Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:10:51.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Induction by Mustard Gas of Chromosomal Instabilities in Drosophila melanogaster.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2018

C. Auerbach
C. Auerbach*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

The discovery (Auerbach, 1943, 1946; Auerbach and Robson, 1946, 1947) that mustard gas is comparable to X-rays and similar physical agencies in its ability to produce mutations and chromosome rearrangements has opened up a new line of approach to the problem of gene mutation. It is to be expected that a comparative study of the mechanism by which chemical substances on the one hand and physical agencies on the other exercise their mutagenic effects, will further our understanding of the process of mutation itself. One of the first questions to be tackled in the early days of radiation genetics was the possibility of a delayed mutagenic action of irradiation (Muller, 1927; Timoféeff-Ressovsky, 1930, 1931; Grüneberg, 1931). The bulk of the evidence (see, however, Bishop, 1942) indicates that X-ray-induced mutations and chromosome breaks arise as an immediate effect of the irradiation, although after treatment of mature spermatozoa new recombinations of broken chromosomes may be delayed until the spermatozoon has entered the egg. Data obtained by Stadler (1939) suggest that after ultra-violet radiation of pollen grains the mutational process often is not completed before the treated chromosome has split into its two daughter chromatids. This results in a high proportion of mosaics. A similarly high proportion of mosaics has been found in the progeny of Drosophila ♂♂ which had been treated with mustard gas (Auerbach, 1946; Auerbach and Robson, 1946). This raises the question of a possible delayed action of the chemical mutagenic treatment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , January 1945 , pp. 307 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

Auerbach, C., 1943. “Chemically induced mutations and re-arrangements” Drosophila Information Service (D.I.S.), XVII, 48–50.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., 1946. “Chemically induced mosaicism in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 211–221.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1944. “Production of mutations by allyl isothiocyanate”, Nature, CLIV, 81–82.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M. 1946. “Chemical production of mutations”, Nature, CLVII, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1947. “The production of mutations by chemical substances”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 271–283.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. W., 1942. “Spermatocyte chromosome aberrations in grasshoppers subjected to X-radiation during embryonic stages”, Journ. Morph., LXXI, 391–425.Google Scholar
Castle, W. E., 1929. “A mosaic (intense-dilute) coat pattern in the rabbit”, Journ. Exp. Zool., LII, 471–480.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., 1941. “Unstable genes in Drosophila ”, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., IX, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, R., 1939. “Mass mutation in the Florida stock of Drosophila melanogaster ”, Amer. Nat., LXXIII, 547–559.Google Scholar
Grüneberg, H., 1931. “Über die zeitliche Begrenzung genetischer Röntgenwirkungen bei Drosophila melanogaster ”, Biol. Zbl, LI, 219–225.Google Scholar
Mampell, K., 1943. “High mutation frequency in Drosophila pseudo-obscura, Race B”, Proc.Nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.), XXIX, 137–143.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J.,1927. “The problem of genic modification”, Verh. V. intern. Kongr. Vererbungsw., 234–260; Ztschr. indukt. Abst. Vererb. L., Suppl., 1, 1928.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1940. “An analysis of the process of structural change in chromosomes of Drosophila ”, Journ.Gen., XL, 1–66.Google Scholar
Neuhaus, M. J., 1935. “Zur Frage der Nachwirkung der Röntgenstrahlen auf den Mutationsprozess”, Ztschr. indukt. Abst. Vererb. L., LXX, 257–264.Google Scholar
Panshin, I. B., 1935. “The analysis of a bilateral mosaic mutation in Drosophila melanogaster ” Trud. Inst. Genet. (Mose), X, 227–232. (Russian with English summary.)Google Scholar
Parks, H. B., 1936. “Cleavage patterns in Drosophila and mosaic formation”, Ann. Ent. Soc.Amer., XXIX, 350–392.Google Scholar
Patterson, J. T., 1933. “The mechanism of mosaic formation in Drosophila ”, Genetics, XVII, 32–52.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., 1940. “Researches on the mechanism of induced chromosome re-arrangements in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Ph.D.Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Sidky, A. R., 1940. “Gonosomic mosaicism involving a lethal”, Journ. Gen., XXXIX, 265–271.Google Scholar
Stadler, L. J., 1939. “Genetic studies with ultra-violet radiation”, Proc. 7th Internat. Genet.Congr., 269–276.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1930. “Does there exist an after-effect of X-ray treatment upon the process of genovariability?”, Zh. exp. Biol., VI, 79–83. (Russian.)Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1931. “Einige Versuche an Drosophila melanogaster über die Art der Wirkung der Röntgenstrahlen auf den Mutationsprozess”, Arch. Entw. Mech. Orgn., CXXIV, 654–665.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1931. “Does X-ray treatment produce a genetic after-effect?”, Journ. Her., XXII, 221–223.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1935. “Auslösung von Vitalitätsmutationen durch Röntgenbestrahlung bei Drosophila melanogaster ”, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen (Math.-phys. KL, Biol.) N.F., 1, 163–180.Google Scholar