footnote on your work says something to the effect that:
j = “lab” not country
c = “lab” not country
there’s this thing called a BIG F-Ocean between korea and japan and china. china has the A
whereas Japan and Korea have the a
I’m trying to write to comply to “politics”.
never mind if it’s like one million to one. If it’s 1 of 20 okay. Those are better odds.
I did not explain this very well. Let me try again.
The labs in both countries claim to have a unique method of crossing their persimmons to produce NA offspring. They each claim that their method is somehow special.
However, I’ve previously demonstrated here that neither lab has viable evidence for their claim – instead it just a matter of pride. So when someone uses “C-” or “J-”, they are demonstrating that they have fallen for the laboratory claims hook, line, and sinker.
Honestly, I don’t get the point. As far as I see, it’s not just about labs.
J-PCNA varieties all originate in Japan, actually in a small section of Japan. For these varieties, non-astringency appears to be related to one mutation or deletion. The responsible locus has been labeled AST, its absence ast. If none of the six relevant chromosomes carry the ast version, then the variety is non-astringent.
C-PCNA varieties all originate in China, again actually a region of China. For these varieties, non-astringency appears to be related to the presence of a single mutation. If any one of the six relevant chromosomes carry this allele, then the variety is non-astringent.
The J-PCNA and C-PCNA variants appear to work their magic by attacking different points in the metabolic process that otherwise would create tannins. They are not just labels.
None of that has anything to do with laboratories. Or politics. So what’s the point???
Sorry, this is science fiction. The scientists who conducted the diagnostic breeding work (see attached) were all from Japan. These Japanese (not Chinese) researchers executed three crosses: Shinshu (J-PCNA), Kurokuma (PVNA), and Luo Tian Tian Shui (C-PCNA) x Taishu (J-PCNA). As the authors write, “These results strongly suggest that the genetic makeup of Luo Tian Tian Shi is different from Japanese PCNA cultivars and that different genes are responsible for the PCNA trait in Luo Tian Tian Shi.” This is the reason for using C-PCNA and J-PCNA to differentiate the two genetic makeups.
Everyone should read this article.
2327-9834-article-p371.pdf (507.8 KB)
The use of “J-” and “C-” with persimmons harks back to at least the 1980’s. I believe it originated in China.
The misuse of statistics in persimmon horticulture papers from both counties is poor enough to be used as examples in STAT 101 (college freshman statistics) – a course I have taught on several occasions. It is also true of those papers that there is no whole chromatin DNA evidence to back the claims regarding genetics, nor is there any laboratory test that could provide it. As I posted elsewhere it is currently the “holy grail” of high-resolution long-read genome sequencing.
Consequently – with the exception of raw morphologic data, all the “J-” and “C-” persimmon papers to date are nothing more than wishful thinking. More generally, the two problems mentioned above can be found in horticultural genomics papers written worldwide.
I understand all this bullshit. I just got a simple question., Kujinaja x PCNA x PCNA.
Another (simple please understand that’s where I’m going here)
Is there “any” chance of more PVNA’s from:
Kujinaja x 400-5. That simple!
Dax
OK but the linked paper does not rely on genomics. It relies on crossing cultivars and measuring tannin content and cell size. Doesn’t that qualify as “raw morphological data”? It seems so. That means your critiques of the problems in horticultural genomics and the misuse of statistics in persimmon horticulture are irrelevant here.
p.s. Wasn’t Luo Tian Tian Shi discovered in the 1980s? Maybe people started using the term “C-PCNA” then because that’s when they first needed it.
Edit: Agaki et al (2011) are credited with the JPCNA and CPCNA terminology. And discovery of a CPCNA type was first reported in 1982. See:
<< PCNA type was considered to be solely developed in Japan; however, another PCNA type was found to exist in China (Wang, 1982). Fruits of both PCNA types (Japanese PCNA, JPCNA; and Chinese PCNA, CPCNA) lose astringency on the tree at harvest, as accumulation of PA in the vacuoles of ‘tannin cells’ terminates at an early stage of fruit development >>
Perhaps! It would be a small percentage though unless 400-5 has any PVNA ancestry.
Kujinaja x PCNA x PCNA
Kujinaja x 400-5
Both of these could produce PCA, PVA, PCNA, and PVNA offspring.
The probabilities are unknown because the internal percentages of those 4 things are not known in each constituent.
To estimate them experimentally for Kujinaja x 400-5 with current technology, one would need to plant and observe the astringency of 400 or more different seedlings each of:
Costata × Rossey (Kujinaja’s parents)
Rossiyanka × unknown D.v. (400-5’s parents)
and
Kujinaja x 400-5.
Alternately one could plant out 400 seedlings of Kujinaja x 400-5 and obtain a robust estimate of the odds of the 4 astringencies in the children. It would not tell you much about the internals of the parents – which I don’t think you care about anyway 
.
I believe your definition of genomics does not match common usage in horticultural science publications. See for example, the series of books published by CABI.
Yes, they sure are relevant. They misused statistics to reach their conclusions. It is not entirely their fault. See paragraph #2 of this article.
… speculated about it.
Maybe you could do the community a favor and attach actual copies of the texts that you cite. These books and papers are not freely accessible.
I do when the publisher permits public distribution, or when by law their limitation has expired, or when the author has provided a copy (e.g. on Researchgate).
Also: I am a researcher, not a library. Sometimes when I don’t remember the location I only provide enough information for interested readers to locate the publications themselves.
I’m well aware that some of what I cite is not freely available because I pay out of pocket like everyone else and occasionally for foreign language translation service on top of it.
You might not be aware that several members here also pay out of pocket because they have a deep interest in the subject. I believe you should follow their example.
[quote=“Richard, post:389, topic:50883”]
You might not be aware that several members here also pay out of pocket because they have a deep interest in the subject. I believe you should follow their example.
[/quote[]]
LOL!
Re your first suggestion, I searched CABI for “persimmon genomics” and found a book chapter on Diospyros Kaki. The book was for sale for $337.85, the chapter for $35. Those are steep prices just to find out how real scientists use the word “genomics.”
Re your second suggestion, I found the American Pomological Society site where I can buy the paper you wrote. It seems that I’d have to join in order to access the article. I didn’t want to fill out the membership application just to find out the price. It seemed too much an investment in time and money just to read one paragraph that you wrote.
I’m perfectly willing to spend a modest sum for a potentially rewarding educational purpose. Neither of these prospects meet the hurdle.
…Guys don’t fight… C’mon let’s be friends in here. 
Nobody’s talking about entitlement. This is a community where most people help each other learn.
People come here for a free education about whatever fruits or vegetables interest them. And most people pay it back by educating others. That’s the whole wonderful point!
Never before have I seen someone on a forum write, in effect, “I’ve got something relevant to say – Now buy my paper if you want to read it!”
Edit: While the education here is free, the website has costs. I’m grateful for the service. So I’ve just made a donation.
I have a scion of kuji naja coming and was curious if it might have male flowers like some kaki PVNA types like chocolate, coffee cake, Zenji maru, and possibly others. I asked Cliff by email and the response (I think from Kum) was that it doesn’t. Too bad, since it would have been nice to have it available for crosses.
But I’ll still hold out hope that maybe there are some and they just hadn’t noticed. I can’t imagine they have a lot of time to look at every tree on a regular basis.
Researchers do not receive royalties for the articles they pay for review and publication in journals.
In the case of this paper, I will not provide a public copy at this time because I do not wish to break the trust of Dr. Marini who accepted my article for his journal.
There are multiple choices for reading articles from J. American Pomological Society. One is to visit a subscribing library.
I think it’s possible, someone said they had a few male flowers on Mikkusu, I called Cliff to verify, he said they had to much to deal with to know each trees quirks.