Literature DB >> 17248838

Partial Dominance of Ems-Induced Mutations Affecting Viability in DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER.

R G Temin1.   

Abstract

More than 700 EMS-treated second chromosomes marked with either cn (cinnabar) or bw (brown), and derived from long-inbred stocks, were measured for their heterozygous effects on viability in both isogenic (homozygous) and nonisogenic (heterozygous) backgrounds. Each test was replicated five times. When the background was homozygous, flies heterozygous for a treated chromosome were an average of 2.1% less viable, per 0.005 m EMS, than flies heterozygous for an untreated chromosome. Classified according to their homogous effect in an accompanying series of crosses, the lethal-bearing chromosomes (L), which carry genes of less drastic effects as well, reduced the viability of their heterozygous carriers by 3.3%, severe detrimentals (D(s)) by 2.2%, and mild detrimentals (D(m)) by 1.2% at this dose. In the heterozygous background, the mean heterozygous disadvantage for the entire group was 1%, or about half as large.--When computed separately for each count from a single mating, the heterozygous disadvantage was consistently greatest for the earliest counts (4.8%), next highest for the middle count (0.8%), and lowest in the latest count (0.5%), in the homozygous background, indicating that mutant heterozygotes were delayed in time of emergence. The figures in the heterozygous background were, again, reduced, but in the same direction.-The relative viability disadvantage of the cn marker was about 2(1/2) times greater in the homozygous than in the heterozygous background, further supporting the conclusion that the homozygous background can accentuate differences. The enhancement of treatment and marker effects could be a direct result of the level of background heterozygosity per se or attributable to the reduced vigor of the inbred strain.-Dominance, a measure of the heterozygous effect of a mutant relative to its homozygous effect, is greater for genes with small homozygous disadvantage than for more drastic genes. In the homozygous background the average dominance for lethals was 0.019 in contrast to 0.183 for mild detrimentals, supporting other published results suggesting that genes with milder effect, because they occur more frequently, have a greater impact on a population.-The homozygous D:L ratio of EMS mutations was 0.266 and the D(m): L ratio, 0.092, which are lower than comparable load ratios for spontaneous mutations, but greater than for X-ray induced mutations.

Entities:  

Year:  1978        PMID: 17248838      PMCID: PMC1213840     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  15 in total

1.  X-RAY INDUCED SEX-LINKED LETHAL AND DETRIMENTAL MUTATIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE VIABILITY OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER.

Authors:  L D FRIEDMAN
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1964-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  THE GENETIC STRUCTURE OF NATURAL POPULATIONS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. II. OVERDOMINANCE OF SPONTANEOUS MUTANT POLYGENES CONTROLLING VIABILITY IN HOMOZYGOUS GENETIC BACKGROUND.

Authors:  T MUKAI; S CHIGUSA; I YOSHIKAWA
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1964-10       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Fitness effects of EMS-induced mutations on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Viability effects and heterozygous fitness effects.

Authors:  J A Mitchell
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  T Mukai; S I Chigusa; L E Mettler; J F Crow
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1972-10       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Relation between homozygous viability and average dominance in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  N E Morton; C S Chung; L D Friedman; N T Morton; C Miki; S Yee
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1968-11       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. VI. Further studies on the optimum heterozygosity hypothesis.

Authors:  T Mukai
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1969-02       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Fitness effects of EMS-induced mutations on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Hemizygous fitness effects.

Authors:  J A Mitchell; M J Simmons
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Viability of heterozygotes for induced mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Mean effects in irradiated autosomes.

Authors:  R Falk; N Ben-Zeev
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1966-01       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Viability of heterozygotes for induced mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Irradiated X-chromosome.

Authors:  R Falk; A Rahat; N Ben-Zeev
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1965-10       Impact factor: 2.433

10.  Further studies on heterozygous effects of radiation on viability of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  J Pandey
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1975-02       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  3 in total

1.  Dominance of mutations affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  James D Fry; Sergey V Nuzhdin
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Dominance and overdominance of mildly deleterious induced mutations for fitness traits in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  A D Peters; D L Halligan; M C Whitlock; P D Keightley
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  James F. Crow: storied teacher, leader, and colleague at the University of Wisconsin.

Authors:  Millard Susman; Rayla Greenberg Temin
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.562

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.