# Recessive Yellow & Brindles?



## windyhill

I was talking about my Recessive Brindles on the funmouse(mistake I know) and was told that I cant have brindles that are recessive based becouse the markings would be too light or not there at all.
Ive been working with Recessive birndles for several months now.
In my first few breedings my markings were very light and in most cases they were unmarked, but I've been breeding the darker marked ones together have gotten good results. I posted that and was still told that its not possible. I would hate to think that Ive worked all this months and Ive been misleading myself the whole time.

I still have alot of work to do on them,but my goal is to breed healthier brindles. 
I cull heavily on them.
I do have awhole other line of brindles, but they are Avy.

Some of my brindles:

































Unmarked:









Avy brindle:


----------



## Autumn2005

There's still a big difference between the recessive brindles and the Avy one, but I think you're off to a great start. I know next to nothing about genetics or anything, but to more I know, the more I learn that Mother Nature is snickering at us behind her hand, and still has a few cards up her sleeve when it comes to genetics.


----------



## Jack Garcia

There are no recessive brindles in the mouse fancy. The Fun Mouse was right in this case.

There are two basic kinds of brindle:

Avy/* (seen in Australia and the US). This is dominant and creates a red/gold mouse with brown/black stripes usually. These brindles can be either sex and often get fat and have tumors.

Sex-linked brindle (I do not know the gene code for this one). These are always female and this is also dominant.

A mouse who is recessive yellow (e/e) and brindle (Avy/*) is pure yellow/gold/red, with no stripes, like this one:


----------



## windyhill

I know brindles cant be recessive, but Ive been working with recessive yellows and adding brindle to it.
So they are still Avy/*? Even though I have worked with Avy once and been avoiding it ever since.
But I guess that one time is whats keeping the brindles alive.....

Learn something new everyday


----------



## Autumn2005

How are you adding the brindle into it?


----------



## windyhill

I started by adding the brindles I got from my brindle X RY breeding to another RY self and then going from there.


----------



## Jack Garcia

A mouse who is Avy/* e/e will be solid yellow, or sooty yellow.

A mouse who is Avy/* E/* can look the same. So can a mouse who is e/e on an agouti (A/*) or black (a/a) background.


----------



## windyhill

I kind of get it now. Im alittle slow at putting 2 and 2 together,lol.
Once I get it though I understand it.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Well, it's complicated because with mice there are around six ways to get a solid orange/yellow/gold/red mouse.

Suffice it to say that if a mouse has dark stripes on that solid orange/yellow/gold/red background, it is brindle.

If it doesn't have stripes on that background, it might still be brindle, but it could also be recessive yellow or both at the same time (or a couple other things).


----------



## windyhill

Im good at the basic stuff, but after that, things get so confusing. Which is why soetimes I'll ask a dumb question and then tuirn around an answer it myself after I think about it,lol.
I have a few unmarked brindles and several marked brindles ranging in coloring.


----------



## windyhill

I was told by another mouse breeder that it is possible to have RY brindles so now Im all confused!
Im not saying mine are still RY brindles, but Im curious about them now.


----------



## Jack Garcia

It's possible in the sense that a mouse can be recessive yellow and brindle at the same time, but it will appear solid yellow, not brindle. IOW, the recessive yellow "covers up" the brindle. This is in the same sense that it's possible for a mouse to be PEW and agouti at the same time. The PEW "covers up" the agouti. Does that make sense?

P.S. If I know who told you this (the person we've talked about before), I wouldn't trust her with regards to genetics information. She can be a nice person, but when it comes to genetics she really has no clue. It's unfortunate but she has mis-lead many people.


----------



## windyhill

Totally different breeder Jack, this one is trustworthy  And I think you talk to her.
She said the stripes will show up and you can see them, that there is light yellow stripes on a deeper orange background

This is why I get so confused, 2 people who I trust with genetics, you & Allison come up with different ideas,lo.


----------



## Jack Garcia

Yeah, Allison knows her genetics pretty well. She's very sharp. From the way she described it, I'm thinking it might just be a matter of degree--that all Avy/* e/e mice are washed out to yellow but that if you look really hard you can see the very faint stripes, kind of like how all chocolate mice have brown eyes but in general parlance they're called black anyway.

Before I was involved in showing I had hundreds of brindle yellow mice (Avy/* b/b e/e) and none of them have discernable stripes. I only figured out that they were both brindle and yellow through careful breedings. For example, when one of them was crossed to an agouti who did not carry e/e, there were striped babies. And when two chocolate babies were crossed, there were yellow babies.


----------



## neurozool

Jack: Sex link brindle is a/a Mo^br/* and they look different from 'tiger' brindles, more stripe then background. And you are right, technically it is possible to have a mouse that you think has no markings (fawn) and in reality it is a RY brindle, which you would never know until you bred it to a buck with known genotype.

Windy: I think, as of any genotype, hard work will pay off. The possibility of breeding a RY with MORE visible stripes is there, if you stick to it and keep breeding! You never know, you might happen on a pup that has the most striking shade of orange on orange after years of breeding mice that look like they have no stripes at all- and then EVERYONE will want a mouse that windyhills bred! (but since I live closest- I get one first! )


----------



## Jack Garcia

neurozool said:


> Jack: Sex link brindle is a/a Mo^br/* and they look different from 'tiger' brindles, more stripe then background.


We're dealing with Avy/*, viable yellow.



> Windy: I think, as of any genotype, hard work will pay off. The possibility of breeding a RY with MORE visible stripes is there, if you stick to it and keep breeding! You never know, you might happen on a pup that has the most striking shade of orange on orange after years of breeding mice that look like they have no stripes at all- and then EVERYONE will want a mouse that windyhills bred!


Nope, that won't happen. And here's why. A mouse who is Avy/* e/e _already does_ have an orange background with orange stripes. The orange stripes were originally brown (and would remain brown if there was no e/e dilution), but have been diluted to orange by e/e. That's why you can't see the stripes. And the modifiers that make the background a certain shade or orange also affect the orange stripes. So in the cases where you can see the stripes, they are very, very faint and very hard to see. So even when it is technically true that you have orange stripes on an orange background, what's the point?

I will clear up a mistake that people are making but nobody has really noted so far:

"Brindle" for most American purposes refers to mice who are Avy/*. These mice may or may not have normal black/brown stripes on their own. In other words, a mouse who is Avy/* E/* may have stripes or it may be clear yellow. Often when people say "recessive yellow brindle" they mean a brindle who is NOT actually recessive yellow, but rather who is simply an un-marked or undermarked brindle.

"Recessive yellow" is e/e and creates a yellow background, regardless of what is present on the A-locus (whether it is agouti, black, etc). A mouse who is both recessive yellow (e/e) and brindle (Avy/*) is clear yellow because even when it does have stripes, they're diluted by e/e and you can't see them, or you can only barely see them.


----------



## Rhasputin

Ughhh. All of these written out genes are confusing my dyslexia... xP


----------



## neurozool

Jack Garcia said:


> Sex-linked brindle (I do not know the gene code for this one). These are always female and this is also dominant.]


This is the section I was saying is MO^br, not that what she is breeding is Mo^br, but you had said you didn't know, so I was trying to help...sorry, should have quoted that from the beginning.

As too if it would ever be possible to get a orange on orange brindle that you could see- no one ever really thought you would see white or golden tigers- but genetics are always throwing out new things! Who knows, if after years of breeding brindles that no one could see, a pup would pop up with a _new_ mutation that would allow the stripes to be darker or lighter, or the base color darker or lighter...you can't say never, new mutations show up in breeding programs from time to time- heck, that why we have so many varieties at all! If breeders never linebred and inbred mice, and so many other things (labs..drugs..radiation) we would mainly have agouti and some white mice...maybe black. That is the exciting thing about mice and breeding- you just never know! You have a fairly good idea, but not a 100% guarantee sort of thing- God is _always_ allowed to mix things up a bit and prove to us that He is in control.


----------



## Jack Garcia

neurozool said:


> As too if it would ever be possible to get a orange on orange brindle that you could see- no one ever really thought you would see white or golden tigers


Who thought that? Certainly nobody who has a basic understanding of Mendelian genetics and the coat colors of mammals (including mice and tigers).



> If breeders never linebred and inbred mice, and so many other things (labs..drugs..radiation) we would mainly have agouti and some white mice...maybe black.


That's just not true. Are you familiar with the history of the modern mouse fancy, by chance? There were dozens of varieties that occur naturally as spontaneous mutations in Walter Maxey's day (the late 1800s). It's true that selective inbreeding helps solidify them, but they do occur on their own without inbreeding, labs, drugs, or radiation. That's the nature of spontaneous mutations. In fact, one spontaneous mutation (white-bellied agouti) occurs in nature all the time.



> That is the exciting thing about mice and breeding- you just never know!


That's like saying "When you walk out the door, you never know if you're going to get hit by a bus." While true in the most technical sense, it belies the larger truth, that almost all of the time we are as certain as humanly possible because being hit by a bus as we walk out the door (or having a bright neon purple mouse, for example) are extreme rarities that only _may_ happen. Walking out the door and getting to work safely (or having a gold mouse whose stripes don't show) _will_ happen for almost all people at almost all times. They are predictable parts of the world, whereas what "may" happen is just conjecture.

The kind of intellectual ambiguity you're showing ("you never _really_ know") is indicative of an approach which does not display an adequate grasp of basic genetics and/or a mindset which does not value the immense capabilities of the human mind to understand, make sense of, and accurately predict naturally-occuring phenomena like mouse coat color.



> God is _always_ allowed to mix things up a bit and prove to us that He is in control.


You may not bring God into the discussion of rodent coat color genetics. The concept of God is neither here nor there in biological science.


----------



## neurozool

Yes I do know about spontaneous mutations and that there are some 'common' ones in the wild- I saw a blue deer mouse at work the other day, and I happen to know about most spontaneous mutations found in mice. What I was saying there was what you pointed out-


> It's true that selective inbreeding helps solidify them


That is why I refered to line and inbreeding- I did not mean to suggest that inbreeding and linebreeding _produced_ new mutations, but that it made it possible for the wide spread of new mutations.


> The kind of intellectual ambiguity you're showing ("you never really know") is indicative of an approach which does not display an adequate grasp of basic genetics and/or a mindset which does not value the immense capabilities of the human mind to understand, make sense of, and accurately predict naturally-occuring phenomena like mouse coat color.


I resent the accusation that I am not intelligent, or that I under estimate the ability of the human mind. I studied Major Histocompatibility Complex in college and if you know anything about immunology and MHC then you would know that it is not an easy subject to grasp, and the genetic complexities involved are immense. I can also appreciate that people have an amazing ability to dream up fantastic things, but on average, most people limit what might _actually_ happen. As you yourself have said:


> They are predictable parts of the world, whereas what "may" happen is just conjecture.





> Nope, that won't happen.


You have already said that this sort of thing won't happen. _Really?_ Are you so quick to limit the great possibilities that _can_ happen? You have accused me of having:


> a mindset which does not value the immense capabilities of the human mind to understand, make sense of, and accurately predict naturally-occuring phenomena like mouse coat color.


But _you_ are displaying a mind that _cannot_ comprehend the vast immense capabilities of genes to mutate. I am making the assumption that you believe in macro evolution (and I am sorry if I am wrong), and if you do, then surely you cannot say that the genetic code of a mouse does not carry the potential for huge changes that are limited by nothing. If you subscribe to the belief that one celled organisms can change into men, then why are you so quick to say that orange mice could never show orange stripes? Is that any different then my charge that God can do with genes what He will? Either viewpoint concedes that change can and will happen- the difference is only in who or what is making the changes. One is chance the other, God.

As to God, it is sad to see an age when the mere mention of Him would result in a response like that. If you can allow in your mind the idea of me having a belief in God, then you might see why the "concept of God" _is_ very relavent to all areas of life, _including_ biological science. If you believed in a being that _created_ mice, then how could it _not_ be relevant to casually bring Him up when discussing rodent color genetics. Just to clarify, I was not trying to peach my beliefs at anyone, I was just casully remarking how we cannot imagine what sort of mutations might arise. Although they are 'man made' (in the sense that humans inserted DNA that God created to be in jellyfish) there are neon green mice that glow in the dark, so is it so very far out there to think that a mouse might mutate to show orange on orange stripes?

As for tigers: If you have heard of the debate surrounding the 'maltese' tiger, you would also know that a similar sentiment was felt about white and golden tigers before they had been seen. There is a difference between theoretical knowledge ('Yes, I admit that a white tiger is _possible_, however it is not likely!') and physcial knowledge ('Yes, I saw a white tiger in the zoo- you can see it too with your own eyes!") _This_ was the knowledge I was speaking of when I said:


> no one ever really thought you would see white or golden tigers


Thus, the reason I said 'see' and 'really'; as in "Yes, it is possible, but you will never _really see_ one!"


----------



## Jack Garcia

In regards to the nature of what may happen and what probably will happen, specifically with brindle mice who are both Avy/* and e/e, I think we're saying basically the same thing, but in different ways. Would you agree with that?

At any rate, there is no need to bring any personal supernatural beliefs into scientific discussions of natural phenomena. When you do this, you lose credibility on the subject. To be clear, I'm not discounting spirituality here--it has its own social and psychological purposes that it fills for many people. But a question of mouse color genetics is not one of those questions that spirituality can provide answers to.


----------



## neurozool

Yes, I think we are both saying the same thing regarding if a breeding tommorrow would _likely_ result in a orange mouse with orange stripes- answer- no.

However I think it could be _possible_.

Also, I do not see how a belief in God should be limited to spiritual matters only. If one truly believed in God, would not all aspects of life fall under that? A true belief would be life changing and not stop at the doors of scientific discussion. As for losing credibility when someone has a 'personal supernatural belief' have you never read this?
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
All these people are top scientists, and they all say- "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Now did a statement like that, while not saying there is a God, in that way, basically did say that there is a God, cause all those scientists to 'lose credibility'? No, they are still just as credible, but are perhaps more open in what they see, as most scientists who do not believe in God do so because they refuse to acknowledge the truth they see everyday in science. If you have ever gone very deep into science (any branch) you will have at least one moment where you stop and marvel at it- and if you have- you have marveled at God.

Again, I am not trying to preach, but you seem to be attacking my beliefs in very subtle ways, and my conscious takes that as a challenge- I am not the type of person to give in so easy when I _know_ I am right- If I ever cave, it is due to the fact that I have doubts- and on this issue- _I have none._


----------



## Jack Garcia

Yep, I've read it written on the Discovery Institute, which is pretty disreputable in scientific circles (although it is popular in religious circles). When you look into the backgrounds of the folks behind the website, it doesn't even warrant a response.

I know you're not trying to preach, but that is what you're doing nonetheless. Please try to stick to the topic at hand: mice. If you want to continue this conversation in PM, I will be glad to but be warned that since I am perfect I am always right about everything.

(That last part was a bit of a joke, btw. I know that's how I come across online, but believe it or not, I'm not really like that. )


----------



## neurozool

LOL- I didn't think you were like that. Honestly, I would not have pursued this line of conversation had you not responded so violently to my off handed remark about 'God mixing things up'. To me, to let a comment like that pass without a response would be to acknowledge that you are right. Had you let that comment slide with a shrug and just chalked it up to everyone having the right to believe what they want, I would not have said another word on the matter. It's not as if I made the topic or posted in the hopes of diverting it in this direction. As far as the website, I was not much concerned with who runs it, but the people who signed it. And that is all I will say on that.

If you do want to talk further, I would love too, but I don't think I need to carry this over to PM.

My original comment to Windy was mainly this: Don't get discouraged- if you have a cool vision, stick with it- you never know. (granted that is a revised version that is more to the point- LOL)


----------



## windyhill

Thanks


----------

