jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Placement is critical
How much UVB to give.
- Thread starter Bookush34
- Start date
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
I also believe that bulb will be hotter than fire.
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
18w is going to cover 4 x 4 ???
Also doesnt go to 280nm to activate the Gene Receptor weed has at 285nm.
Id not buy it.
Also doesnt go to 280nm to activate the Gene Receptor weed has at 285nm.
Id not buy it.
bk78
Well-Known Member
@jimihendrix1 I'm pondering getting 4 of the 4’ solacure lights and fixtures, my only gripe is I like to grow big plants and sometimes I may not have the 24” of headspace to give the lights. I take it it’s pretty crucial to have the distance needed for these to not cook my leaves?
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
No just give them less duration of time. The closer they are, the less time you will need to run them. Main thing is to try and find the point where the UVA/B is ALMOST damaging the plants, and cut it back until you see they are no longer being stressed.
Email the guy at Solacure. He is extremely helpful, and can answer most any question.
bk78
Well-Known Member
Sweet man, thanks.
JonCreighton
Well-Known Member
could u post some papers on this or something... manufactures information can not be trusted.. its marketing not sceince. im less skeptical of wikipedia but id prefer some legit papers on the subject. im too lazy to trudge thru the citations at the moment so i figured id ask first..
also curious... most people i think would mean replicating the sun within the mcree curve.... but if ur saying ur trying to replicate the sun and going outside the mckree curve down to 280ish are u going up towards like 800 900nm aswell... ill push up to 740 then im out lol... id be curious if anyones going higher than that indoors..
thanks
Last edited:
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
All I know is weed had a protein thats activated at 285nm, and if ya aint got 285nm, youre not activating the protein. Its that simple. Thats a scientific fact. For me if the light isnt producing at least 285nm, Im not going to use it.
UVR8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UV-B resistance 8 (UVR8) also known as ultraviolet-B receptor UVR8 is an UV-B – sensing protein found in plants and possibly other sources.[2] It is responsible for sensing ultraviolet light in the range 280-315 nm and initiating the plant stress response. It is most sensitive at 285nm, near the lower limit of UVB. UVR8 was first identified as a crucial mediator of a plant's response to UV-B in Arabidopsis thaliana containing a mutation in this protein. This plant was found to have a hypersensitivity to UV-B[3] which damages DNA. UVR8 is thought to be a unique photoreceptor as it doesn't contain a prosthetic chromophore but its light-sensing ability is intrinsic to the molecule.[4] Tryptophan (Trp) residue 285 has been suggested to act the UV-B sensor, while other Trp residues have been also seen to be involved (Trp233 > Trp337 > Trp94) although in-vivo data suggests that Trp285 and Trp233 are most important.[2]
UVR8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Crystal structure of UVB-resistance protein UVR8.[1] | ||
| Organism | Arabidopsis thaliana | |
| Symbol | UVR8 | |
| Entrez | 836506 | |
| PDB | 4DNW More structures | |
| RefSeq (mRNA) | NM_125781 | |
| RefSeq (Prot) | NP_201191 | |
| UniProt | Q9XHD7 | |
| Chromosome | 5: 25.55 - 25.56 Mb | |
|
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
What were your results??
I also must correct myself. I always want to correct myself when Im either wrong, or mispoke.
UVR8 receptor is most strongly activated at 280nm-290nm, with 285nm having the strongest response. it is still activated at 295nm-315nm, though it is not as efficient. I believe the sun is strongest att 295nm-315nm. The Solacure is made to give the plant the strongest possible response at 280nm-300nm, annd is more efficient at creating the UVR8 response than the sun, which also increases the life of the bulb, and decreasing the amount of time the bulb needs to be turned on. You increase the life of the bulb, and decrease use of electricity. The Solacure bulb is 4x stronger than the sun at 280nm-300nm. The SC bulb goes up to 315nm. Anything beyond 315nm will activate secondary chemical reactions. Also the Solacure goes to around 360nm-400nm. There is another response at 385nm that works in synergy with the 285nm response, to help protect the plant against the damage 285nm can do.. They work together. The Solacure bulb is strong in both UVB, and UVA. It isnt just a UVB bulb. The Solacure produces wavelengths from 280nm-400nm. So it produces both strong UVA/B, but its just made to have a very strong response from 280nm-300nm
The cutoff for the sun is 295nm. Thus why the claim by Solacure that their UVB range is 4x stronger than the sun. It also takes special, expensive glass to allow 280nm-290nm to get through.
Also I do not work for Solacure, nor do I have anything do do with Solacure.
The reason I bought the Solacure is because it is a T12, which has a higher physical mass, and has a built in reflector. Also because of the strong response at 285nm... Solacure also makes a T8, but says for optimum results, the T12 is better, but may recommend the T8 for use in a tent when height is a factor. So its not like they dont make a T8. They just say T12 is more powerful, do to the larger physical mass of the bulb.
Ive read some people say the UVR8 protein can be activated with UVA, but all the studies Ive seen never mention UVA as a way to activate the UVR8 receptor. Only that it increases secondary metabolism, and that 385nm works in synergy with 285nm response. If they are out there, Id love to see them. Ive looked.... It also must be noted the sun doesnt produce any wavelengths from 280nm-290nm. The UVR8 response is strongest at 285nm, which the Solacure is made to be at its strongest, thus not having to run the bulb as long thus increasing the life of the bulb, and saving eletricity. This makes it more efficient. Its possible long ago, there was more UVB reaching the earth, and is why the UVR8 response is strongest at 285nm
If one runs the bulb 4 hours a day, the bulb will last 250 days.
Bulbs using 280nm-290nm have long been used to determine the durability of paint, and other things for quality control tests on how UVB accelerates aging
Also known as FS-40 or F40 UVB, this is the original QUV tester lamp. FS-40 lamps have been used for many years, and are still specified in many automotive test methods, particularly for coatings.
The Philips version of this bulb is rated for 3000 hours, and is 40w. So its even more powerful than the Solacure, and has 3x the rated life expectancy. 3000 hours vs 1000. But it may not go up as high into the UVA spectrum. Remember the UVR8 response is most efficient when 285nm is coupled with 385nm. I also believe all spectrums are needed. Not just UVA/B
The best lamp I know of that best reproduces the UVA?B spectrum of the sun, is the Philips UVA 340.
UVA-340. The UVA-340 provides the best possible simulation of sunlight in the critical short wavelength region from 365 nm down to the solar cutoff of 295 nm. Its peak emission is at 340 nm. UVA-340 lamps are especially useful for comparison tests of different formulations. The UVA-340+ lamps provide the same spectrum, but can be used for testing at higher output levels.
The University of Maryland also did a study on the UVR8 response long ago, and used a Westinghouse 40w FS40 bulb, that is also strong below 295nm range. The Westinghouse bulb is also T12
Westinghouse was the first company to manufacture fluorescent lamps having a phosphor to convert the UV-C to UV-B and UV-A instead of the usual visible light. So Solacure had to use Westinghouse technology in ther bulbs.
Philips now makes this bulb. It was also used for a tanning bulb.
Also UVB being dangerous, especially to your eyes, not having to run it all the time allows you to be able to work with your plants, without risking eye damage, or skin cancer. UVA is also damaging to your eyes, just not in the same ballpark as UVB. Also LED, and HID are damaging to ones eyes, and one should use eye protection, even if you dont use UVA/B. Glare is the number one cause of cataracts.
Also sounds like to me that plants on early earth had to deal with extreme UVB/UVC conditions, and evolved in a high UVB atmosphere, thus possibly why the UVR8 receptor response is strongest aat 285nm.
Origin of the Ozone Layer and Evolution of Life
Early Earth atmospheres (> 3 billion years ago) did not contain the 21% oxygen content that we have today. When life on Earth originated (~ 3.5 billion years ago) the first prokaryotic cells were anaerobic chemoautotrophs, most likely occupying deep ocean and subterranean habitats. With no oxygen in the atmosphere and no ozone layer, incident UVC and UVB levels would have been extreme, forcing life to remain in dim and unlighted habitats. It was the evolution of photosynthesis that added free oxygen to the atmosphere and resulted in the formation of the ozone layer. The subsequent removal of UVC and reduction of UVB from incident sunlight very likely contributed to life moving from the oceans into illuminated terrestrial environments.
I also must correct myself. I always want to correct myself when Im either wrong, or mispoke.
UVR8 receptor is most strongly activated at 280nm-290nm, with 285nm having the strongest response. it is still activated at 295nm-315nm, though it is not as efficient. I believe the sun is strongest att 295nm-315nm. The Solacure is made to give the plant the strongest possible response at 280nm-300nm, annd is more efficient at creating the UVR8 response than the sun, which also increases the life of the bulb, and decreasing the amount of time the bulb needs to be turned on. You increase the life of the bulb, and decrease use of electricity. The Solacure bulb is 4x stronger than the sun at 280nm-300nm. The SC bulb goes up to 315nm. Anything beyond 315nm will activate secondary chemical reactions. Also the Solacure goes to around 360nm-400nm. There is another response at 385nm that works in synergy with the 285nm response, to help protect the plant against the damage 285nm can do.. They work together. The Solacure bulb is strong in both UVB, and UVA. It isnt just a UVB bulb. The Solacure produces wavelengths from 280nm-400nm. So it produces both strong UVA/B, but its just made to have a very strong response from 280nm-300nm
The cutoff for the sun is 295nm. Thus why the claim by Solacure that their UVB range is 4x stronger than the sun. It also takes special, expensive glass to allow 280nm-290nm to get through.
Also I do not work for Solacure, nor do I have anything do do with Solacure.
The reason I bought the Solacure is because it is a T12, which has a higher physical mass, and has a built in reflector. Also because of the strong response at 285nm... Solacure also makes a T8, but says for optimum results, the T12 is better, but may recommend the T8 for use in a tent when height is a factor. So its not like they dont make a T8. They just say T12 is more powerful, do to the larger physical mass of the bulb.
Ive read some people say the UVR8 protein can be activated with UVA, but all the studies Ive seen never mention UVA as a way to activate the UVR8 receptor. Only that it increases secondary metabolism, and that 385nm works in synergy with 285nm response. If they are out there, Id love to see them. Ive looked.... It also must be noted the sun doesnt produce any wavelengths from 280nm-290nm. The UVR8 response is strongest at 285nm, which the Solacure is made to be at its strongest, thus not having to run the bulb as long thus increasing the life of the bulb, and saving eletricity. This makes it more efficient. Its possible long ago, there was more UVB reaching the earth, and is why the UVR8 response is strongest at 285nm
If one runs the bulb 4 hours a day, the bulb will last 250 days.
Bulbs using 280nm-290nm have long been used to determine the durability of paint, and other things for quality control tests on how UVB accelerates aging
Also known as FS-40 or F40 UVB, this is the original QUV tester lamp. FS-40 lamps have been used for many years, and are still specified in many automotive test methods, particularly for coatings.
The Philips version of this bulb is rated for 3000 hours, and is 40w. So its even more powerful than the Solacure, and has 3x the rated life expectancy. 3000 hours vs 1000. But it may not go up as high into the UVA spectrum. Remember the UVR8 response is most efficient when 285nm is coupled with 385nm. I also believe all spectrums are needed. Not just UVA/B
The best lamp I know of that best reproduces the UVA?B spectrum of the sun, is the Philips UVA 340.
UVA-340. The UVA-340 provides the best possible simulation of sunlight in the critical short wavelength region from 365 nm down to the solar cutoff of 295 nm. Its peak emission is at 340 nm. UVA-340 lamps are especially useful for comparison tests of different formulations. The UVA-340+ lamps provide the same spectrum, but can be used for testing at higher output levels.
The University of Maryland also did a study on the UVR8 response long ago, and used a Westinghouse 40w FS40 bulb, that is also strong below 295nm range. The Westinghouse bulb is also T12
Westinghouse was the first company to manufacture fluorescent lamps having a phosphor to convert the UV-C to UV-B and UV-A instead of the usual visible light. So Solacure had to use Westinghouse technology in ther bulbs.
Philips now makes this bulb. It was also used for a tanning bulb.
Also UVB being dangerous, especially to your eyes, not having to run it all the time allows you to be able to work with your plants, without risking eye damage, or skin cancer. UVA is also damaging to your eyes, just not in the same ballpark as UVB. Also LED, and HID are damaging to ones eyes, and one should use eye protection, even if you dont use UVA/B. Glare is the number one cause of cataracts.
Also sounds like to me that plants on early earth had to deal with extreme UVB/UVC conditions, and evolved in a high UVB atmosphere, thus possibly why the UVR8 receptor response is strongest aat 285nm.
Origin of the Ozone Layer and Evolution of Life
Early Earth atmospheres (> 3 billion years ago) did not contain the 21% oxygen content that we have today. When life on Earth originated (~ 3.5 billion years ago) the first prokaryotic cells were anaerobic chemoautotrophs, most likely occupying deep ocean and subterranean habitats. With no oxygen in the atmosphere and no ozone layer, incident UVC and UVB levels would have been extreme, forcing life to remain in dim and unlighted habitats. It was the evolution of photosynthesis that added free oxygen to the atmosphere and resulted in the formation of the ozone layer. The subsequent removal of UVC and reduction of UVB from incident sunlight very likely contributed to life moving from the oceans into illuminated terrestrial environments.
Last edited:
The Jack turned out great. The Maui I fucked up on and harvested too early. I went away and ended up having to stay a extra day and she was pretty dried out so I chopped her about 2+ Weeks early.
I did some Budda magnum 12/12 form seed in soil and they were small dence frosty plants. Get yah lit!
I did some Budda magnum 12/12 form seed in soil and they were small dence frosty plants. Get yah lit!
[QUOTE = "jimihendrix1, post: 16040736, member: 945005"]
Все, что я знаю, это то, что у марихуаны был белок, активированный на 285 нм, и если у тебя нет 285 нм, ты не активируешь белок. Это так просто. Это научный факт. Для меня, если свет не дает хотя бы 285 нм, я не буду его использовать.
UVR8
Из Википедии, свободная энциклопедии
Устойчивость к УФ-В 8 ( UVR8 ), как известном Также рецепторе-В ультрафиолетовом UVR8 является УФ-В - чувствительном белке найдена в растениях и, возможно, другие источники. [2] Он отвечает за обнаружение ультрафиолетового света в диапазоне 280-315 нм и запускает стрессовую реакцию растений. Он наиболее чувствителен при 285 нм, около нижнего предела UVB. UVR8 был идентифицирован как решающий медиатор реакции растения на УФ-B у Arabidopsis thaliana, наруш мутацию в этом белке. Было обнаружено, что это растение повышенной чувствительностью к УФ-В [3]который повреждает ДНК. Считается, что UVR8 является уникальным фоторецептором, поскольку он не содержит протезного хромофора, но его светочувствительная способность присуща молекуле. [4] Было высказано предположение, что остаток 285 триптофана (Trp) работает как датчик УФ-B, в то время как другие остатки Trp также участвуют (Trp233> Trp337> Trp94), хотя данные in vivo позволяют предположить, что Trp285 и Trp233 являются наиболее активными. важный. [2]
Эта информация немного устарела.
Ситуация напоминает спектры поглощения хлорофилла, измеренные in vitro, и моду на красно-синие лампы.
Белок рецептора UVR8 действительно имеет пик при 285 нм. Но в реальном растении вместе с рецептором CRY, отвечающим за восприятие более длинных волн, он работает до 340 нм, хотя и со снижающейся чувствительностью.
[URL unwurl = "true"] https://blogs.helsinki.fi/senpep-blog/2020/04/uvr8-is-an-uv-b-and-uv-a-photoreceptor/ [/ URL]
[URL unwurl = "true"] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6760287/ [/ URL]
[URL Unfurl = "true"] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/pp/c8pp00138c [/ URL]
Более того - «очень точное» попадание в спектр 285 нм без более длинных волн приводит к ненужному стрессу и плохой урожайности.
[URL Unfurl = "true"] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.725078/full [/ URL]
Все, что я знаю, это то, что у марихуаны был белок, активированный на 285 нм, и если у тебя нет 285 нм, ты не активируешь белок. Это так просто. Это научный факт. Для меня, если свет не дает хотя бы 285 нм, я не буду его использовать.
UVR8
Из Википедии, свободная энциклопедии
Устойчивость к УФ-В 8 ( UVR8 ), как известном Также рецепторе-В ультрафиолетовом UVR8 является УФ-В - чувствительном белке найдена в растениях и, возможно, другие источники. [2] Он отвечает за обнаружение ультрафиолетового света в диапазоне 280-315 нм и запускает стрессовую реакцию растений. Он наиболее чувствителен при 285 нм, около нижнего предела UVB. UVR8 был идентифицирован как решающий медиатор реакции растения на УФ-B у Arabidopsis thaliana, наруш мутацию в этом белке. Было обнаружено, что это растение повышенной чувствительностью к УФ-В [3]который повреждает ДНК. Считается, что UVR8 является уникальным фоторецептором, поскольку он не содержит протезного хромофора, но его светочувствительная способность присуща молекуле. [4] Было высказано предположение, что остаток 285 триптофана (Trp) работает как датчик УФ-B, в то время как другие остатки Trp также участвуют (Trp233> Trp337> Trp94), хотя данные in vivo позволяют предположить, что Trp285 и Trp233 являются наиболее активными. важный. [2]
Эта информация немного устарела.
Ситуация напоминает спектры поглощения хлорофилла, измеренные in vitro, и моду на красно-синие лампы.
Белок рецептора UVR8 действительно имеет пик при 285 нм. Но в реальном растении вместе с рецептором CRY, отвечающим за восприятие более длинных волн, он работает до 340 нм, хотя и со снижающейся чувствительностью.
[URL unwurl = "true"] https://blogs.helsinki.fi/senpep-blog/2020/04/uvr8-is-an-uv-b-and-uv-a-photoreceptor/ [/ URL]
[URL unwurl = "true"] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6760287/ [/ URL]
[URL Unfurl = "true"] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/pp/c8pp00138c [/ URL]
Более того - «очень точное» попадание в спектр 285 нм без более длинных волн приводит к ненужному стрессу и плохой урожайности.
[URL Unfurl = "true"] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.725078/full [/ URL]
Last edited:
rickasaurus
New Member
i just had to respond to jimi hendix 1 comments, as i was looking up some info on how much UVB some indoor plants should have, you seem like a very studied and learned individual. aside from the fact that you love yourself very much, and attribute everything you say to science and evolution, and to imply that "early earth" had an incomplete ozone layer and life originated some 3 billion years ago is speculative BS. Your probably buddies with Steven hawking who made his fortune in theoretical physics after he listened to music from Wagner and decided there was no creator, not to mention he had to keep the grant money coming in by satisfying his sponsers with more theory. you rant about evolution as if it were fact, None of you were there, you don't know, but in fact there is an eyewitness account with a genealogical record that names every family member of the first human life, and he wasnt related to an ape. if you took about 3 minutes to research the creation account at Genesis Chapter 1 you will see everything was prepared in order to sustain life. It was planned and thought out , and carried out with precise timing, even plant life was created according to its kind, that bears seed according to is kind. I am not saying they can't be modified, of course they can, humans can modify most things that exist, and do, sometimes to their own destruction. look at the planet now.
I must say that you answered my question about UVB and indoor plants, as i have a light with 8 bulbs in the 311 range, however i could no longer remain silent listening to you demand that your theorys were fact. I am not trying to debunk science in any way. Obviously you have studied for decades , and just so you know i love Jimi Hendix music also. Power of love......
I imagine you will scathe me soundly for my comments, but at least do the research i recommended before you do. My regards to your mountain of knowledge in plant life!
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
There is no god, no devil, and I believe in evolution. I also dont believe the earth is only around 6000 years old either. You probably do if you believe in the strict interpretation of the bible.
Also which bible do you believe?? Catholic? King James?? The King James version was change to cocur with the teaching of the Church of England. So they changed the Original Latin Vulgate, which was the first book printed on the Gutenberg Printing Press.
The Catholic Bible, which contains the Book of wisdom, also contains passages of the inference of evolution. It states. And the animals that lived in the water, came to live on the land, and the land animals went to lve in the water.
While I dont believe in any of it, I went to a Catholic school for 10 years, and we were taught evolution, and Biology. Also one of the popes is on record as stating. Evolution is more than a theory.
The bible is written by men, and much of it hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth. I do believe Jesus was a real human being, and there is much evidence of that. I also believe he went to Nepal, Tibet, and other places in that region, and learned medicine from them, and went back to the middle east, and he was so far ahead of the known medicine of the middle east, they thought he was a saviour. He could cure previously uncurable diseases. The Chinese invented medicine.
There is also factual evidence Jesus did indeed visit Nepal Tibet, and is where he spent much of his years that are left out of the bible. Known as the Lost Years of Jesus
DNA, and fossil Records all but prove evolution is real. You can choose not to believe it, thats your right, but I wont deny the physical evidence evolution is real.
DNA proves that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
Papers published in Nature1, 2 and Nature Genetics3, 4 concerning the DNA analysis of both human and chimpanzee genome conclude that humans and chimps not only share a common ancestor but probably also kept interbreeding for a long time after their genetic split. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria provides evidence that evolution due to natural selection is an ongoing process in the natural world. Natural selection is ubiquitous in all research pertaining to evolution, taking note of the fact that all of the following examples in each section of the article document the process. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous and specialized examples, indicating a compelling consilience of evidence.
Also which bible do you believe?? Catholic? King James?? The King James version was change to cocur with the teaching of the Church of England. So they changed the Original Latin Vulgate, which was the first book printed on the Gutenberg Printing Press.
The Catholic Bible, which contains the Book of wisdom, also contains passages of the inference of evolution. It states. And the animals that lived in the water, came to live on the land, and the land animals went to lve in the water.
While I dont believe in any of it, I went to a Catholic school for 10 years, and we were taught evolution, and Biology. Also one of the popes is on record as stating. Evolution is more than a theory.
The bible is written by men, and much of it hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth. I do believe Jesus was a real human being, and there is much evidence of that. I also believe he went to Nepal, Tibet, and other places in that region, and learned medicine from them, and went back to the middle east, and he was so far ahead of the known medicine of the middle east, they thought he was a saviour. He could cure previously uncurable diseases. The Chinese invented medicine.
There is also factual evidence Jesus did indeed visit Nepal Tibet, and is where he spent much of his years that are left out of the bible. Known as the Lost Years of Jesus
DNA, and fossil Records all but prove evolution is real. You can choose not to believe it, thats your right, but I wont deny the physical evidence evolution is real.
DNA proves that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
Papers published in Nature1, 2 and Nature Genetics3, 4 concerning the DNA analysis of both human and chimpanzee genome conclude that humans and chimps not only share a common ancestor but probably also kept interbreeding for a long time after their genetic split. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria provides evidence that evolution due to natural selection is an ongoing process in the natural world. Natural selection is ubiquitous in all research pertaining to evolution, taking note of the fact that all of the following examples in each section of the article document the process. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous and specialized examples, indicating a compelling consilience of evidence.
Last edited:
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
How much Neanderthal DNA survive in modern humans?
In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA.
About 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa began encountering Neanderthals, a lineage that had diverged from modern humans hundreds of thousands of years before. Despite their differences, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals mingled, and over time, produced children with genes from both lineages.
Today, the biological remnants of that collision between two distinct populations remain alive in the genomes of Europeans and East Asians.
The first study, reported in the journal Nature, examines how Neanderthals influence the genetic composition of modern humans.
Study’s senior author Dr David Reich of Harvard Medical School said: “the goal was to understand the biological impact of the gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans.”
“We reasoned that when these two groups met and mixed, some new traits would have been selected for and remained in the human genome, while some incompatibilities would have been selected against and removed.”
“As methods to analyze ancient DNA continue to improve, we are able to get at answers to ever more fine-grained questions about our evolutionary history,” added Dr Elizabeth Tran of the National Science Foundation, who was not involved in the studies.
Dr Reich and his colleagues analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal.
They showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect lupus, biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, optic-disk size and type 2 diabetes and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins.
The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk.
“Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,” Dr Reich said.
The scientists also found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like ‘deserts’ with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average.
“The barren areas were the most exciting finding. It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection,” said lead author Dr Sriram Sankararaman from the Harvard and MIT’s Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School.
The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.
Dr Reich explained: “this suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility.”
“Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years, are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.”
The second study, published online in the journal Science, tests an innovative, fossil-free method for sequencing archaic DNA.
Co-authors Dr Benjamin Vernot and Dr Joshua Akey, both from the University of Washington, analyzed whole-genome sequencing data from 379 Europeans and 286 East Asians to identify Neanderthal lineages that persist in the modern DNA.
“We found evidence that Neanderthal skin genes made Europeans and East Asians more evolutionarily fit, and that other Neanderthal genes were apparently incompatible with the rest of the modern human genome, and thus did not survive to present day human populations,” Dr Vernot said.
The scientists observed that certain chromosomes arms in humans are tellingly devoid of Neanderthal DNA sequences, perhaps due to mismatches between the two species along certain portions of their genetic materials. For example, they noticed a strong depletion of Neanderthal DNA in a region of human genomes that contains a gene for a factor thought to play an important role in human speech and language.
The results suggest that significant amounts of population-level DNA sequences might be obtained from extinct groups even in the absence of fossilized remains, because these ancient sequences might have been inherited by other individuals from whom scientists can gather genomic data. Therein lies the potential to discover and characterize previously unknown archaic humans that bred with early humans.
“The fossil free method of sequencing archaic genomes not only holds promise in revealing aspects of the evolution of now-extinct archaic humans and their characteristic population genetics, it also might provide insights into how interbreeding influenced current patterns of human diversity,” Dr Vernot said.
“In the future, I think scientists will be able to identify DNA from other extinct hominin, just by analyzing modern human genomes.”
Carry on.
In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA.
About 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa began encountering Neanderthals, a lineage that had diverged from modern humans hundreds of thousands of years before. Despite their differences, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals mingled, and over time, produced children with genes from both lineages.
Today, the biological remnants of that collision between two distinct populations remain alive in the genomes of Europeans and East Asians.
The first study, reported in the journal Nature, examines how Neanderthals influence the genetic composition of modern humans.
Study’s senior author Dr David Reich of Harvard Medical School said: “the goal was to understand the biological impact of the gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans.”
“We reasoned that when these two groups met and mixed, some new traits would have been selected for and remained in the human genome, while some incompatibilities would have been selected against and removed.”
“As methods to analyze ancient DNA continue to improve, we are able to get at answers to ever more fine-grained questions about our evolutionary history,” added Dr Elizabeth Tran of the National Science Foundation, who was not involved in the studies.
Dr Reich and his colleagues analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal.
They showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect lupus, biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, optic-disk size and type 2 diabetes and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins.
The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk.
“Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,” Dr Reich said.
The scientists also found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like ‘deserts’ with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average.
“The barren areas were the most exciting finding. It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection,” said lead author Dr Sriram Sankararaman from the Harvard and MIT’s Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School.
The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.
Dr Reich explained: “this suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility.”
“Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years, are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.”
The second study, published online in the journal Science, tests an innovative, fossil-free method for sequencing archaic DNA.
Co-authors Dr Benjamin Vernot and Dr Joshua Akey, both from the University of Washington, analyzed whole-genome sequencing data from 379 Europeans and 286 East Asians to identify Neanderthal lineages that persist in the modern DNA.
“We found evidence that Neanderthal skin genes made Europeans and East Asians more evolutionarily fit, and that other Neanderthal genes were apparently incompatible with the rest of the modern human genome, and thus did not survive to present day human populations,” Dr Vernot said.
The scientists observed that certain chromosomes arms in humans are tellingly devoid of Neanderthal DNA sequences, perhaps due to mismatches between the two species along certain portions of their genetic materials. For example, they noticed a strong depletion of Neanderthal DNA in a region of human genomes that contains a gene for a factor thought to play an important role in human speech and language.
The results suggest that significant amounts of population-level DNA sequences might be obtained from extinct groups even in the absence of fossilized remains, because these ancient sequences might have been inherited by other individuals from whom scientists can gather genomic data. Therein lies the potential to discover and characterize previously unknown archaic humans that bred with early humans.
“The fossil free method of sequencing archaic genomes not only holds promise in revealing aspects of the evolution of now-extinct archaic humans and their characteristic population genetics, it also might provide insights into how interbreeding influenced current patterns of human diversity,” Dr Vernot said.
“In the future, I think scientists will be able to identify DNA from other extinct hominin, just by analyzing modern human genomes.”
Carry on.
rickasaurus -
It's not clear why you need this UV. Just put a seed in the ground, pray and wait for the harvest.
Or you can not grow at all, just pray more carefully and a magical trip will be surely sent down to you from above.
jimihendrix1 -
This is all of course very helpful in understanding the topic of UV (although the mention of the big bang is clearly not enough), but in order not to scare people, please put a comma between 2 and 0.
"In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry"
It's not clear why you need this UV. Just put a seed in the ground, pray and wait for the harvest.
Or you can not grow at all, just pray more carefully and a magical trip will be surely sent down to you from above.
jimihendrix1 -
This is all of course very helpful in understanding the topic of UV (although the mention of the big bang is clearly not enough), but in order not to scare people, please put a comma between 2 and 0.
"In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry"
PeatPhreak
Well-Known Member
Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Improved with Long-Term Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
www.researchgate.net
(PDF) Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Improved with Long-Term Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
PDF | It is commonly believed that exposing Cannabis sativa (cannabis) plants to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can enhance Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
magnetik
Well-Known Member
Long-Term exposure to UVB will break down material irregardless to what it is. Sounds like they were testing UV for photosynthesis vs. triggering a response. They were also using UV LED's which aren't as effective as tubes. (for UV)Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Improved with Long-Term Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
(PDF) Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Improved with Long-Term Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
PDF | It is commonly believed that exposing Cannabis sativa (cannabis) plants to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can enhance Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
The severity of UV-induced morphology (e.g., whole-plant size and leaf size reductions, leaf malformations, and stigma browning) and physiology (e.g., reduced leaf photosynthetic rate and reduced Fv/Fm) symptoms worsened as UV exposure level increased. While the proportion of dry inflorescence yield that was derived from apical tissues decreased in both cultivars with increasing UV exposure level, total dry inflorescence yield only decreased in LT. The equivalent Δ9-THC and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations also decreased in LT inflorescences with increasing UV exposure level. While the total terpene content in inflorescences decreased with increasing UV exposure level in both cultivars, the relative concentrations of individual terpenes varied by cultivar.
Last edited: