Attack of the Clones: the Marbled Crayfish

EarthScorpion

╯‵Д′)╯彡┻━┻
Article:
The rich genetic detail gave the scientists a much clearer look at the freakish origins of the marbled crayfish.

It apparently evolved from a species known as the slough crayfish, Procambarus fallax, which lives only in the tributaries of the Satilla River in Florida and Georgia.

The scientists concluded that the new species got its start when two slough crayfish mated. One of them had a mutation in a sex cell — whether it was an egg or sperm, the scientists can't tell.

Normal sex cells contain a single copy of each chromosome. But the mutant crayfish sex cell had two.

Somehow the two sex cells fused and produced a female crayfish embryo with three copies of each chromosome instead of the normal two. Somehow, too, the new crayfish didn't suffer any deformities as a result of all that extra DNA.

It grew and thrived. But instead of reproducing sexually, the first marbled crayfish was able to induce her own eggs to start dividing into embryos. The offspring, all females, inherited identical copies of her three sets of chromosomes. They were clones.


(The full research paper can be found here, but it's less quotable and pretty dense)

Fascinating reading, especially if you can make your way through the full research paper. Somehow - probably in a German aquarium - a single crayfish hatched which lays all its eggs fertilised with clones of itself, and which is infertile with males of its parents species. And it just reproduces endlessly, each egg hatching into a self-clone. The paper makes a note of how it's really amazing to have caught a clonal species so young, because it doesn't have most of the normal things we see in clone species DNA of built up duplications and replicated chromosomes - it's basically "pure" with the initial mutation because we're so close to the species origin.

Oh, and of course, that makes it an invasive alien clone since it just keeps on reproducing as long as it has food.
 
From other sources I've found in the last days, the reason geneticists are now so interested in marbled crayfish (beyond the obvious) is that we hope a better of understanding of epigenetics in clonal populations leads to a better understanding of cancer.

Also, while looking up other examples of parthenogenesis in nature, I had my mind boggled that parthenogenesis in many reptiles and birds does not result in female children, but male children. So for animals with a Z/W chromosomal sex system (as opposed to the mammal X/Y) parthenogenesis is always a dead end in one generation.
 
Also, while looking up other examples of parthenogenesis in nature, I had my mind boggled that parthenogenesis in many reptiles and birds does not result in female children, but male children. So for animals with a Z/W chromosomal sex system (as opposed to the mammal X/Y) parthenogenesis is always a dead end in one generation.

Yes, but for such species it's a more useful fallback where the species takes a hit to genetic diversity but can keep on with their normal reproduction. XY and X0 species can't do that.

Also, in some cases it's self-recombination, in which case the offspring can be ZZ, ZW, or WW (non-viable).
 
Quick, deploy the Cajun Navy. I mean they're a volunteer group from Louisiana they should have plenty of people that know how to deal with crawfish .
 
The Star War's prequels might have been more interesting if the clones were all female and capable of asexual reproduction.

Edit: But seriously, its fascinating how a random mutation can alter a species within just a single generation.
 
Last edited:
Edit: But seriously, its fascinating how a random mutation can alter a species within just a single generation.

We all know what maize looks like. But it's wild version is called teosinte and looks utterly different:



It was not until genetic testing of archaeological funds could be done that they could identified as really being the same species.

Testing with breeding and cross-breeding showed that all those massive differences come down to a very few number of genes.

Here's a shorter-ish (< 20 min) documentary that provides a nice overview:



The biggest flaw in the popular conception of genes is to treat them as having a one-to-one relation to treats (speaking of "the gene for..."); when they are utterly complex and chaotic tangles of feedback loops, that at the same time create highly structured hierarchies of for instance master switch genes, or all the epigenetic effects that have become more popular to research in recent times.
 
No for the same reason cloning plants for farming isn't viable.Less genetic diversity means more vulnerability to disease.

I wouldn't exactly say that such a thing is not viable if you consider that fact that the commercial banana is actually a cloned plant.(or at least I think so). Though you are correct that the increased vulnerability is an issue.
 
I wouldn't exactly say that such a thing is not viable if you consider that fact that the commercial banana is actually a cloned plant.(or at least I think so). Though you are correct that the increased vulnerability is an issue.
Counter-point: Look at the history of banana farming. IIRC the reason Banana Runtz and such don't taste like "actual" Bananas is that the popular bananas they were based on were wiped out via disease.

Sort-of, says BBC. The banana wasn't the inspiration of the flavor, but it was comparable in taste. Either way the end fate of the banana remains the same.
 
Last edited:
Counter-point: Look at the history of banana farming. IIRC the reason Banana Runtz and such don't taste like "actual" Bananas is that the popular bananas they were based on were wiped out via disease.

Sort-of, says BBC. The banana wasn't the inspiration of the flavor, but it was comparable in taste. Either way the end fate of the banana remains the same.

Oh, I am well aware of the negative effects this extreme monoculture had on the banana industry and I am not saying that diseases and the like aren't a major problem for such "cloned" plants/animals. My argument was more that despite those increased risks there are still examples of such a thing happening in the real world and thus the statement that cloning plants and the like isn't viable is simply factually wrong. It is rare and it comes with its owns set of problems but has and most likely will happen in the future.
 
I wouldn't exactly say that such a thing is not viable if you consider that fact that the commercial banana is actually a cloned plant.(or at least I think so). Though you are correct that the increased vulnerability is an issue.
Clonal monoculture tends to get used when it's desired that produce be entirely consistent. A lot of commercial plant cultivars are reproduced clonally for this reason. But yeah, there is an issue of lack of genetic diversity causing vulnerabilities to disease.

In a few cases plants will do this in the wild as their normal means of reproduction. An example would be Salvia Divinorum which very rarely produces viable seed and reproduces normally only vegatatively in the wild or cultivated in controlled conditions.

Various species of Opuntia, while reproducing sexually, tend to form large clonal colonies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top