same dark virginia seeds in ddw

Final Update on Tobacco Seeds in DDW

Well oh well. Look at what we have here. I’m so excited I can hardly contain myself…

…ahem.

So it’s been a while since I updated and that’s because I’ve pretty much left the seeds to their own accord. I didn’t want to end the experiment officially because I wanted to see if there would be any other startling results, but it was pretty much over. Now I think I got some startling results. Let’s talk about this:

  • I took pictures of 3 different samples, one dark virginia in ddw, one dark virginia in tap water, and presoaked dark virginia in ddw. The pictures are lit (to see the results) using my new Droid Bionic camera led (for flash) as the lighting source.
  • Two pictures are of the same sample. One is very well lit and the other is dark, but with some side light (I liked the way it looked artistically so I included it and made it the feature image). In these two images I wanted to illustrate that the seedlings were fully germinated (and probably at max growth submerged in water), but that the root hairs I adoringly refer to as root fro almost have completely filled the solution! What the hell could this mean? I no longer think it is a lack of nutrients. Why? Because this effect is only seen in the samples of ddw. The DI water samples which never had quite as much root fro (but quite a bit) looks to have actually gone into remission, meaning the root fro seems to be getting less.
  • To contrast that I showed what it is like in a typical sample of tap water. Note that there is root fro in there (the plant on the bottom has its hairs visible) but they are nowhere near filling the sample. Crazy!
  • To make matters even more crazy, the presoaked seeds in ddw haven’t even germinated properly and there are (is?) root fro everywhere! Both presoaked samples are like this. On top of that it looks like presoaking may have hindered or impaired the germination process because every sample’s growth is stunted. The root fro amounts per sample is typical though (meaning ddw has the most, di water next most, and tap water the least amount of fro).

Holy moley! I don’t even know what to make of this. I’m going to re-setup this experiment in a few days but include D2O (like 33% and 66% amounts) to see if the root hairs are a similar phenomenon and to what extent.

All I can say is someone get me a molecular comb!

  • http://stevekochscience.blogspot.com Steve Koch

    The photos are going to be great for my talk tomorrow, thank you!  That said, I want many more photos and / or videos.  With a single photo, it’s tough to get a lot of information, if you haven’t already looked at the samples with your eyes.  I realize uploading a bunch of photos may still be an ONS problem.  So, maybe short videos while changing the angle would suffice?

    It does seem true that for this one experimental run, and for a limited sample size, that the DDW behaved differently in a few ways that you point out:
    * more extensive “root hairs” in DDW.
    ** after many weeks (time=?) the root hairs in DDW grew even more extensively.
    *** what happened to the DI water sample (not shown above)?
    * the pre-soaked DDW samples did not grow nearly as much as the non-pre-soaked
    ** however, I don’t see the data for the pre-soaked DI & tap.  Is it just a pre-soaking effect?

    If indeed the pre-soaking in DDW harmed the growth, of course that would be an important result–the thinking being that before the seeds started germination, the pre-soaking depleted the deuterium stored in the seeds.  So, any D-depletion effect would be magnified.  It would indicate that D is essential for growth, very exciting of course.  However, given how many variables, and limited trials, and so many unknowns we still have, due to the project being new, I’m hesitant to draw those conclusions.  For sure worth repeating & with more care and the new techniques you’ve developed!

    • http://www.iheartanthony.com Anthony Salvagno

      This is why I’m going to post pictures of all the samples tomorrow. Then I will setup the experiment again with D2O as an added sample. And then I will take some pictures from different angles and a video for the hairs. I’ll post the video on benchfly. As for the rest of your questions:

      The presoaked DDW seeds did not germinate at all it seems (except for the hairs). All the other presoaked samples did grow, but they grew very slightly. I’m thinking that keeping them in the cold as long as I did may have stunted the growth, but honestly that’s just a guess. As for the time it took for this amount of hair to grow on the non soaked samples, you/me would have to go back to the last post about this. That effect was definitely not there that time. And for your information the DI sample looked similar to the tap water, but once again I’ll post those pictures tomorrow.

      What time is your talk tomorrow?

      • http://stevekochscience.blogspot.com Steve Koch

        Awesome, thank you for planning all of that.  I think talk is 2:30 and will be an “informal” talk w/ Saxton lab, Deutsch from physics and a few other people.  I can’t imagine they won’t be fascinated by your preliminary results, but we’ll see and I’ll let you know!

        And quick thoughts:  That is very interesting about no root but only hairs.  The controls you did are important, though, and if everything pre-soaked was weird / stunted, I guess it’s tough to make conclusions now.

        Also, because I don’t think we’ve noted on your notebook yet, the pre-soaking idea also comes from Lewis, in the 1934 Science paper: “If seeds which germinate
        only at a higher temperature were soaked in pure
        H220 at about the freezing point, then kept in this
        medium for several weeks and finally washed for
        some time, at the freezing point, in ordinary water,
        their power to germinate might prove to be undiminished.” (1)
        So, I don’t think we know whether tobacco (or other) seeds are expected to behave normally after pre-soaking. This is the paper in Science, in which he says he’s run out of time or money and wants to go ahead and publish his results and ideas so they’re not lost forever.  How come he does that in Science and we’re using WordPress? :)

        (1) Lewis, G. N. (1934). THE BIOLOGY OF HEAVY WATER. Science (New York, N.Y.), 79(2042), 151-153. doi:10.1126/science.79.2042.151

      • http://stevekochscience.blogspot.com Steve Koch

        Awesome, thank you for planning all of that.  I think talk is 2:30 and will be an “informal” talk w/ Saxton lab, Deutsch from physics and a few other people.  I can’t imagine they won’t be fascinated by your preliminary results, but we’ll see and I’ll let you know!

        And quick thoughts:  That is very interesting about no root but only hairs.  The controls you did are important, though, and if everything pre-soaked was weird / stunted, I guess it’s tough to make conclusions now.

        Also, because I don’t think we’ve noted on your notebook yet, the pre-soaking idea also comes from Lewis, in the 1934 Science paper: “If seeds which germinate
        only at a higher temperature were soaked in pure
        H220 at about the freezing point, then kept in this
        medium for several weeks and finally washed for
        some time, at the freezing point, in ordinary water,
        their power to germinate might prove to be undiminished.” (1)
        So, I don’t think we know whether tobacco (or other) seeds are expected to behave normally after pre-soaking. This is the paper in Science, in which he says he’s run out of time or money and wants to go ahead and publish his results and ideas so they’re not lost forever.  How come he does that in Science and we’re using WordPress? :)

        (1) Lewis, G. N. (1934). THE BIOLOGY OF HEAVY WATER. Science (New York, N.Y.), 79(2042), 151-153. doi:10.1126/science.79.2042.151