Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
How many loci does Phylos use?
I'm not seeing why I should doubt it when Phylos says two cuts are the same genotype. Please help me to understand.
Last edited:
CSI humboldt thread
- Thread starter THCbreeder
- Start date
I'm not seeing why I should doubt it when Phylos says two cuts are the same genotype. Please help me to understand.
jayblaze710
Well-Known Member
I have no idea how many they use. That’s part of the issue. Publication in scientific journals requires disclosing their methods, and making the raw data accessible to anyone. I haven’t seen much on their sequencing or analysis methods. .
Here’s an example of Phylos results chosen totally at random:
https://phylos.bio/sims/sample/genotype/eg5d275o
NL5 closest relatives include alien Dawg, princess, and NYCD. Ok. I’m not saying they’re not related at all, but they’re clearly not closely related. Whether it’s because they don’t have enough samples or they aren’t sampling enough sites, but the resolution just isn’t all that great.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
If you don't know anything about their methods, what reason do you have to doubt them when they say two cuts are clones? What if they used 3,000 loci, would that be enough to distinguish between parent and S1?
I'm not sure what your NL5 example was supposed to show other than Phylos doesn't have a very large database and can't show many distant relatives. What does that have to do with Phylos ability to distinguish between what NSpecta submitted as TK and the 72 other cuts people have submitted that Phylos say are the same genotype?
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
According to the Open Cannabis Project, Phylos makes all of their data public, except when customers ask them not to. All of the raw data is in the NIH GenBank. Since that is a database for researchers I have no reason to doubt that it meets whatever standards there are for inclusion. This was easy for me to find out so it doesn't sound like you ever bothered to look into it.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
ok, this is really cracking me up... I had a hunch about NSpecta's submissions to Phylos. So I checked the dates on the reports and my hunch was confirmed.
On Dec 4 2017, NSpecta submitted four cuts to Phylos: Triangle Kush, Chem91, AE77 Cali Orange, and Purple Indica. here is the TK report https://phylos.bio/g-zqqnj
When Triangle Kush came back as the same clone as dozens of OG Kushes in circulation I suspect he was incredulous, just as you are. So he decided to test Phylos to see if it could distinguish between parent and S1. He reversed Chem91 and chucked a room full of clones in the spring, those crosses dropped in the late summer, and submitted a Chem91 S1 on Oct 8 2018, https://phylos.bio/g-oszti Of course Phylos was able to distinguish between the original and the S1, just as they claim to be able to and just as expected, really.
I suspect that he was still having trouble believing the data from Phylos so he submitted another Chem91 S1, on Oct 19 2018. https://phylos.bio/g-lznev Again, Phylos was able to distinguish between both S1s and the original.
I am speculating on NSpectas motive, but why else would he genotype an S1 he made himself? Then genotype another S1 right away? It's not like he was confused about the origin of these two S1s. He was testing Phylos.
I am convinced NSpecta was testing Phylos because he couldn't believe the TK results. NSpecta's cut of TK is the same OG Kush cut that is flying around under dozens of names, probably hundreds.
so, is TK just another OG Kush rename or are all those kushes renames of TK?
On Dec 4 2017, NSpecta submitted four cuts to Phylos: Triangle Kush, Chem91, AE77 Cali Orange, and Purple Indica. here is the TK report https://phylos.bio/g-zqqnj
When Triangle Kush came back as the same clone as dozens of OG Kushes in circulation I suspect he was incredulous, just as you are. So he decided to test Phylos to see if it could distinguish between parent and S1. He reversed Chem91 and chucked a room full of clones in the spring, those crosses dropped in the late summer, and submitted a Chem91 S1 on Oct 8 2018, https://phylos.bio/g-oszti Of course Phylos was able to distinguish between the original and the S1, just as they claim to be able to and just as expected, really.
I suspect that he was still having trouble believing the data from Phylos so he submitted another Chem91 S1, on Oct 19 2018. https://phylos.bio/g-lznev Again, Phylos was able to distinguish between both S1s and the original.
I am speculating on NSpectas motive, but why else would he genotype an S1 he made himself? Then genotype another S1 right away? It's not like he was confused about the origin of these two S1s. He was testing Phylos.
I am convinced NSpecta was testing Phylos because he couldn't believe the TK results. NSpecta's cut of TK is the same OG Kush cut that is flying around under dozens of names, probably hundreds.
so, is TK just another OG Kush rename or are all those kushes renames of TK?
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
Interesting! Orgnkid himself claimed he sold SFV OG Kush to Ghost and then Ghost sold it as a Ghost Og.
I wonder if Og Kush is displaying adaptations to its various environments, over the last 30 years of cloning and distribution. Creating what looks like a unique version of the original.
40AmpstoFreedom
Well-Known Member
I really look forward to growing mendo purps, but I will not be buying any of the pck crosses again. Grew a lot of urkle x pck and not impressed at all. Not a single grape smelling pheno of 18 females. Some will smell awesome sweet grape alive, but the smell never comes out in cure. Very bland smoke where pck just dominates everything including smell and the pck smell is not attractive in cured form. Some very awesome looking plants though. PCK imo sounds nice and exotic, but really doesn't hit the mark for me in any way.
Mendo Purps and his bubblegum x mendo cross I really want to try. I tried buying Mendo purps and ended up with the Urkle x PCK. Was really disappointed when I opened that package and really dumb of me to waste so much space in my garden. Not hating just giving honest opinion on that cross.
Mendo Purps and his bubblegum x mendo cross I really want to try. I tried buying Mendo purps and ended up with the Urkle x PCK. Was really disappointed when I opened that package and really dumb of me to waste so much space in my garden. Not hating just giving honest opinion on that cross.
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
I feel the same with the 2 PCK crosses I grew. I can't stand the smell.
They have a tendency to herm as well. I grew out some mystery beans found in some other strains that I grew next to them and they even came out smelling and tasting like the PCK.
jayblaze710
Well-Known Member
When I was doing this work we would genotype for tens of thousands to of loci minimum. This was ~5 years ago too. I’m sure methods have advanced significantly. So no, 3000 is not enough.
But even more importantly, what loci are being genotyped? Are they located in or near DNA encoding proteins, or are they genotyping for random loci found throughout the genome? Random loci are much better for getting an overall view of phylogenetic history.
Re: Chem 91 S1 vs TK. It’s possible their methods and resolution have gotten better since the TK was sequenced and analyzed. It’s possible that their database of genetic data allows for higher resolution of the Chem complex compared to the OG group. It’s possible that their algorithm used for sorting groups just lumped a bunch of highly related individuals as “identical”.
This is the problem. Without clear documentation of how their sequencing and analysis is done, there are about a dozen different things that can skew results entirely. This is part of why evolutionary genomics is so difficult. It’s one part molecular biology, it’s one part advanced statistics. And even the right methods will prove meaningless without an informative data set. This is why every scientific paper includes a method section that can go on for pages.
All I can say about Phylos, with my expertise in doing the exact work they are doing, I don’t trust any of their results more than a hand-wavy, this may be sorta true way. Some of their analyses are straight up dogshit. I would never use Phylos as proof of anything. I trust old heads with their tall tales more than Phylos.
Also, I highly doubt Nspecta had ulterior motives for getting stuff sequenced. The dude has long had some alternative beliefs on the Chem family, and I’m sure he just wanted to understand how they were related better. Too bad Phylos results suck though.
Pa-Nature
Well-Known Member
Hey bro thought it was u .
Pa-Nature
Well-Known Member
this gg4 tested out at 33 for a buddy
i got 41 grams shatter from 110 gram blast last run .
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
It's been rumored that some of the rec shops here in Alaska are putting kief on their test samples to pull higher numbers and drum up sales.
Bodyne
Well-Known Member
Im not surprised, it seems as if any trick possible some will try it. Texas has had bout 100 strains tested, so I pretty much believe him on his work and results, etc. But many find reasons to doubt real results also, lol. as they can't get their own plant numbers that high.
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the testers can be bribed as well. I'm not saying they are, but there is so much variation in %'s found within the same cuts.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
It is clear by now that you know nothing about Phylos and have rejected their results for no better reason than they don't comport with your prior beliefs. You haven't even bothered to look at any of the links I have posted, which would have saved you the embarrassment of posting the above.
He sent in two S1's he made himself to understand how they were related better?? LOL
How would you know if Phylos results suck? You don't because you have done zero investigation of Phylos and their methods and revealed your ignorance of them here for all of us to see.
Phylos clearly can distinguish between a Parent and an S1. It's not surprising because this is decades old technology by now and Phylos is a professional outfit staffed by people with PhDs in molecular evolution.
TrailBlazer12747
Well-Known Member
Any one running any of the new fem crosses? Would love to see some pics
quiescent
Well-Known Member
This would be like arguing against the possibility that Michael Jackson was a castrato because of the Billy Jean song/situation. It wasn't his kid, Billy Jean wasn't his lover. Those kids named after inanimate objects weren't his either lol.
Take the whole picture into account and don't ignore 3/4 of his post if you want to have a true debate. If you can't earnestly address the other points in his post maybe you should reconsider your position. Don't be too married to your ideas man.