respect to green and I have no answer for that, other than to follow another line of proof. I do think I know one, but I will wait to see where I get with this post before I go any further.

Kind regards
Mike

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:22 pm

Mike,
Molossus, the Grey mutation destroys all structural colour in a feather. It is odd that it still called a structural mutation but that is because it involves structure. That is why there are no blue colours in a Grey or Grey Green. If Emerald was structural logically Grey would destroy that structure also. As Grey leaves psitticins as they are, the Grey EmeraldBlue confirms that Emerald is a psitticin based mutation, either altering the psitticin itself or altering the quantity or distribution of psitticin. No mutation known does multiple things out of the 3 main colour altering mechanisms of psitticin, structure and melanin.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:18 pm

Mike, further to this, the UV reflectance of the bird shows that it is a psitticin based mutation. Structure does not fluoresce.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:24 pm

the great value of Aaron's chick lies in the fact that we know for certain that its green parent is split for emerald
Mike if you agree with your own statement you must agree that Emerald is not dominant or the parent would not be Green. A bird cannot be split for a dominant mutation. I already pointed out that the odds of Blue or EmeraldTurquoise not appearing in your nests of 6 young is 1.56%. I have run out of ways to convince you. I give up mate, this is Genetics 101.............

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:19 am

Mike, the following might be of interest to you.
trabots wrote:If Emerald was structural logically Grey would destroy that structure also.
Wrong. Willy has generalised too much.

The barbules consist of at least three regions of structure. The center where melanin is deposited, the spongy zone and the cortex (outer layer) where psittacin is deposited. Logically, we know that grey doesn't act on all three regions. Why? Because a bird's feathers would be brittle if ALL structure was destroyed. It would hold no integrity and would break when a bird flies. So we need to ask which structural region is affected by grey? And what that effect was, since "destroy" is a strong word that could be misinterpreted. Only the spongy zone is affected by grey. And take very special note. The structure is not completely removed when referring to "destroyed", it is merely the ordered pattern that is destroyed, leaving an unordered/random structure behind. So there is still structure, still strong enough to provide the physical structural support for a feather to act like a feather. Technically, the grey mutation does not remove structure, it merely alters the structure to become a poor wave guide in the visible spectrum, i.e. it doesn't transmit light (i.e. approach black). Further to this, the center and cortex structure is left in tact. If the cortex was destroyed, there would be no place for psittacin deposition. Where would it be deposited? Not logical, since we clearly see psittacin in parblue grey birds like a TurquoiseBlue Grey.
trabots wrote:Structure does not fluoresce.
This statement could be 100% correct, yet also fundamentally completely wrong.

Any building block of a living being, or even a non-living object, could fluoresce if it contains a fluorescent sensitive material (one example, phosphor). That is the basic requirement. A structure without such a material will not fluoresce. A structure with such a material will fluoresce. It doesn't matter where the material is deposited (structural region, pigment, any epidermal layer), if it contains such a sensitive material and is exposed to UV light, it will emit a photon in the visible spectrum. This is physics 101.

Here is an explanation in a simplified manner.
http://www.wildfirefx.com/resources/tut ... cence.aspx

The very fundamental building block of the epidermis of a bird, and thus also the feather all the way down to the barbule, is keratin. And we see it in all walks of life. Look at the hummingbird, look at beetles and scorpions, etc (some fluorescent examples). Some may feel it is irrelevant, but those examples have keratin at the core, just like any feather.

Here are some very interesting articles on keratin and fluorescence. What does it have in common? Keywords: Epidermis, keratin, fluorescence.
https://softs.polytechnique.fr/lob/them ... eratin.pdf
http://www.moca.rwth-aachen.de/research ... iogen.html

Enjoy the reading. Hopefully some will enjoy. :D

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:36 am

Johan, why make it so hard to understand? When I talk structure I talk about what makes a parrot feather Blue, full stop. And when I talk about feather fluorescence I talk about what we know from parrots, some psitticins fluoresce not blue colours. I am sure it is all very interesting stuff but why can't we just ratify or disagree without delving into the rest of the animal kingdom?

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:06 am

Willy, because at the heart of the matter, no matter the species, we are all a result of some very similar biological process.

Today, however, I would like to state for the record that there is a grey area caused by our basic definitions in simple genetic models. When we define a blue mutation, we assume three things. 1) a mutation expressing no psittacin, 2) a mutation at the blue locus, and 3) a mutation recessive to the wildtype. When we define a parblue, we say that it is first and foremost 2) a mutation at the blue locus, which necessitates that 3) should hold, while being lenient towards 1) so that the bird is partly devoid of psittacin.

In the above lies the problem. Not with either model of the emerald mutation does all of the above hold true. We have definitions that are not perfect, limiting our scope for reasoning. What prevents us from saying, that when we fix the locus (say at the blue locus for context), that some alleles of that locus will be recessive, while others are dominant over the wildtype?

A case for emerald as a parblue or second blue:

For background, I refer to Peter Bergman's article on Yellow face budgerigar.
http://web.archive.org/web/200203252309 ... ace01.html

In this article, Peter highlights the fact that a blue mutation does not in fact remove psittacin, it prevents psittacin from being produced in the first place. This is a very important point, as the two are distinctly different. The first implies that psittacin has been produced, and then taken away.

"In a Green bird the gene for Green (designated B) codes for an enzyme which is responsible for the production of yellow pigment. The b1 allele is a mutant form of the B gene therefore it produces a slightly different version of the enzyme. This (b1) enzyme is defective so no yellow pigment is produced and we have a Blue bird, but it is important to note that the enzyme is still there."

Here I'd like to point out the following, for both the Wildtype (B/B), and the heterozygous blue (B/b1), the action of just one B gene is sufficient to produce enough enzymes/psittacin to make the bird appear like the wildtype. So the wildtype actually creates much more than is needed and saturates. This is why green/blue appears green and we call it recessive. We are very familiar with the blue mutation, and (b1/b1) deactivate the second gene and no psittacin is produced. However, at 3 weeks old when feathers start developing, some type of psittacin is already present in the wildtype. Recio refers to it as even psittacin. It is independent of age/hormonal action and is non-fluorescent. This is the specific type of psittacin/enzyme/protein I will be focusing on.

Now let's introduce a second allele of blue (or a parblue), called b2 (this is emerald, b2 is not the best code, but it's just an example). We go on the assumption that the genetic code of b2 acts very similarly to B (wildtype), but modifies the enzyme responsible for psittacin production (as any blue locus allele will do) in such a way that the later molecules/pigments synthesised have a fluorescent sensitive material (unknown which, but lets say phosphor) as part of the molecular structure (not to be confused with keratin based feather structure). This results in a less effective psittacin with the distinct possibility of being able to fluoresce. Here we could very well also reason that the enzyme is completely defective in terms of producing a yellow pigment, but that remains an afterthought.

On that basis, let's look at the first (easier) case, the (b2/b1) EmeraldBlue bird. Here b1 deactivates half the psittacin production power, and b2 results in a modified even psittacin visible in the first feathers, but with a new fluorescent component of the phosphor atoms present. It explains the phenotype of the heterozygous bird, and the (b2/b2) df Emerald produces even more of the modified fluorescent, but ineffective, psittacin. When UV light is applied, those P atoms will fluoresce, irrespective of whether they are located in the pigment, or in the keratin of the feather structure. The observer would see exactly the same thing irrespectively. Depending on exactly how effective this psittacin still is, we could deal with potential difficulty of sf/df emerald(blue) being very close in phenotype as well.

Recio can develop further how the presence of b2 could prevent hormonal changes expressed in parblues (bpr1 "turquoise" and bpr2 "indigo").

Now, let's explore the wildtype and split birds. We know that (B/b1) will produce half the enzymes responsible for psittacin, with b1 deactivating the other half. Yet, it is still sufficient for the wildtype phenotype. What will be the effect of green / emerald, (B/b2)? Here we have the B gene creating half the enzymes responsible for psittacin, and we know it is sufficient again to appear like the wildtype. But does b2, like b1, completely deactivate psittacin production? The answer is NO. b2 will, once again be responsible for ultimately the psittacin granules "loaded" with phosphor in deposited in the feather cortex. However, this time, unlike as with EmeraldBlue (b2/b1), these granules will be competing with psittacin granules of the gene B, which we know is extremely dominant. However, in this case, not completely. The astute observer, potentially also somebody blessed with above average sensory awareness, could pick up underlying tones of that beautiful sheen differentiating the phenotype of blue and EmeraldBlue, even in the wildtype. The fact of the matter, and the crux of Peter's article is this, the (B/b1) removes half the enzymes for psittacin production and adds nothing with the other half of useless enzymes for b1 (recessive), while (B/b2) produces half the enzymes for psittacin production, plus another half of enzymes for a modified fluorescent psittacin, which should be distinctly different under UV, and could be seen with low penatrance in the wildtype (esp. under UV), thus dominant. b1 = recessive due to inactivation, b2 = dominant due to activation of something different.

I know of one counter argument to this, but not for today (from me).

In this example/model, once again, it is our definitions that have failed us, in that, at a specific locus, if one allele is recessive, then all alleles should be recessive. That is why we can not get over the bridge, and we won't until we modify our definitions.

After thought:
It could be that what we actually see with b2 is 100% due to UV from the sun falling onto the bird, being absorbed by the fluorescent sensitive material and we are seeing photons released at a wavelength close to yellow. I.e. (b2/b2) is actually a blue bird with fully defective enzymes for creating yellow pigment, but reflecting UV light at a shifted frequency we can observe. Thus, we are dealing with something that has nothing to do with feather structure, nor anything to do with specifically yellow pigments (will require transparent pigment); the premise lies with the presence of a fluorescent material exposed to light. This is a very strong argument for a second type of blue. Consider a fluorescent tube, it works on the premise that UV light is created from Argon gas if I recall (so not normal light) and stimulates phosphor, which then fluoresces in the visual spectrum closer to yellow (i.e. a change in wavelength from UV). Thus we have a "UV to visual light converter" in phosphor. So emerald could actually just be a blue, with no psittacin, but with a "fluorescent tube" effect turned on. If this is the case, the original article can be revisited, and we shouldn't think of no psittacin (as that would never be deposited), but rather transparent psittacin that gets deposited in the cortex, but not visible, until we include phosphor in b2.

Happy reading.

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:33 am

Johan S wrote: Now, let's explore the wildtype and split birds. We know that (B/b1) will produce half the enzymes responsible for psittacin, with b1 deactivating the other half. Yet, it is still sufficient for the wildtype phenotype. What will be the effect of green / emerald, (B/b2)? Here we have the B gene creating half the enzymes responsible for psittacin, and we know it is sufficient again to appear like the wildtype. But does b2, like b1, completely deactivate psittacin production? The answer is NO. b2 will, once again be responsible for ultimately the psittacin granules "loaded" with phosphor in deposited in the feather cortex. However, this time, unlike as with EmeraldBlue (b2/b1), these granules will be competing with psittacin granules of the gene B, which we know is extremely dominant. However, in this case, not completely. The astute observer, potentially also somebody blessed with above average sensory awareness, could pick up underlying tones of that beautiful sheen differentiating the phenotype of blue and EmeraldBlue, even in the wildtype. The fact of the matter, and the crux of Peter's article is this, the (B/b1) removes half the enzymes for psittacin production and adds nothing with the other half of useless enzymes for b1 (recessive), while (B/b2) produces half the enzymes for psittacin production, plus another half of enzymes for a modified fluorescent psittacin, which should be distinctly different under UV, and could be seen with low penatrance in the wildtype (esp. under UV), thus dominant. b1 = recessive due to inactivation, b2 = dominant due to activation of something different.
if b1 is a rec. Mutation then it couldn't remove "the half" of the enzymes. By definition a rec. mutation Needs two mutated alleles to be expressed. So you need two b1 mutated alleles of the b-locus to stop the enzyme production otherwise a hetereozyguos bird B/b1 wouldn't look green. If this theory doesn't hold any longer then Mendel was wrong. ;)

For a combo b1/b2 the enzyme production is altered is another way but not in the way that b1 is producing one half and b2 is producing another half. Sounds not valid to me.

Only a thought.

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:17 am

Hi Ben
I think there are quite a few breeders who read this section of the forum but don't post. I don't blame them, I was like that with Terry Martin's site because my computer literacy wasn't up to it and I had trouble with the genetic word system and I still do. I only really joined this forum to find out what phenotype my emerald chicks were and people were very helpful, but I am still having trouble misusing the word system and I have quite a bit still to understand about how to post things.
Anyway, enough of that, you posted a photo of Aaron's chick with a yellow patch under the wing. A couple of people E-mailed me today asking about that yellow patch because they can't see it in their EmeraldBlues. All but one of my emeralds are cleartails, so I couldn't be of much help to them. I did catch my only non cleartail EmeraldBlue and had a look under her wing and there was a paler patch where the yellow was in your post but no yellow.
Is it a contrast thing because the bird is violet or is it something else?
Kind regards
Mike

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:33 am

Madas,

I believe the section "Protein structure" in the original article attempts to cover your query. Keep in mind, I'm not a geneticist, so I could very easily incorrectly use the terms. Further to this, I don't dare pretend to understand how the chain - DNA - protein - enzyme - psittacin works. I get lost in there.

However, I'll quote:
"‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces b1b2 produce both (b1/b1) enzyme and (b2/b2) enzyme. However, since the protein chains are assembled into the enzymes randomly ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces also produce (b1/b2) hybrid enzyme. It is the (b1/b2) hybrid enzyme that produces the yellow pigment."

Translated into this model, it is saying that EmeraldBlue will produce both (b1/b1) enzyme, (b2/b2) enzyme and a hybrid (b1/b2) enzyme. These will be in 1/3 parts each, so at best if we assume the (b2/b2) enzyme and the hybrid (b1/b2) enzyme works equally effectively, we end up with 2/3 enzymes for psittacin production (related to emerald, i.e. the fluorescent type mutated from even psittacin due to b2). If phosphor is the clincher, in reality that could be 1/2 enzymes related to b2 ratio to b1, or perhaps the hybrid doesn't allow for synthesis including phosphor, dropping the effecting ratio van 2/3 to 1/2 to 1/3. The homozygous emerald bird will produce only (b2/b2) enzyme at 3/3 ratio in comparison.
Last edited by Johan S on Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ring0Neck
Posts:1714
Joined:Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location:Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Ring0Neck » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:34 am

Hi Mike,

Great Question, to which i don't have the complete answer for you.
The custard color patch under the wing i've seen it in violet emeralds.
I can also see it in grey emerald. however i never seen it on emerladBlue.

I currently do not have any emeraldBlues to be able to verify.

perhaps others like Willy et al.. can comment on this more.




I'm an Explorer
10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 50% pleasure, 5% pain$ and a 100% reason ..I just gotta know

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:38 am

Hi Willy
You keep bringing up odd arguments. I accept that emerald can be seen in emerald greys but I can't readily accept that as proof that emerald could not be a structural gene. Is it an established fact that structural genes can only operate on the cloudy layer? Why could they not operate on the cortex? Is it a matter of definition rather than scientific fact?
On the stats issue, and my results supposedly providing a 98% plus proof of your belief (and mine), why don't we look for some more breeders of TurquoiseEmerald birds and get it up to 99% plus. I know of at least one in Queensland (Michael Laffey) but I don't know him well enough to extract the breeding results.
Having said all that, I understand that we are always going to have an asymptotic issue, but surely 99% plus is enough for a sound working hypothesis.
On a completely different tack, being the owner of a TurqoiseEmerald in which the usual turquoise patches don't appear, I would be very interested to hear about those patches. Are you going to start a thread on that subject?
Kind regards
Mike

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:52 am

Johan S wrote: Translated into this model, it is saying that EmeraldBlue will produce both (b1/b1) enzyme, (b2/b2) enzyme and a hybrid (b1/b2) enzyme. These will be in 1/3 parts each, so at best if we assume the (b2/b2) enzyme and the hybrid (b1/b2) enzyme works equally effectively, we end up with 2/3 enzymes for psittacin production (related to emerald, i.e. the fluorescent type mutated from even psittacin due to b2). If phosphor is the clincher, in reality that could be 1/2 enzymes related to b2 ratio to b1, or perhaps the hybrid doesn't allow for synthesis including phosphor, dropping the effecting ratio van 2/3 to 1/2 to 1/3. The homozygous emerald bird will produce only (b2/b2) enzyme at 3/3 ratio in comparison.
Yeah i hopefully understood what you mean. :)

But from Definition of rec. mutation a EmeraldBlue bird can't produce the (b1/b1) and (b2/b2) enzymes becasue that has only one b1 allele and only one b2 allele and not two of each. It should only be able to produce the (b1/b2) enzyme which then is able to bring back slight portions of psittacine. Thats my Point of view.

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:04 am

Madas, you are correct only under the assumption that an enzyme is made of only a single protein in the chain. But that doesn't explain the budgerigar results.

"If the enzymes produced by this series of alleles consisted of only a single protein chain then there would be no ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces. Birds with the genetic constitution b1b2 would look like ordinary (white-faced) Blues. What the ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface tells us is that the enzyme which produces yellow pigment is made of more than one protein chain"

Thus, in your model, no 'Mutant 1' Yellowface exists because only b1 and b2 were produced. But we know that the 'Mutant 1' Yellowface does exist, so we need to move to more than one protein chain for an enzyme. So we move to a chain of b1/b1 (i.e. 2x b1 in the chain) and b2/b2. This combination can produce b1/b1, b2/b2 AND b1/b2 extra because of randomness/alignment. b1/b1 has no pigment, b2/b2 has no pigment. So why the yellow face? The b1/b2 that does produce low amounts of pigment.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:38 am

I have many other interests in my life than to read all about all the possible science which affects other creatures. This is an IRN forum and this thread is being used to discuss a second Blue alllele in budgerigars. Not interested.

Why the commentary about yellow under the wing of a Violet EmeraldBlue? I could have shown that 2 years ago but it isn't of any significance in relation to the Emerald being recessive. Now if something is spotted consistently in every Green /Emerald examined then there is a case to move the designation from recessive to dominant.
Is it an established fact that structural genes can only operate on the cloudy layer? Why could they not operate on the cortex? Is it a matter of definition rather than scientific fact?
Mike, Inte Onesman at Mutavi has looked at hundreds of parrot feathers of all species under an electron microscope and has found no optical type structure (not "structural genes") in any part of the feather. He could not see into the cloudy layer (hence the name?) and therefore it is assumed that that is where structure is found.
On the stats issue, and my results supposedly providing a 98% plus proof of your belief (and mine), why don't we look for some more breeders of TurquoiseEmerald birds and get it up to 99% plus.
Why Mike, whether it is recessive or dominant is in reality a moot point with regard to our breeding of these birds. In the course of time the 2 proof breedings so far will be repeated but there is certainly no benefit to make a breeding program with that aim. Who cares besides some members of this forum. Why do they care so much, it won't change anything with anyone's breeding programs.
On a completely different tack, being the owner of a TurqoiseEmerald in which the usual turquoise patches don't appear, I would be very interested to hear about those patches. Are you going to start a thread on that subject?
Your TurquoiseEmerald is also CHCT so what contributes what? I have no need to start a thread on this. Look what has happened with this thread. The yellow patches will most certainly be attributed to structure or a 4th type of psitticin not blocked by Blue and on and on we go. I deal with IRNs on the perch and others' data from IRNs on the perch, not theoreticals because it occurs in hummingbirds or sea slugs or sail fish or octpus ............. Mike just enjoy your breeding, you have had a great result.

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:10 am

Johan S wrote:Madas, you are correct only under the assumption that an enzyme is made of only a single protein in the chain. But that doesn't explain the budgerigar results.

"If the enzymes produced by this series of alleles consisted of only a single protein chain then there would be no ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces. Birds with the genetic constitution b1b2 would look like ordinary (white-faced) Blues. What the ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface tells us is that the enzyme which produces yellow pigment is made of more than one protein chain"

Thus, in your model, no 'Mutant 1' Yellowface exists because only b1 and b2 were produced. But we know that the 'Mutant 1' Yellowface does exist, so we need to move to more than one protein chain for an enzyme. So we move to a chain of b1/b1 (i.e. 2x b1 in the chain) and b2/b2. This combination can produce b1/b1, b2/b2 AND b1/b2 extra because of randomness/alignment. b1/b1 has no pigment, b2/b2 has no pigment. So why the yellow face? The b1/b2 that does produce low amounts of pigment.
No i think i am still right. Assume the b-locus is build/affected by two proteins and lets mark them with B_a, B_b for unmutated wildform. Furthermore lets assume: for b1 only protein B_a has changed by a mutation and B_b is the same as in the unmutated wild type. So we have b1_a, B_b. Going on with b2 where only Protein B_b is changed by a mutation. So we get B_a, b2_b. Knowing that both are rec. mutations we need b1_a, B_b or B_a, b2_b on each chromatid (homozyguos) to express a blue looking phenotype.

Pairing both together is ending up with birds all carrying b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other. So both chromatids are different and therefore such bird can't produce the same enzymes as thier homozyguos counterparts. But this special combination b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other is producing a new protein which then isn't fully prohibiting the psittacine production.

Your thoughts?

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:58 pm

Mike and Ringo hi. I have bred some violet blue that I assume to be emerald due to its emerald like flourescense ... yet appear completely blue.
Is it possible that emerald in blue series are completely (visually) devoid of Psittacin ... Willy your input is what I am particularly interested in...
Lee, EmeraldBlues all have some yellow under the wings near the body. I have currently Violet EmeraldBlues and Deep Violet Emerald Blues which from the top look like a Violet Blue and a Deep Violet Blue. Look underneath for your answer. If there is any yellow they cannot be Blue, they are EmeraldBlue.

cw, Deep, Deep Violet, Violet, EmeraldBlues
Image

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:11 pm

madas wrote:
Johan S wrote:Madas, you are correct only under the assumption that an enzyme is made of only a single protein in the chain. But that doesn't explain the budgerigar results.

"If the enzymes produced by this series of alleles consisted of only a single protein chain then there would be no ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces. Birds with the genetic constitution b1b2 would look like ordinary (white-faced) Blues. What the ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface tells us is that the enzyme which produces yellow pigment is made of more than one protein chain"

Thus, in your model, no 'Mutant 1' Yellowface exists because only b1 and b2 were produced. But we know that the 'Mutant 1' Yellowface does exist, so we need to move to more than one protein chain for an enzyme. So we move to a chain of b1/b1 (i.e. 2x b1 in the chain) and b2/b2. This combination can produce b1/b1, b2/b2 AND b1/b2 extra because of randomness/alignment. b1/b1 has no pigment, b2/b2 has no pigment. So why the yellow face? The b1/b2 that does produce low amounts of pigment.
No i think i am still right. Assume the b-locus is build/affected by two proteins and lets mark them with B_a, B_b for unmutated wildform. Furthermore lets assume: for b1 only protein B_a has changed by a mutation and B_b is the same as in the unmutated wild type. So we have b1_a, B_b. Going on with b2 where only Protein B_b is changed by a mutation. So we get B_a, b2_b. Knowing that both are rec. mutations we need b1_a, B_b or B_a, b2_b on each chromatid (homozyguos) to express a blue looking phenotype.

Pairing both together is ending up with birds all carrying b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other. So both chromatids are different and therefore such bird can't produce the same enzymes as thier homozyguos counterparts. But this special combination b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other is producing a new protein which then isn't fully prohibiting the psittacine production.

Your thoughts?
Madas, the way I interpret your post, is that you are saying the same thing as me. You just use a different notation, where you prefer to add the wildtype portion of the protein in the chain as well. I have left this out, as to me it is redundant. The same thing was done in Peter's article. But it seems like the end result is the same.

Or am I missing something?

User avatar
Ring0Neck
Posts:1714
Joined:Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location:Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Ring0Neck » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:22 pm

Molossus,

Does your bird look similar to this?

http://parakeet.me/irn/m/PA255794.JPG
I'm an Explorer
10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 50% pleasure, 5% pain$ and a 100% reason ..I just gotta know

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:23 pm

trabots wrote:I have many other interests in my life than to read all about all the possible science which affects other creatures. This is an IRN forum and this thread is being used to discuss a second Blue alllele in budgerigars. Not interested.
No man, Willy. 80% of my post covers parblues for IRN. You only need to ignore the non-interesting part labeled "After thought". I put a lot of effort into that for team parblue to explain the crux, that I think different parblue alleles could express both dominant (emerald) and recessive (turquoise and indigo) to the wildtype, even if at the same locus. It is only our definitions limiting us. And a blue will be a blue, i.e. no psittacin, exactly in line with your thoughts and the definition. Do you really feel you should simply discard all of that so easily? I am, after all, saying what you are trying to say, albeit in my annoying and over complicated way.

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:48 am

Johan S wrote:
madas wrote:
Johan S wrote:Madas, you are correct only under the assumption that an enzyme is made of only a single protein in the chain. But that doesn't explain the budgerigar results.

"If the enzymes produced by this series of alleles consisted of only a single protein chain then there would be no ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowfaces. Birds with the genetic constitution b1b2 would look like ordinary (white-faced) Blues. What the ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface tells us is that the enzyme which produces yellow pigment is made of more than one protein chain"

Thus, in your model, no 'Mutant 1' Yellowface exists because only b1 and b2 were produced. But we know that the 'Mutant 1' Yellowface does exist, so we need to move to more than one protein chain for an enzyme. So we move to a chain of b1/b1 (i.e. 2x b1 in the chain) and b2/b2. This combination can produce b1/b1, b2/b2 AND b1/b2 extra because of randomness/alignment. b1/b1 has no pigment, b2/b2 has no pigment. So why the yellow face? The b1/b2 that does produce low amounts of pigment.
No i think i am still right. Assume the b-locus is build/affected by two proteins and lets mark them with B_a, B_b for unmutated wildform. Furthermore lets assume: for b1 only protein B_a has changed by a mutation and B_b is the same as in the unmutated wild type. So we have b1_a, B_b. Going on with b2 where only Protein B_b is changed by a mutation. So we get B_a, b2_b. Knowing that both are rec. mutations we need b1_a, B_b or B_a, b2_b on each chromatid (homozyguos) to express a blue looking phenotype.

Pairing both together is ending up with birds all carrying b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other. So both chromatids are different and therefore such bird can't produce the same enzymes as thier homozyguos counterparts. But this special combination b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other is producing a new protein which then isn't fully prohibiting the psittacine production.

Your thoughts?
Madas, the way I interpret your post, is that you are saying the same thing as me. You just use a different notation, where you prefer to add the wildtype portion of the protein in the chain as well. I have left this out, as to me it is redundant. The same thing was done in Peter's article. But it seems like the end result is the same.

Or am I missing something?
Hm. In your Version 3 enzymes are produced and in my Version only one. :(

3 != 1 :D

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:02 am

In your version, shouldn't there be two enzymes? One from b1_a, B_b, the other from B_a, b2? :?:

I think what you are meaning is that your single enzyme consists of a single protein. In my meaning, an enzyme consists of two of the same proteins chained together. You have a binary system with resolution of 1 bit (2 possible outcomes), I have a binary system of resolution 2 bits (4 possible outcomes), or a chain of two of your systems cascaded. Why did I need a 4 outcome system? Because one can not describe 3 potential outcomes from only two alleles, i.e. blue1, blue2 and ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface in a system only allowing for 2 outcomes. In your system, the yellowface can't be explained. Well, not by me, I don't see how, I mean. Of course, applying your system to only blue and emerald in IRN is sufficient (I think), if dealing with emerald as a parblue. I expanded merely for the interested that would like to see if emerald as a second blue could fit to the budgerigar model. And it allows for explaining unexpected phenotypic deviation with birds like EmeraldTurquoise and EmeraldIndigo that potentially could exist once we start exploring these birds (patched emeralds with patches completely different to turquoise or indigo?), where I fail to see how your system will allow that. Of course, IFF (if and only if) we do see strange things happening specifically with parblue hetero-alleles.

The way I see it, your b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other, will produce two different proteins, but potentially up to four different enzymes? A b1_a, B_b - b1_a, B_b enzyme (protein chain consisting of minimum 2x b1_a, B_b proteins), a B_a, b2_b - B_a, b2_b enzyme (protein chain consisting of 2x B_a, b2_b proteins) and a b1_a, B_b - B_a, b2_b hybrid enzyme, consisting of both proteins in the hetero-allele. And I am assuming the second hybrid enzyme, a B_a, b2_b - b1_a, B_b will act in the exact same way as the first. If we take the first enzyme, b1_a, B_b - b1_a, B_b, and remove the redundant wildtype information, we end up with b1_a - b1_a, which I initially posted as a b1 / b1 chain.

Otherwise, two possibilities. I don't understand your meaning, or (very likely) I could be completely wrong as well. :lol: I don't know the low level stuff at all, I just mapped my interpretation of Peter's article into a binary system and worked from there. And I needed 2 bits of resolution to get 3 different phenotypes from 2 alleles.

User avatar
madas
Posts:973
Joined:Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by madas » Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:08 am

Johan S wrote:In your version, shouldn't there be two enzymes? One from b1_a, B_b, the other from B_a, b2? :?:

I think what you are meaning is that your single enzyme consists of a single protein. In my meaning, an enzyme consists of two of the same proteins chained together. You have a binary system with resolution of 1 bit (2 possible outcomes), I have a binary system of resolution 2 bits (4 possible outcomes), or a chain of two of your systems cascaded. Why did I need a 4 outcome system? Because one can not describe 3 potential outcomes from only two alleles, i.e. blue1, blue2 and ‘Mutant 1’ Yellowface in a system only allowing for 2 outcomes. In your system, the yellowface can't be explained. Well, not by me, I don't see how, I mean. Of course, applying your system to only blue and emerald in IRN is sufficient (I think), if dealing with emerald as a parblue. I expanded merely for the interested that would like to see if emerald as a second blue could fit to the budgerigar model. And it allows for explaining unexpected phenotypic deviation with birds like EmeraldTurquoise and EmeraldIndigo that potentially could exist once we start exploring these birds (patched emeralds with patches completely different to turquoise or indigo?), where I fail to see how your system will allow that. Of course, IFF (if and only if) we do see strange things happening specifically with parblue hetero-alleles.

The way I see it, your b1_a, B_b on one chromatid and B_a, b2_b on the other, will produce two different proteins, but potentially up to four different enzymes? A b1_a, B_b - b1_a, B_b enzyme (protein chain consisting of minimum 2x b1_a, B_b proteins), a B_a, b2_b - B_a, b2_b enzyme (protein chain consisting of 2x B_a, b2_b proteins) and a b1_a, B_b - B_a, b2_b hybrid enzyme, consisting of both proteins in the hetero-allele. And I am assuming the second hybrid enzyme, a B_a, b2_b - b1_a, B_b will act in the exact same way as the first. If we take the first enzyme, b1_a, B_b - b1_a, B_b, and remove the redundant wildtype information, we end up with b1_a - b1_a, which I initially posted as a b1 / b1 chain.

Otherwise, two possibilities. I don't understand your meaning, or (very likely) I could be completely wrong as well. :lol: I don't know the low level stuff at all, I just mapped my interpretation of Peter's article into a binary system and worked from there. And I needed 2 bits of resolution to get 3 different phenotypes from 2 alleles.
I think this pic fits for now. :D

Image

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:14 pm

Hi Willy
Following your solid and sometimes very insightful defense of Ben's view that Aaron's chick provides 100% proof that Emerald is a par blue gene, I for one accept it as proven.

The only hole I could really ever find in the logic relied on the concept of the emerald mutation resulting from a structural gene having its effect on the cortex. I could not generate any traction for that hypothesis from any of the participants on the forum so I accept that it is not a viable concept.

In addition, I had my EmeraldTurquoise Cleartail hen producing 5 obviously emerald and 1 clearly turquoise chicks which I think you said lent a 98.44% degree of certainty in support of Ben's view.

There is a seventh chick that I initially thought was a TurquoiseBlue Cleartail because it had faint signs of yellow pigment at the end of its tail. It was suggested to me recently by another breeder (not on the forum) that the yellow on the tail could be staining. I didn't raise it on the forum at the time but decided to wait until there was a bit more feathering.

The 7th chick is now just about to fledge and the tail is no longer showing signs of yellow which could have provided 100% proof in the wrong direction. However, fortunately, it has very faint yellow "socks" now and a tiny hint of green at bottom of the wings. Therefore, instead of introducing more doubt, it actually increases the support for Ben's view to I think 99.22%. Given that this support is from a different source and from an entirely different direction in terms of genetic logic, I would suggest that it is more than enough to "close the book" on the matter.

For any doubters still out there, the yellow on my EmeraldBlue chicks is clear but I am doubtful that the yellow pigment on the 2 Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails will show up well on photos. If it still needed, I can try photos when they have settled down a bit.

Kind regards
Mike

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:06 pm

Cheers Mike, if there is ANY yellow on the bird it CANNOT be a Blue bird.

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:54 am

madas wrote:I think this pic fits for now. :D

Image
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's perfect!

Mikesringnecks
Posts:218
Joined:Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Mikesringnecks » Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:56 am

Hi Willy
I wish you hadn't raised the blue bird can't carry yellow thing again. I can't resist a final attempt at explaining what I have been trying so gently to get across for some days.

It is my view that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that a gene could appear at an as yet unidentified locus to create emerald yellow by either pigment or structural means. It is not unheard of for new mutations, that haven't been identified in other species, to show themselves in ringnecks. Cleartails and more recently the Deep mutation spring to mind.

Purely in theory, were this to be the cause of the emeralds we see today, then the breeding of Aaron's chick would fail as a stand alone proof. If I am wrong, please explain why, don't just tell me again that blue is a null mutation within the sphere of current knowns as detailed in Terry Martin's excellent book. I do know and accept that.

Fortunately, we both actually know that we already have the proof necessary to deny the existence of such a new gene. Ironically, that simple proof lies in my own breeding results. My EmeraldTurquoise hen only produced Emerald or Turquoise chicks, thereby proving to 99% certainty that the Emerald and Turquoise genes come from the same blue locus.

Kind regards
Mike
Attachments
IMG_7270-004.JPG

Johan S
Posts:1215
Joined:Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location:Pretoria, South Africa

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Johan S » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:19 am

Mikesringnecks wrote:It is my view that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that a gene could appear at an as yet unidentified locus to create emerald yellow by either pigment or structural means. It is not unheard of for new mutations, that haven't been identified in other species, to show themselves in ringnecks. Cleartails and more recently the Deep mutation spring to mind.

Purely in theory, were this to be the cause of the emeralds we see today, then the breeding of Aaron's chick would fail as a stand alone proof. If I am wrong, please explain why, don't just tell me again that blue is a null mutation within the sphere of current knowns as detailed in Terry Martin's excellent book. I do know and accept that.
Mike, if the forum had a "Like" button similar to Facebook, I would have pressed it! What wonderful persistence! :D

In your previous post it almost sounded like you felt abandoned by the rest of the group exploring non-parblue possibilities for "emerald yellow" (great term that I intend to adopt). I'd like to point out that it is just as conceivable to create emerald yellow right at the blue locus, as confirmed by your breeding results. My bet is on the emerald mutation changing a gene to later on allow for the inclusion of a fluorescent sensitive material into the molecule/protein/pigment/structure/whatever/wherever, as long as it ends up in the feather cortex (pigment, structure, doesn't matter). Then we'll observe it the moment UV light from the sun hits it, as a frequency shifted light (from UV to yellow, depending on the material). And the bonus, we are extremely likely to see low amounts of emerald "shine" through the green wildtype phenotype, i.e. not fully masked, but not very dominant either.

Recio
Posts:966
Joined:Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:09 am
Location:France

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Recio » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:19 am

Hi Mike,

I do not give up the hypothesis of Emerald as a non parblue mutation. Further I am deeply sure that I am rigth. If you read my posts I have never said the contrary. All the reasons have been pointed so I will not add anymore if nothing new appears. The anatomical, regulatory, evolutionary and structural reasons are obvious. The only problem is that the breeding results are interpreted through a wrong genetics understanding ... and I hope the post about recessiveness and masking will solve the problem.

Regards

Recio

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:51 pm

Recio said
Willy's logics (very correct) is that if BlueBlue is present it is not possible to see any psittacin. Since this bird show psittacins it would mean that it is a parblue. This logic is sound whenever we are dealing with a single Blue locus,
Recio unless there is another Blue locus you agreed with me, now you say you never said that? I am getting :x again, and why shouldn't I? There has never been a another Blue mutation in parrots that did not eliminate all psitticins yet you still carry on with hypotheticals.

trabots
Posts:597
Joined:Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by trabots » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:03 pm

It is my view that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that a gene could appear at an as yet unidentified locus to create emerald yellow by either pigment or structural means. It is not unheard of for new mutations, that haven't been identified in other species, to show themselves in ringnecks. Cleartails and more recently the Deep mutation spring to mind.
Mike, anything is possible, they have been able to slow the speed of light for instance. I can't offer you any more on this. I don't know what drives you and Recio et al to want a different outcome for Emerald when standard genetics and breeding results have overwhelmingly proved the point.

What is it that worries you both?

Recio
Posts:966
Joined:Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:09 am
Location:France

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Recio » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:12 am

trabots wrote:Recio said
Willy's logics (very correct) is that if BlueBlue is present it is not possible to see any psittacin. Since this bird show psittacins it would mean that it is a parblue. This logic is sound whenever we are dealing with a single Blue locus,
Recio unless there is another Blue locus you agreed with me, now you say you never said that? I am getting :x again, and why shouldn't I? There has never been a another Blue mutation in parrots that did not eliminate all psitticins yet you still carry on with hypotheticals.
Hi Willy,

You are cuting my sentences to pick up what you want to hear. The whole sentence was:
3. Let's suppose that we are dealing with an EmeraldWild BlueBlue. Willy's logics (very correct) is that if BlueBlue is present it is not possible to see any psittacin. Since this bird show psittacins it would mean that it is a parblue. This logic is sound whenever we are dealing with a single Blue locus, but we have two different psittacins (fluorescent and not fluorescent) with different distribution and regulation, making me think that the Blue mutation acts on a master gene controling (at least) two different genes, coding each for each psittacin type. Whenever a mutation appears in one of the controled genes, this could scape to the control of the master gene, and allow to express psittacins even if Blue is present.
Somehow feather structure and psittacin deposition seems to be interconected. Could this "conexion" appear at the genetic level? Could this explain the apparent higher Emerald offspring? Digenism?


Last nigth I couldn't sleep thinking about Mike's results, but now I have solved the riddle :idea: . Now I am at work and I do not have much time to develop but tonigth I will prove you that Emerald is a mutation of the second Blue locus, and even you, you will find that the logic is so simple that it must be correct. Do you want to bet some Emerald feathers? ... or the whole bird? :wink:

Regards

Recio

bennjamin
Posts:64
Joined:Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by bennjamin » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:17 am

Recio, Im startin to worry about you to, Mikes results and the other green/emerald cocks show in his result is pretty solid evidence of emerald being just a parblue, but Im like Mike , where here to listen and learn. What strikes me is why have the late Smith bros and JF not been of help if they are so knowledgeable?

Kappa
Posts:195
Joined:Tue May 28, 2013 12:02 am

Re: Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

Post by Kappa » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:55 am

Hi Everyone,
It's been very interesting following this roller coaster of a thread. However, there is information that has been published almost a decade ago clearly stating that the emerald is recessive to green, co dominant to blue and acts in the manner of a parblue mutation ( page 51 of Basttians book, and also on pstittacula-world.com). Current breeding results support this information, and there has been nothing to prove otherwise.

I understand that a robust argument is needed to ensure that all the I's have been dotted and t's crossed, inorder for all the checks and balances necessary to prove or disprove the emeralds inheritance. Surely, after all that time, breeding results would have eluded to wether or not that information was correct or incorrect.

I think that many of us sometimes over think the obvious and unnecessarily complicate everything. We are bird breeders, not nuclear physicists. How about we focus on the K.I.S.S (keep, it, simple, stupid) principle and do what we do best and breed birds because we enjoy it. Sometimes things really are as plain as the nose on your face, and no argument or counter argument will change that, regardless of wether we like it or not.

Locked