"clones, in spite of the seeming endless claims of identity, actually can be not 100% identical. Unless both the ribosomes and the genetic dna are sequenced fully, one can never know if they are truly idendical. the horse smart little lena was cloned, had 5 surviving babies, and two have parrot mouth. if this gene/s were cloned, one could sequence just this gene or it's regulatory elements and look for differences. the differences could be attributable to a few things during replication and repair at the early cell division stage. one other thing about cloned animals is that they tend to retain the telomer length (ends of chromosomes) that the orignal animal had. people theorize that this causes premature aging in the cloned animal. this leads me to believe that the offsrpring from cloned animals would be interesting to look at in terms of their telomere length. all kinds of telomere studies from all angles including aging etc. in humans, the hunnington disease gene/s were not found until the assembly on its chromosome was finished and it was found that there was a segmental repeat of the gene. the more copies one has, the greater the severity. the reason it was hard to find was that assembling the gene was difficult as all the sequence piled on top of each other as it was so identical. this probably will happen for a lot of genes. mammals seem to have this segmental duplication thing going on, while plants have their entire genome duplicated once or even twice. if this happens, their reproductive organs tend to be enlarged, seeds, bigger and more, at least when selected for.
Isn't it true knabe that it is the chromosomal DNA that in theory is identical (but not 100% as you say) but the mitochondrial DNA is not identical? DL"
This is from Knabe, you can search for more info if you type in clone on the search engine.