# super hypos



## Jon2ooo8 (Sep 6, 2008)

does a super hypo have 2 copies of the hypo gene or 1. if its 2 copies then breeding with my mack female would result in 100% mack ghost. am i right? also if its single copied then does it result in 50/50 mack ghost , normal (showing varying amounts of tangerine and spotting)


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

super hypo can have one or two copies and it's impossible to tell them apart without test breeding. hypo is a dominant gene where both the het and **** forms are identical. super hypo is a line bred trait.

you could get 

mack snow x super hypo (2c)
50% hypo 
50% mack snow hypos 

or 

mack snow x super hypo (1c)
25% normal
25% hypo
25% mack snow
25% mack snow hypo

you just wont know, untill you get breeding results.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Agree with the above post BUT what I wanna know is how come everyone (and I don`t mean any one person) has come to the conclusion that Super Hypo is a line bred trait - if it`s possible to get Super Hypo babies from a Super Hypo x Normal (WC) pairing?


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

super, tangerine, carrot tail, carrot tail are all line bred traits asociated with hypos. 

i'm not sure if it's possible to get supers from super x normal as the spots on the normal will have an influence, so i wouldn't have thought so, however i can let you know as my sunglow is paired with a VERY spotty mack snow, so i'll let you know if i get SHTCT's or not.

and i think there may be something to do with some shtct proving out ass one copy hypo, therefore is would mean that super hypo has nothing to do with 1c/2c of the gene


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

It is possible coz I`ve done it a couple of times!!! I did it years ago when I paired a very spotty WC female and a SHTCT male, I got hi-yellows, hypos and super hypo babies - and obviously the female wasn`t carrying any hidden traits as she was a 100% WC.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

funky1 said:


> Agree with the above post BUT what I wanna know is how come everyone (and I don`t mean any one person) has come to the conclusion that Super Hypo is a line bred trait - if it`s possible to get Super Hypo babies from a Super Hypo x Normal (WC) pairing?


It was beleaved that hypo was co-dominant with super hypo being the super form.But as we all know if super hypo was co-dom then super hypo X normal would result 100%hypo there'd be NO! super hypo offspring.But people get super hypo's from a super hypo X normal breeding so co-dom they are not.Hypo is doninant so where dose that leave super other that a line/selective breed trait ?.The hypo gene all ready get shot of half the spotting it not hard to shiffed the rest with breeding.Like what was done with carrottail and baldy also no spot trait whtch are agreed 100% are by every one they are selectve bred traits the super in hypo is just the same.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

kirsten said:


> super hypo can have one or two copies and it's impossible to tell them apart without test breeding. hypo is a dominant gene where both the het and **** forms are identical. super hypo is a line bred trait.
> 
> you could get
> 
> ...


Beings super hypo was involed offspring could be hypo or super hypo depending on the ancestoral influance.That's why i put (OF TYPE) when super hypo in involed.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Right, I thoroughly understand all that, and I totally understand the concept of line breeding 2 hypos to reduce the amount of spots through the generations to the point where you have the super hypo. However, isn`t it going against the grain/whole principal of line-breeding as such, if you can introduce the normal spotty gene into the super and yet STILL get super hypos produced??? Wouldn`t the babies have surely then taken a backward step in the `linebreeding` so that all the babies show some degree of spotting??? I`m not on about genetics as in 1 copy/2 copy/dom/co-dom etc - I`m on about the concept of linebreeding. 
If super hypo is line bred (say along the same lines as carrot tail) then, for example, if you have a 100% CT and put it to a leo that has no CT at all, then surely it`s impossible to get an offspring from the pair that also has a 100% CT as it`s line bred? How then, can you get super hypos from super hypos that have been paired a leo that is almost as far removed from the hypo aspect as it`s posible to get ie a spotty WC!? 
I`m not saying I`m right or wrong - I`m just curious to know how it`s possible to say that super hypo is line bred if SHs can produce SHs without carrying on the linebreeding, wheras it`s obvious CT is linebred because if you break the chain then the amount of CT shown in the offspring is reduced?!

(PLEASE tell me you get what I`m on about - I`m going round in circles here trying to make sense of what I`m writing haha!!!)

(oh, and sorry Jon2ooo8 - it`s not a thread hijack coz it`s all relevent in one way or another!!! )


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

gazz said:


> Beings super hypo was involed offspring could be hypo or super hypo depending on the ancestoral influance.That's why i put (OF TYPE) when super hypo in involed.


 
i'm a very simple creature, i deal in genes, the genetics carried are blah... but as you say they may show further line bred traits, but you can never guarentee those, so i stick to the solid facts, mack snow hypo. lol

tony i can completely understand where yo are coming from, but it's about the concentration of the genetics passed on from parent to young. VERY basicaly a super hypo offspring will have gotten more genetic information from the super hypo parent than the spotty parent, making it follow the traits of that parent, for example, i look more like my mother than my father (not just coz im a girl as well lol) and the genes in the female line of my family are very strong (we all look very similar, petit, plump, blonde, blue eyes,) so i got more genetic info from my mother than my father, doesn't mean i didn't come from my father.... do you get what i mean? i'm not always good at trying to convey a point accros via the wonderful meadium of the internet and typing, if you were with me however, i could explain fine. lol

again you example, the babies COULD have 100% CT IF they got more of the CT genetic information from the CT parent than from the non CT parent, but more often than not the offspring is an even mix of both parents, but it is possible, just not likely.

thats a point did anyone see in the news paper a married couple, the man black the woman pale and ginger had a set of twins, one was black the other was pale and ginger, however many years again they tried for another baby, they had twins again, and it wasn't till they got them home (they'd been seperate in the hospital) that they realised one was black the other was pale and ginger. both babies cam from the same parents but both babies got different amounts of genetic information from each parent, does that help as another example.

i could tell you how the genes code on a biochemical level and talk about DNA RNA, tRNA rRNA etc... lol

*oops, i meant to keep that basic and somehow ended up a little more in depth than i intended.*


----------



## Jon2ooo8 (Sep 6, 2008)

funky1 said:


> Right, I thoroughly understand all that, and I totally understand the concept of line breeding 2 hypos to reduce the amount of spots through the generations to the point where you have the super hypo. However, isn`t it going against the grain/whole principal of line-breeding as such, if you can introduce the normal spotty gene into the super and yet STILL get super hypos produced??? Wouldn`t the babies have surely then taken a backward step in the `linebreeding` so that all the babies show some degree of spotting??? I`m not on about genetics as in 1 copy/2 copy/dom/co-dom etc - I`m on about the concept of linebreeding.
> If super hypo is line bred (say along the same lines as carrot tail) then, for example, if you have a 100% CT and put it to a leo that has no CT at all, then surely it`s impossible to get an offspring from the pair that also has a 100% CT as it`s line bred? How then, can you get super hypos from super hypos that have been paired a leo that is almost as far removed from the hypo aspect as it`s posible to get ie a spotty WC!?
> I`m not saying I`m right or wrong - I`m just curious to know how it`s possible to say that super hypo is line bred if SHs can produce SHs without carrying on the linebreeding, wheras it`s obvious CT is linebred because if you break the chain then the amount of CT shown in the offspring is reduced?!
> 
> ...


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

funky1 said:


> However, isn`t it going against the grain/whole principal of line-breeding as such, if you can introduce the normal spotty gene into the super and yet STILL get super hypos produced??? Wouldn`t the babies have surely then taken a backward step in the `linebreeding` so that all the babies show some degree of spotting???


No coz when you line/selective breed to that exstent you fix it in the genes.This info is fixed in the DNA of the leo for example in hypo's saying(REDUCE).when this info gets pasted on to the a fully spotted normal you wouldn't really notice the reducion on less it in the ancestory of the leo as in a reduced spotted normal.You could say the same thing about carrottail and baldy these traits are in hypo's but never seen in normal 'i mean proper carrottail no a bit of orange in the tail'.Is coz on to of the hypo gene that says reduce the info from the fixed line/selective breeding of the ancestors gives more of a helping push.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Right, this is the dad (SHTCT):










The bottom leo in this pic is the WC normal mother (ignore the one in the middle), and the 3 at the top (hi-yellow, hypo and SH) are all siblings/results of the SHTCT and WC pairing:










So I get totally what you`re saying Gazz about the extent to which the hypos have been line bred has resulted in it being `fixed`. So does that mean that SH/hypos no longer have to *be* linebred to be able to produce SHs? - surely if a single SH can produce SH offspring regardless of who it`s paired with (and I`d assume a WC`s genes would be just as strong, if not stronger, then a SHs), then the whole idea about NEEDING to linebreed to produce them goes out the window - and, contrary to other posted beliefs, is actually a matter of chance, and not due to the concentration of specific genes involved as previously mentioned?
Does anyone get what I mean when I`m on about if ONE SH can produce SHs then that`s not linebreeding, although it took extensive linebreeding to initially create it?????


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

funky1 said:


> Right, this is the dad (SHTCT):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hypo is dominant not line bred.The super in hypo is a fixed line bred trait when it's fixed you've change the info in the DNA genetics of the leo.Yes line breeding was used to create but is not really needed these day.As is't replaced with selective breeding if wish to improve on somthing the leo offers like carrottail or tangerine'etc.What i see is in your breeding results is fully what i'd expect.The result i'm seeing proves your super hypo is a (1 Copy).So your hypo and super hypo offspring are (1 COPY) also.

Super hypo(1C) X WC/normal = .

50%Normal.
50%hypo(1C) of type.

Remember that hypo is a seperate gene in (2 COPY) it can 100% over rank normal pure blood or not.

Like.

Enigma(1C) X normal = .

50%Normal.
50%Enigma(1C)
----
Enigma(2C) X Enigma = .

100%Enigma(1C).

This is just how blue print hypo gene work.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Cheers pal - in the cold light of day (morning) and after rereading, it would`ve made been easier for me just to ask then `has the hypo (dominant) been line bred to such an extent (to reduce the number of body spots even further) that once the Super form has been achieved, then it no longer needs to be linebred in order to be reproduced, as it has now become a fixed line-bred trait. Whereas hypos must still be linebreed in order to produce a Super?` - discuss haha!!! I know hypo is dominant etc, etc - what I was on about is how can the Super Hypos STILL be classed as a line bred trait that needs line breeding to achieve, which I don`t agree with?. I know it`s a bit early for all this but some of us couldn`t sleep last night 
So it`s right then, where I said that you DON`T have to linebreed in order for a SH to be produced (which was the whole point at the beginning as, like you said, it`s now become a fixed trait) - from a single SH parent you can expect a certain number of babies to be SH as well. And regarding the SH aspect - it IS just down to chance then, (when an offspring carries the hypo gene from a SH parent) which TYPE of hypo it is: Super or regular Hypo.
Haha, I think the way it`s coming across isn`t getting translated very well (probably the way I`m saying it), but from what I can make out from my ramblings - I agree with everything you wrote!!!!!!!! Think I`ll go and have a coffee now and mabe say `hi` in the introductions - far less taxing on my brain!


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

funky1 said:


> Cheers pal - in the cold light of day (morning) and after rereading, it would`ve made been easier for me just to ask then `has the hypo (dominant) been line bred to such an extent (to reduce the number of body spots even further) that once the Super form has been achieved, then it no longer needs to be linebred in order to be reproduced, as it has now become a fixed line-bred trait. Whereas hypos must still be linebreed in order to produce a Super?` - discuss haha!!! I know hypo is dominant etc, etc - what I was on about is how can the Super Hypos STILL be classed as a line bred trait that needs line breeding to achieve, which I don`t agree with?. I know it`s a bit early for all this but some of us couldn`t sleep last night
> So it`s right then, where I said that you DON`T have to linebreed in order for a SH to be produced (which was the whole point at the beginning as, like you said, it`s now become a fixed trait) - from a single SH parent you can expect a certain number of babies to be SH as well. And regarding the SH aspect - it IS just down to chance then, (when an offspring carries the hypo gene from a SH parent) which TYPE of hypo it is: Super or regular Hypo.
> Haha, I think the way it`s coming across isn`t getting translated very well (probably the way I`m saying it), but from what I can make out from my ramblings - I agree with everything you wrote!!!!!!!! Think I`ll go and have a coffee now and mabe say `hi` in the introductions - far less taxing on my brain!


Got there in the end :lol2:.Yes super hypo stated life by linebred breeding-(keeping it in the family) they've been breed to such a exstent it is now FIXED in the genetics of the hypo that can influance offspring.These day there are enough hypo's/super hypo's we no longer need to linebred as we change to seletive breeding-(Breeding two leo's that share a trait of intrest).The term now would be the SUPER in hypo's is a POLYGENETIC trait so super hypo is super(POLYGENETIC) hypo(DOMINANT).So from now on i'll use the term polygenetic when refering to super hypo.


----------



## Jon2ooo8 (Sep 6, 2008)

lmao im so glad i made this thread now:whistling2: lol my heads hurting. i get what the both of you are saying (after alot of re-reading.)
so in a nut shell, super hypo is a line bred trait, that started with hypos. so hypo is a dominant morph, and "super" hypo is a form of the hypo. so when genetics become involved, theres no telling whether a hypo/super hypo will hatch, as you said it will be hypo of type. but it also depends on the parents, e.g. 2 superhypo parents would most likely result in mostly superhypos (am i right?) -- - - line breeding. but by chance (which most genetic outcome are) you can produce the "super" hypo form when breeing a super hypo and a wc :lol2:

lol sorry if that doesnt make sence but i think i know where your both coming at.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Jon2ooo8 said:


> 2 superhypo parents would most likely result in mostly superhypos (am i right?) -- - - line breeding.


If the two super hypo's are directly related.= linebreeding.
If the two super hypo's are not related = selective breeding.

Super hypo was a line bred trait but when it became FIXED it became a polygenetic trait.


----------



## Jon2ooo8 (Sep 6, 2008)

ahh right lol even more knowledge from this thread lmao heads gna burst soon


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Jon2ooo8 said:


> ahh right lol even more knowledge from this thread lmao heads gna burst soon


Right, so that`s SH and Hypos put to bed then, next up - Jungles, Stripes and Tangerine `Types`.........haha I`m out mate, I`ll leave you too it! :rotfl:


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

funky1 said:


> Jungles,Stripes,Reverse striped,Patternless reverse striped,Tangerine `Types`.........haha I`m out mate, I`ll leave you too it! :rotfl:


All started life from linebreed.These days we now use selective breeding.They are all polygenetic traits.

Jungle step up from anerrant.
Striped step up from jungle.
Reverse striped step up from striped.
Pattern reverse striped step up from reverse striped.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Ok, so i'm going to ask a loaded question, define what you mean as "fixed"? The process you have described is not genetic fixation, or any derivative that I know. So i'd be very grateful for further information.

Andy


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Ok, so i'm going to ask a loaded question, define what you mean as "fixed"? The process you have described is not genetic fixation, or any derivative that I know. So i'd be very grateful for further information.
> 
> Andy


Fixed in term of polygenetic.I mean a trait been bred into a morph that it will take more than one generation to undo it.It fixed that a morph carrying a trait will VERY,VERY likly pass this trait onto it's offspring.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

While this seems an interesting theory, how would you suggest fixation of a gene (or multiple genes) could not be undone by outcrossing on a biparentally inherited chromosome?

Andy


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

Super hypo is probably the combination of hypo and several independent modifier genes. Line breeding and selection would tend to produce geckos in which those modifier genes were homozygous (two copies of the same gene). If the modifier genes were dominant or codominant to their normal versions, then a super hypo X WC could produce at least some super hypo babies with one copy of the modifier genes in the gene pairs. With continued outbreeding to WC, things would start coming apart in the second generation.

If most of the modifier genes are recessive to their normal versions, then things would start to come apart in the first outbred generation.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

paulh said:


> Super hypo is probably the combination of hypo and several independent modifier genes. Line breeding and selection would tend to produce geckos in which those modifier genes were homozygous (two copies of the same gene). If the modifier genes were dominant or codominant to their normal versions, then a super hypo X WC could produce at least some super hypo babies with one copy of the modifier genes in the gene pairs. With continued outbreeding to WC, things would start coming apart in the second generation.
> 
> If most of the modifier genes are recessive to their normal versions, then things would start to come apart in the first outbred generation.


While I don't disagree with you here, this is theoretically possible, i would suggest it is not the most parsimonious answer. When you say "several independent modifier genes" do you mean acting concurrently? Or separately in different lines? How would you go about proving this? I would also suggest that it is likely not modifier genes affecting the loci which controls hypomelanism, but more likely it is one (or several genes) which control hypomelanism in the black band section, working either dependently or independently of one another.

The possibility of gene linkage after after a recombination event may also be a possibility, but very difficult to prove

It would be quite unusual to have alleles dominant to wild type in general.

Andy


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

Modifiers would have their own individual locations in the genome. Each one works independently in different parts of the biochemical assembly line, but the individual effects have an additive effect on the animal's appearance. Linkage is unnecessary.

Each snow line may have its own set of modifiers. Or some or all of the modifiers could be shared among some or all of the lines.

The first thing I'd do would be to line breed and select for the darkest hypos. Once there are two sister lines of hypos, one dark and the other light, crossing them and producing F1 and F2 generations might throw some light on the problem.

Dominant mutants usually get weeded out of a population if they have an obvious bad effect on an animal. A dominant mutant might be selectively neutral, which could let it stay around in the population.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

While it is true that modifier genes would have indepent locations throughout the genome, and that it it POSSIBLE they have an additive effect, the method you suggest is not capable of determining whether this is the case or not, far from it in fact. I would also suggest that most modifier genes (or at least the ones I deal with) are on the same chromosome, and generally in close proximity to the gene in question.

I also know linkage is not needed for this, but it is potentially a much more likely explanation that multiple modifier genes.

The only way any mutation (dominant, ressesive etc...) can be removed from the system is if it is under selection. Without selection, potentially detrimental alleles will remain in the system. With in breeding these can become fixed in the population, but outbreeding will overcome this. Dominant mutations are quite rare.

Andy


----------

