if a clone is suppose to be an exact replica of the host cell?

Question

why do guineas pigs clone from the same host looks different ...... some with brown patch ......... some with black patch?

i still don't quite get it. so a clone isn't the exact copy? i thought the colour of the hair is determine by the gene.

i still don't quite get it. so a clone isn't the exact copy? i thought the colour of the hair is determine by the gene.

Answer 1

Phenotypic manifestation (that is, the exact visible appearance of genetically determined traits) is controlled not only by the combination of genes an individual organism possesses, but also the environmental/developmental conditions in which those genes are manifested. That is, different alleles from the same genotype can be suppressed or promoted based on stresses or stimuli present in the uterine environment, as well as timing -- some proteins will have radically different effects based on when during fetal development they are produced.

In the specific instance you mention however, -- guinea pig coloration -- I think the answer is probably simpler. A case of non-Mendelian inheritance, in which the individual being cloned was heterozygous with co-dominant alleles, and the original manifested one allele, while the clone presented the other. (just a guess, based on similar coat pattern genetics in other animals)

Answer 2

If you have a twin, you'd understand. It's a separate, individual organism. The only thing a clone of the animal and the clone would have in common is their genetic sequence. As cloning technology has improved, more and more evidence has come out of clones that don't look alike or act alike. For example, Ted Friend and Greg Archer, both at Texas A & M, have cloned piglets. They report that there is just as much variation in appearance among the clones as among the non-clones. Some have bristly coats, others not; some have more teeth, some fewer. Now that should answer your question.

Answer 3

Because what people think is cloning, and what actually happens, are different things. Scientists take a fertilized egg, remove the nucleus, and transplant it into another empty egg. This is considered a stage of cloning, and would explain the variation in appearance, in that the mother and offspring had different genetic material to start with. There have also been successful attempts of removal of adult nuclear material and implanting it into an empty egg (I think that's how they got Dolly the sheep in Scotland).
What most people consider as cloning is the removal of tissue and culturing in a petri dish and then implanting into a host body. I don't think this has happened, or is even close to happening.

Answer 4

quantum_styx has given an accurate response (from my meager knowledge of genetics) but it might be too technical for you.

Her point, phrased a little differently, is that while your genes determine your hair color (among other things), you have many genes that do opposite things. For instance, you could potentially have a gene for blond hair and a gene for black hair, but all sorts of other factors determine which one you actually express, ie which one controls the color of your hair. Interestingly enough the "nature vs. nurture" argument falls apart as a nonsensical question when you consider how your gene expression is intertwined with your environment. (I dont know that the hair color example is true in particular, but the principle is sound)

quantum_styx: I have a (good) answer for the only question you've ever asked. Email me at [e-mail] and I'll explain it, or let me know if you're no longer interested and I'll stop leaving these messages.

Answer 5

The guinea pigs have the same genetic makeup as their hosts, but that doesnt imply that they will look exactly the same as them. There are other variables that come into effect that determine how the guinea pig will look exactly

Answer 6

let's just pray that nobody clones you