Tomatoville® Gardening Forums


Notices

Forum area for discussing hybridizing tomatoes in technical terms and information pertinent to trait/variety specific long-term (1+ years) growout projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 26, 2017   #31
bower
Tomatovillian™
 
bower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 4,371
Default

Brent, I still think your video title claiming a world first stable parthenocarpic tomato is misleading. I don't see how the Brent tomato is really different from other parthenocarpic tomatoes which have been around for a long time, including hybrids and OP's.

Burpee's "Sweet Seedless" hybrid has been around for 8 years.
http://www.burpee.com/vegetables/tom...rod001016.html
http://foodchannel.com/2009/new-seed...eakthrough-for
By all accounts it is really seedless 100% or very close to it.

The hybrid seeds are pricey at about 2 for a buck. But the hybridization process is patented, so there's no money to be made that way without paying the patent holder. (Just saying, since your video did say you were hoping to raise funds to continue your work, it seems doubtful that investors could expect to get money back.)

Doug Heath of Seminis patent in 2000 names the parthenocarpy genes and gives detail of the hybridization method and prior genetic sources (OP's)
http://www.google.com/patents/US6060648
And there are further patents involving combinations of other parth genes, belonging to Western Seed International
http://www.google.com/patents/US20030217391
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2583547A1?cl=en

BTW you said you didn't know (or care) about the genetics of Brent, which doesn't make sense in the context of keeping the parents secret etc. or hoping to make it proprietary. You need to know what genes are involved, if you think you can patent or otherwise secure rights that allow you to make money from it.
FYI, you mentioned exerted stigmas on the plant, which suggests the sha gene mentioned in the Seminis patent could play a mechanical role:
http://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Data/Acc/Gen....aspx?Gene=sha interestingly found in cv Roma.

New work in parthenocarpy is high tech stuff - CRISPR has been used to make parthenocarpic seedless tomatoes by tweaking a gene to increase auxin levels. That's all it takes, apparently.
http://www.hortidaily.com/article/33...seedless-fruit

The jasmonate insensitve mutant in another paper is seedless, probably for exactly that reason ie auxin levels.
https://www.ipb-halle.de/en/research...r-development/

So the various parthenocarpy genes which are not mechanically preventing pollination, are probably affecting the auxin levels one way or another.

JMO, you would be on shaky ground to ask for or accept money from anyone through your YouTube channel, to pursue a genetics project that is substantially owned by major seed corporations. They do take their patents seriously. You can breed OP's of course, but there will be the usual caveat, difficult or impossible to earn enough to pay the costs of breeding OP's, which everyone will buy once, grow and save their own seeds.
bower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #32
Brent M
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 123
Default

Bower,

A LOT to unpack here. I'm glad you've looked into it. I have done quite a bit of research on it. I hope that your skepticism will turn into optimism at some point. I'm always open to being wrong about what I've presented, but it certainly won't be misleading meaning I know the actual truth and I chose not to follow the actual truth. That is misleading. That's also manipulative and it's disgusting IMO. So, skepticism is my friend right now. It helps me find things I might not have found. I am not a right-fighter meaning I do not have to be right to simply be right.

ALL BELOW IS MY UNDERSTANDING:

Burpee is seedless, but there's no background on it at all so we don't know the mechanism for seedlessness. I believe that if Burpee had found a stable gene, there would be more variety from them by now. It may be that they're seedlessness is something akin to a seedless watermelon...diploid bred to triploid or whatever causes that. It could be stimulative parthenocarpy with aborted seeds. I don't know cause they've not released the background of it that I've seen. Making a correlation from Burpee to Brent seems like a stretch to me until we know more. So, I ruled Burpee out primarily because they've not presented more work (tomatoes with the capability) in 9 years or so. I believe it would be counter-productive not to exploit what they have. Don't you? I would love to read up on it if you find scientific work on Sweet Seedless.

I'm not sure the intent of your hybridizing references. Breeding hybrids is a super common practice. Now, patenting a process to obtain a hybrid capable of consistently producing parthenocarpic fruit can certainly be protected. Thing is, to get a patent, you have to be very specific on how yours is different. None are the same. The ability to be different and patent isn't difficult if what you have is true and different. I have read a bunch of patents. They look daunting. So, here, patenting Brent, either as a plant or it's new genome, isn't daunting IF Brent is different. Yep, it would take a lot of work. Like said, I don't know the genetic makeup other than it's monogenic. I believe it's monogenic and every monogenic I've read about has issues carrying forward. In one of your links, the cross involves a male sterile. This isn't Brent. In another of your link, some examples of parthenocarpy in some crossed lines, in 2001, were noted, but nothing has come of it. This isn't Brent. Brent is 100% a parthenocarpic plant always producing a tomato if pollinators are removed. Don't get lost in the terminology used in patents. It's just background info. There's meat in each patent. The last patent link seems to mention gene manipulation of wild type species closely related to the regular tomato. This is certainly not Brent. Jasmonate article snippet, from your link, are male and female sterile examples of wild-type tomatoes and, as far as I see, have no work, in progress, working towards possible parthenocarpic potential in the regular tomato so it's kind of not relevant or at least not right now.

I absolutely care about identifying the specific gene or potentially genes to see if it's something unique. BUT, right now, I'm looking for a partnership to help me defray the costs because Brent's parthenocarpic phenotype is locked down. It certainly is what it is because it is. I have been in contact with a patent attorney and I understand the process. I've also been in contact with some experts in other areas including discussion on genetics. I can actually see what Brent is so the rest will come of course or a claim will be made against it to be worked out in the courts. At it's basic level, I have a cherry that is truly parthenocarpic in any environment!

The anthers aren't short. The stigma is exserted. The degree varies some from plant to plant, generation to generation, but they've been typically exserted. I also grown many forms of OPs that have exserted stigmas. It is common. If I remember correctly, Sha associated with lack of polliination? Brent drops pollen like all tomatoes. A toothbrush and yellow powder flows. He seeds normally in such case very much unlike the Sha gene. In any case, you can see in the video that the anthers are normal. The morphology of the flower is normal.

I'm opposed to gene manipulation and I do mention the genetic work being done in the video in regards to CRISPR. This is exactly why I'm publicly releasing it now, prematurely. I was going to bring forward, all of this, after beefsteak tomatoes had incorporated the gene (hopefully). I've bred Brent to 6 lines of beefsteaks. Now, due to genetic research and advances, I feel it needs to come out and I believe there's enough solid work to bring it forward and hopefully, at least, give the consumer another option rather than genetically modified versions. FYI, those CRISPR lines are in the works so we don't know how fruitful they'll be either.

So, if I may ask, do you know of a stable parthenocarpic variety that will grow a fruit always. One that will grow a fruit as long as the plant will grow. One where it is super easy to save the seed. One that is bred naturally. One that tastes great. One where the plant looks normal. If you can tell me one, either by common name, or with a link, I'd love to read up on it. Now, I've not seen where Brent will carry easily into other lines, because I had to bring forward early, but I have germinated the 6 lines and they germinate. I have seen seedless fruit in the F1 population of the crosses. That baffles me, but tells me that the gene(s) may be semi-dominant. I'm anxious to find out. It's promising to carry the parthenocarpic gene through simple breeding practices.

You won't see me asking for money on my YouTube. I will not, however, not pursue this because anyone thinks the big conglomerates have it all figured out. Should the little guy not even try anymore. Any patent, by anyone, is their patent. It is unique and defend-able. I would be a fool to not pursue this to whatever end don't you think?

I am 100% sincere on what I believe is happening. I COULD BE WRONG and that's ok. Thoughts?
Brent M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #33
bower
Tomatovillian™
 
bower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 4,371
Default

Brent, Maybe I'm skeptical because I don't have enough information.

I would be stoked if you would post or describe the data that caused you to conclude that 'Brent' is a monogenic parthenocarpy which is not one of the known genes.
Any data of the type including number of plants grown, ratio of parthenocarpy in different generations, ie what were the ratios like when you were stabilizing Brent F1 F2 etc.
You mention seedless fruit in the F1 crosses with Brent but didn't give an approximate ratio or any numerical data, that might help too.

This is the kind of data you would need to present to an investing partner, to defray cost of testing to identify the gene or at least screen out the known parthenocarpy alleles.

Re: Burpee's F1 Sweet Seedless, IMO the obvious best guess is that this hybrid is produced under license or other fee to the patent holder Seminis, and that the parent lines are derived from the known lines with parthenocarpic genes.
bower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #34
Brent M
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bower View Post
Brent, Maybe I'm skeptical because I don't have enough information.

I would be stoked if you would post or describe the data that caused you to conclude that 'Brent' is a monogenic parthenocarpy which is not one of the known genes.
Any data of the type including number of plants grown, ratio of parthenocarpy in different generations, ie what were the ratios like when you were stabilizing Brent F1 F2 etc.
You mention seedless fruit in the F1 crosses with Brent but didn't give an approximate ratio or any numerical data, that might help too.

This is the kind of data you would need to present to an investing partner, to defray cost of testing to identify the gene or at least screen out the known parthenocarpy alleles.

Re: Burpee's F1 Sweet Seedless, IMO the obvious best guess is that this hybrid is produced under license or other fee to the patent holder Seminis, and that the parent lines are derived from the known lines with parthenocarpic genes.
Ah, no problem. Let's define monogenic = involving or controlled by a single gene.

Brent's parthenocarpy was discovered in 1 plant of about 40 in the F2 generation. I had been on vacation for 2 weeks and when I came back, almost all plants had very little to no fruit. That's because hardly any wind and no pollinators are in my greenhouse. Brent, the first had a tomato on every single flower. Every single flower. This was also when temps were getting below 40 at night. I was filming it and actually talking about how cool it was to have such a great prospect. A tomato that could set fruit in cooler weather or, at least, while others didn't. In the middle of filming and talking, "I wonder if this tomato is parthenocarpic?" Then I stopped filming and said, "★★★★, is this tomato parthenocarpic?" So, then I waited for fruit to turn/mature. I cut open countless tomatoes. None had seeds. I was upset because I couldn't get any seeds! I almost gave up, but kept it alive indoors where it basically suspended growth and lost many leaves. Spring came, it hit sunlight, and I started pollinating it with a toothbrush. I started getting seeds on all tomatoes. I was very happy 'cause they germinated too. Now, I was wondering if it was cold-only perthenocarpic similar to OSU work. So, began growing it out and testing it. At F3, I grew out about 50 plants and every single one was parthenocarpic. Every single plant. I know this means the mother was recessive dominant; however, I didn't know if it was one gene until this year actually. I grew out two more generations and every single plant was parthenocarpic. If it were digenic, the F2's likely would have had an example or two of NON-parthenocarpy unlike than the mother. At F3-F5 certainly a few would have present with less parthenocarpic or non-parthenocarpic examples. They didn't.

So, now we know Brent is dead-certain recessive dominant and will be for every generation. Research shows that every monogenic line has had homeotic deformity, seedless fruits that aren't normal, or pollen isn't viable. The digneic lines are the ones that appear more normal. The last way to prove stability is to breed Brent's parthenocarpic gene into recessive dominant crosses by regular mendel expectations. I haven't done that as I've previously stated, but I did notice some examples of parthenocarpy suggesting that it's semi-dominant in certain cases meaning the parthenocarpic genes are so strong they want to present badly. In the crosses, my only regard was to collect seed 'cause I know the value isn't in the F1 generation at all. It's always in the F2 with recessive genes.

After that, it's well documented that all versions of parthenocarpy are troublesome to bring forward. It's likely why we haven't seen a single variety in almost 10 years. There are scientific papers describing attempts to breed existing examples into other lines and they've had unreliable results. Many countries have tried and are now trying genetically. In fact, there's a consortium (alliance) of scientists trying to genetically create stable, reproducible parthenocarpic lines.

Whoever owns or pushes "Sweet Seedless" is being counter-productive if it's easily compatible in breeding. It's that simple. They're losing millions and millions of dollars. If they're sitting on it for some strange reason, the GMO parthenocarpic will definitely kill their one variety so it would behoove them to get moving. Since they know all this easily, I can only ascertain that creating "Sweet Seedless" is difficult breeding.

If I had the resources as a company owner, and someone presented something to me that could be a game-changer or unique, I would certainly spend a little of my time and money to look into it. If I do and it pays off, I win big. If I don't, my competitor wins big. My personal take is that if doesn't go anywhere in the next few months, I may just distribute seeds and then all novice breeders get it thanks to me. I am prepared to do that and I will do just that if I have to.

Last edited by Brent M; September 27, 2017 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Clarification
Brent M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #35
Brent M
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 123
Default

The bleeped out word wasn't bad. It was the S word.
Brent M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #36
bower
Tomatovillian™
 
bower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 4,371
Default

Bad words are relative... some care some don't.

Thank you for the details! This makes it much more interesting to me, in trying to understand what lies behind the genetics and the work you've put into this.

I know you want to keep the parents secret and that is fine. You told us that it was not any of the usual suspects of parthenocarpy. If there was no parthenocarpy in the parents or in the F1, then the only conclusion is that Brent had a mutation, and this could be a new and unknown gene.

If there was parthenocarpy in the parents or in the F1 (just not the usual suspects), then finding only one in 40 would be in keeping with the comments by breeders in the patents, that the ratio of 1/16 which is expected for two recessives together was not found in their work on parthenocarpy, and was instead much lower ie a rare combination of the two desired genes, which is why the hybrid approach is much easier to get to the goal of seedless fruit.

There is still one problem in the way, though, for the conclusion that only one gene is involved.

As I mentioned before, the recent work has elucidated that a mutation involving auxin production is the cause of parthenocarpic fruit. High levels of auxin cause the fruit to swell and grow even though pollination has not taken place. This is what you described in that one of forty 'Brent' which made fruit in the cold with no pollination. Plant hormone production and level is complex, so there may be multiple places in that pathway where a mutation could occur that causes auxin to be at a high level regardless of environmental conditions as you describe.
What we do know for certain, is that either a parental gene or a mutation in the F2 causes Brent to produce lots of auxin no matter what the weather is like, and enough to swell the fruit without pollination. (I have not read about the details of this so am speaking in general terms). This is what you discovered in the F2.

But a second gene, unrelated to the first, is necessary for Brent to be chronically seedless, as you described, but capable of producing seeds by direct mechanical stimulation to release pollen. This trait is clearly a physical one, I mean physiological, that is it physically prevents or obstructs pollen from being released and resulting in seeds in the fruit. The fact is self evident since an electric toothbrush will overcome that physical barrier to release the pollen and make viable seeds as you described. It is not a gene for sterility or low pollen viability that prevents seed formation - it is a physical trait that affects the release of pollen.

So these two traits are genetically distinct, you need to understand that because it will affect ratios and how many plants you need to grow out in your work with the beefs in order to get seedless fruit as well as parthenocarpy.

I think your trick of clipping off the stigmas is a great and handy way for you to do selection in your future crosses! In order to identify which plants have the auxin producing gene.

As Worth and I both commented before, seedless shemmeedless. If you can breed some beefs that are tasty and produce fruit in all weather, who cares if they have a few seeds. (more please!). Yes seedless has a place in production fruit for sauce of commerce etc. or people with the inability to digest them (surely rare). Other than that it is a novelty value more likely frustrating to the home gardener who grows OP's and saves seed. SOOO.... you may likely find a few in many fruit that have both traits and if so, go for the sauce market. The parthenocarpy ie the auxin producing gene is more important by far, and easier to identify because it is one gene. JMO.
bower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #37
bower
Tomatovillian™
 
bower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 4,371
Default

Just to clarify, you are using some unusual terminology that gets confusing "recessive dominant" doesn't mean anything to anyone, what you are describing is recessive homozygous.

"At F3, I grew out about 50 plants and every single one was parthenocarpic. Every single plant. I know this means the mother was recessive dominant; however, I didn't know if it was one gene until this year actually. I grew out two more generations and every single plant was parthenocarpic. If it were digenic, the F2's likely would have had an example or two of NON-parthenocarpy unlike than the mother. At F3-F5 certainly a few would have present with less parthenocarpic or non-parthenocarpic examples. They didn't."

Assuming that the trait is a simple recessive (not a QTL) your results are explained by the recessive homozygous condition which you first observed in the F2. Every generation afterwards should be 100% parthenocarpic ie capable of producing fruit without pollination. Snip snip test. And yes, that trait appears to be monogenic.
bower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #38
Brent M
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bower View Post
Bad words are relative... some care some don't.

Thank you for the details! This makes it much more interesting to me, in trying to understand what lies behind the genetics and the work you've put into this.

I know you want to keep the parents secret and that is fine. You told us that it was not any of the usual suspects of parthenocarpy. If there was no parthenocarpy in the parents or in the F1, then the only conclusion is that Brent had a mutation, and this could be a new and unknown gene.

If there was parthenocarpy in the parents or in the F1 (just not the usual suspects), then finding only one in 40 would be in keeping with the comments by breeders in the patents, that the ratio of 1/16 which is expected for two recessives together was not found in their work on parthenocarpy, and was instead much lower ie a rare combination of the two desired genes, which is why the hybrid approach is much easier to get to the goal of seedless fruit.

There is still one problem in the way, though, for the conclusion that only one gene is involved.

As I mentioned before, the recent work has elucidated that a mutation involving auxin production is the cause of parthenocarpic fruit. High levels of auxin cause the fruit to swell and grow even though pollination has not taken place. This is what you described in that one of forty 'Brent' which made fruit in the cold with no pollination. Plant hormone production and level is complex, so there may be multiple places in that pathway where a mutation could occur that causes auxin to be at a high level regardless of environmental conditions as you describe.
What we do know for certain, is that either a parental gene or a mutation in the F2 causes Brent to produce lots of auxin no matter what the weather is like, and enough to swell the fruit without pollination. (I have not read about the details of this so am speaking in general terms). This is what you discovered in the F2.

But a second gene, unrelated to the first, is necessary for Brent to be chronically seedless, as you described, but capable of producing seeds by direct mechanical stimulation to release pollen. This trait is clearly a physical one, I mean physiological, that is it physically prevents or obstructs pollen from being released and resulting in seeds in the fruit. The fact is self evident since an electric toothbrush will overcome that physical barrier to release the pollen and make viable seeds as you described. It is not a gene for sterility or low pollen viability that prevents seed formation - it is a physical trait that affects the release of pollen.

So these two traits are genetically distinct, you need to understand that because it will affect ratios and how many plants you need to grow out in your work with the beefs in order to get seedless fruit as well as parthenocarpy.

I think your trick of clipping off the stigmas is a great and handy way for you to do selection in your future crosses! In order to identify which plants have the auxin producing gene.

As Worth and I both commented before, seedless shemmeedless. If you can breed some beefs that are tasty and produce fruit in all weather, who cares if they have a few seeds. (more please!). Yes seedless has a place in production fruit for sauce of commerce etc. or people with the inability to digest them (surely rare). Other than that it is a novelty value more likely frustrating to the home gardener who grows OP's and saves seed. SOOO.... you may likely find a few in many fruit that have both traits and if so, go for the sauce market. The parthenocarpy ie the auxin producing gene is more important by far, and easier to identify because it is one gene. JMO.
I can't debate or bring clarity to any of what you say because I don't know. I am a results-oriented type of guy. If I see it, I believe it. It sounds like we're merging our thoughts more now.
Brent M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27, 2017   #39
Brent M
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bower View Post
Just to clarify, you are using some unusual terminology that gets confusing "recessive dominant" doesn't mean anything to anyone, what you are describing is recessive homozygous.

"At F3, I grew out about 50 plants and every single one was parthenocarpic. Every single plant. I know this means the mother was recessive dominant; however, I didn't know if it was one gene until this year actually. I grew out two more generations and every single plant was parthenocarpic. If it were digenic, the F2's likely would have had an example or two of NON-parthenocarpy unlike than the mother. At F3-F5 certainly a few would have present with less parthenocarpic or non-parthenocarpic examples. They didn't."

Assuming that the trait is a simple recessive (not a QTL) your results are explained by the recessive homozygous condition which you first observed in the F2. Every generation afterwards should be 100% parthenocarpic ie capable of producing fruit without pollination. Snip snip test. And yes, that trait appears to be monogenic.
Exactly. Recessive homozygous. There is no dominant gene to mask the recessive trait, therefore, the recessive gene presents itself. Excellent catch.

Now, I know nothing about you and I don't want to research your background because I'm incredibly busy at the moment. Do you mind telling me about your work with tomatoes, breeding (or not), interests, etc.?

I wish more would speak on this. The more the better. For some reason, it's really slow catching on for what it could be potentially.

And, thank you for your time and interest Bower.
Brent M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #40
Fusion_power
Tomatovillian™
 
Fusion_power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,023
Default

Parthenocarpy in tomato is neither new nor patentable. Cytoplasmic sterility on the other hand would be a new trait entirely. Unfortunately, it would make a plant that had to be vegetatively propagated or that was only useful as a pollen donor.
Fusion_power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #41
BigVanVader
Tomatovillian™
 
BigVanVader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Posts: 2,696
Default

The Burpee seedless wasn't seedless for my neighbor. She has grown several so called seedless none were truly seedless. Sometimes the first flush is, but then you get seed husk in some.
BigVanVader is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 AM.


★ Tomatoville® is a registered trademark of Commerce Holdings, LLC ★ All Content ©2017 Commerce Holdings, LLC ★