Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T00:41:18.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of suppressing crossing-over on the response to selection in Drosophila melanogaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

C. P. McPhee  and
Alan Robertson
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A selection experiment for sternopleural bristles in Drosophila melanogaster was undertaken to measure the effect of suppressing crossing-over on chromosomes II and III using the inversions Curly and Moiré marked with a dominant gene, which severely reduce crossing-over. In one set of lines selected wild-type males were mated to selected females, heterozygous for Cy and Mé, and in a parallel set selected males carrying the inversions were mated to selected wild-type females. Because there is no crossing-over in the males in this species, crossing-over is much reduced in the first set and is at its usual level in the second. The effect of the selection was measured on flies which did not carry the inversions. The suppression of crossing-over reduced the advance at the limit by 28 ± 8% for selection upwards and by 22 ± 7% for selection downwards. The segregation ratios of the inversions were observed throughout the experiment. At the end, the proportion of wild-type flies emerging was not different in the two sets of lines. The results are consistent with an assumption of initial linkage equilibrium between loci affecting sternopleural bristles in the base population.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

References

REFERENCES

Crow, J. F. & Morton, N. E. (1955). Measurement of gene frequency drift in small populations. Evolution 9, 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. (1966). The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genetical Research 8, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latter, B. D. H. (1966). The response to selection due to autosomal genes of large effect. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 19, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1967). Genetic variations of Drosophila melanogaster. Publications: Carnegie Institution of Washington, no. 627.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, R. J. & Wright, T. R. F. (1966). Recombination in FM4/+; SM1/+; Ubx130/ + heterozygotes. Drosophila Information Service 41, 141.Google Scholar
Mather, K. (1943). Polygenic inheritance and natural selection. Biological Reviews 18, 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, H. S. & Robertson, A. (1968). The introduction of genetic material from inferior into superior strains. Genetical Research 12, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rathie, K. A. & Barker, J. S. F. (1968). Effectiveness of regular cycles of intermittent artificial selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila melanogaster. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 21, 1187–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, A. (1970). A theory of limits in artificial selection with many linked loci. In Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics, ed. Kojima, K.. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Temin, R. G. (1966). Homozygous viability and fertility loads in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 53, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1952). The genetics of quantitative variability. In Quantitative Inheritance, pp. 5–41. Ed. Reeve, E. C. R. and Waddington, C. H.. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar