A clone of famous Gem Twist just born!

[Pan Zareta]

If you use skin cells for the nucleus (or stem cells), you shouldn't run into telomere issues.

How are these types exempt from telomere shortening? In particular, don't dermal cells usually reflect more divisions than some other cell types since the original split?

[Tonno100]

No where near enough is known about telomeres to worry seriously about this effect, all is known is that they shorten as they divide, LEADING people (largely anti-cloning) to THEORISE that they are the key to aging/cancer. I know people will throw the example of Dolly back, but doing so merely proves an unscientific mind IMO.

[xfactor fan]

Dolly was the first, this is science not magic, so what they learned working to create Dolly has been applied to other clones down the line.

Was Dolly perfect? No. Did they learn a lot? Yes. That's how it should work.

[majxmom]

I can only say that when this clone is put into training, and doesn't become the superior jumper that Gem Twist was, maybe that will finally put to bed these ridiculous attempts to re-create a unique inidividual. There were a couple of twin mules raced last year that were clones of Taz, the Alydar of mules to Black Ruby's Affirmed. Neither of them were anything close to what Taz was, and only one of them was really a racemule. Soon, hopefully these stupid experiments will stop before they get ahold of Secretariat's hair from EBay.

[griff]

Majxmom

Why is it important to you that the experiments be stopped?/

griff

[majxmom]

Look, I'm a scientist, so I'm always interested in scientific advancement. It's not a religious thing to me or anything. But it seems asinine to ME (and I accept that others don't feel the same way) that anyone would try to recreate a unique being, and especially a being who was superior in their field. Every single clone I've seen is NOT identical. The cloned calves have rather distinctly different shapes in their head markings. Those Taz-cloned mules were very obviously not identical. You could easily tell them apart. I saw two of the three of them in person. Whatever this technology is, it is NOT making identical copies. Then of course, you are missing all of the other environmental factors that will be very different between original and clone: prenatal and neonatal nutrition, handling, behavior learned from mother and other animals nearby, human interaction,etc.

People cloning their pets is especially bizarre to me. Would you clone your wife if she died? Would you expect the relationship to be the same? The pet cloning craze smacks to me of people not being psychologically able to accept the cycle of life, that this life is ended and you must go on.

But then there is the actual scientific problems involved. You don't just decide to clone and poof! here it is. You create a bunch of non-viable embryos and pre-embryos, many of which have horrible birth defects. It's impractical, costly, sometimes cruel, and wildly UNsuccessful at recreating the exact being. What's to love?

[Tonno100]

Look, I'm a scientist, so I'm always interested in scientific advancement. It's not a religious thing to me or anything. But it seems asinine to ME (and I accept that others don't feel the same way) that anyone would try to recreate a unique being, and especially a being who was superior in their field. Every single clone I've seen is NOT identical. The cloned calves have rather distinctly different shapes in their head markings. Those Taz-cloned mules were very obviously not identical. You could easily tell them apart. I saw two of the three of them in person. Whatever this technology is, it is NOT making identical copies. Then of course, you are missing all of the other environmental factors that will be very different between original and clone: prenatal and neonatal nutrition, handling, behavior learned from mother and other animals nearby, human interaction,etc.

People cloning their pets is especially bizarre to me. Would you clone your wife if she died? Would you expect the relationship to be the same? The pet cloning craze smacks to me of people not being psychologically able to accept the cycle of life, that this life is ended and you must go on.

But then there is the actual scientific problems involved. You don't just decide to clone and poof! here it is. You create a bunch of non-viable embryos and pre-embryos, many of which have horrible birth defects. It's impractical, costly, sometimes cruel, and wildly UNsuccessful at recreating the exact being. What's to love?

You're either not a scientist or you're missing the point.

They're cloning this horse to act as a stallion, his genes will be exactly the same as Gem Twist, regardless of his athletic ability. His influence as a stallion will be exactly the same as Gem Twists would be, if he was able.

[xfactor fan]

The "clones" of Taz the mule were no such thing. They were created from splitting one embryo from the same sire and dam as Taz. So the three mules were triplett siblings of Taz, not clones of Taz.

Human intervention created Gem Twist the gelding. The clone simply restores that first act.

I'd love to see a clone of Secretariat, who wouldn't want a chance to study the physiology that made him such a great racing machine.

I do agree about pets being cloned, and folks not being able to accept the death of a loved pet.

[majxmom]

You're either not a scientist or you're missing the point.

I object to this deadly insult.

[cng]

FYI:

Charmayne James' multiple world-champion gelding "Scamper" cannot of course sire foals himself, but his clone - "Clayton", foaled in 2006 - has proven fertile, with two mares being bred, embryos flushed, and maintained pregnancies identified in the recipient mares. This exciting new development for North American breeders offers future potential for perpetuation of genetics from stallions that have been gelded - something that Professor W.R. "Twink" Allen has been promoting for over 10 years, with his recommendation being that all prospective quality geldings have semen frozen before they are gelded! The "after the fact" technique of cloning means that Scamper's genes have now been passed on, and it will be interesting to watch the resulting foals in barrel racing performance in the future.

In a similar piece of news, a clone of "Doc's Serendipity" was recently twice bred to "High Brow Cat", with embryos successfully flushed and transferred on both occasions. There will be a number of clones and foals from clones arriving in 2009, 2008 having been a temporary hiatus year for cloning company ViaGen, owing to the need to relocate operations to Canada following closure of the horse slaughterhouses in Texas, causing a lack of availability of the oocytes required for the process. "Next year will be big" was Dr. Gregg Veneklasen's comment of the upcoming foaling season. Dr. Veneklasen owns and operates Timber Creek Veterinary Hospital in Canyon, Texas USA, which is heavily involved in the production of equine clones.

In an associated piece of news, it is reported that AQHA are to discuss and review its current no-registration rule regarding clones at their 2009 convention. It has long been our view (Equine-Reproduction.com's) that registries as a whole - not just AQHA - should be prepared to register clones with the same registration number as the donor animal, plus a suffix (e.g. 123456-a, 123456-b etc.), while at the same time microchipping all the animals involved (donor and clone[s]). Any work involving a recordable performance (competition, breeding etc.) would then require reading of the microchip to confirm identity. This will allow tracking of the clones and their genetic input, which is good from all perspectives of the argument - whether you agree with cloning or not - as currently, in the case of stallions, there is no way to identify if a foal sired by a clone could have been sired by the donor animal, or vice-versa, as the DNA of the offspring will match both donor and clone in the parentage verification process.

[Pan Zareta]

a clone of "Doc's Serendipity" was recently twice bred to "High Brow Cat"

Obviously, my father-in-law is not alone in the belief that there's no such thing as too much Doc Bar. Does the clone of Serendipity have the same mtDNA type?

[cng]

a clone of "Doc's Serendipity" was recently twice bred to "High Brow Cat"

Obviously, my father-in-law is not alone in the belief that there's no such thing as too much Doc Bar. Does the clone of Serendipity have the same mtDNA type?

Beats me. However, unless you are desiring miniature cutting horses that are burned out by 5 I would say there IS such a thing as too much Doc Bar.

[Pan Zareta]

Beats me. However, unless you are desiring miniature cutting horses that are burned out by 5 I would say there IS such a thing as too much Doc Bar.

A High Brow Cat - Doc's Serendipity foal would be 2x4x5x4 to Doc Bar. We've been a tad more conservative, but I know what you're talking about, at least w/ the size issues.