No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XVII.—Tests for a Possible Action of Ethylene Glycol on the Chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2012
Extract
The work of Auerbach and Robson (1946, 1947 a and b) on mustard gas and related substances has first shown conclusively that chemical substances may be as effective as high-energy radiation in the production of mutations. Subsequently, mutagenic abilities have been reported for a number of other substances (Hadorn and Niggli, 1946; Demerec, 1947 a and b; Vogt, 1948; Rapoport, 1946; Kaplan, 1948). This discovery, however, does not obviate the necessity to search for further mutagenic substances. On the contrary, it raises the hope that more such substances may be found. Only through a comparative study of many chemical mutagens may it eventually become possible to connect mutagenic activity with specific chemical groups or configurations and thus to throw some light on the chemical basis of mutation. Moreover, the indiscriminacy of mutagenic action which mustard gas shares with radiation may not be common to all mutagens: the discovery of a chemical substance with specific action on one or several genes would mean a large step forward in the analysis of the nature of the gene.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , 1949 , pp. 242 - 248
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1949
References
References to Literature
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1946. “Chemical production of mutations”, Nature, CLVII, 302.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1947 a. “The production of mutations by chemical substances”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 271–283.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1947 b. “Tests of chemical substances for mutagenic action”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 284–291.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. W., 1932. “A gene for sticky chromosomes in Zea Mays”, Zeits. Vererb. Lehre., LXIII, 195–217.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. W., 1937. “Chromosome aberration and gene mutation in sticky chromosome plants of Zea Mays”, Cytologia, Fuju Jub., Vol. pp. 34–56.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., 1947 a. “Mutations in Drosophila induced by a carcinogen”, Nature, CLIX, 604.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., 1947 b. “Production of mutations in Drosophila by treatment with some carcinogens”, Science, CV, 634.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., and Kaufmann, B. P., 1941. “Time required for Drosophila males to exhaust the supply of mature sperm”, Amer. Nat., LXXV, 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fano, U., 1941. “On the analysis and interpretation of chromosomal changes in Drosophila”, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., IX, 113–121.Google Scholar
Hadorn, E., and Niggli, H., 1946. “Mutations in Drosophila after chemical treatment of gonads in vitro”, Nature, CLVII, 162.Google Scholar
Hill, D. L., 1945. “Chemical removal of the chorion from the Drosophila eggs”, D.I.S., XIX, 62.Google Scholar
Kaplan, W. D., 1948. “Formaldehyde as a mutagen in Drosophila”, Science, CVIII, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, B. P., 1941. “Induced chromosomal breaks in Drosophila”, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., IX, 82–92.Google Scholar
Oestergren, C., 1944. “An efficient chemical for the induction of sticky chromosomes”, Hereditas, XXXIX, 213–216.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., 1942. “The problem of dominant lethals,”, Journ. Gen., XI·III, 295–300.Google Scholar
Rapoport, I. A., 1946. “Carbonyl compounds and the chemical mechanism of mutations”, C.R. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S., LIV, 65–67.Google Scholar
Vogt, M., 1948. “Mutationsauslösung bei Drosophila durch Äthylurethan”, Experientia, IV, 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar