Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T21:29:06.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Germ line aberrations associated with a case of hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster males*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

William R. Engels
William R. Engels
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

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.

Male sterility, male recombination, and transmission ratio distortion – all examples of a syndrome known as hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster – were found to involve chromosome–cytoplasm interactions. The latter two have temperature optima near 25° and involve pre-meiotic events. In addition, sex ratio distortion, and induction of certain translocations of the X and Y chromosomes (but not the autosomes) were found to be part of hybrid dysgenesis. Both are caused by chromosome–cytoplasm interactions with pre-meiotic events playing a crucial role. The results agree with previous data on female sterility in hybrid dysgenesis, which also has cytoplasmic components and premeiotic origins.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1979 , pp. 137 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

References

REFERENCES

Engels, W. R. (1979). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: Rules of inheritance of female sterility. Genetical Research. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, W. R. & Preston, C. R. (1979). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: The biology of female and male sterility. Genetics. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraizumi, Y. (1971). Spontaneous recombination in Drosophila mdanogaster males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington 68, 268–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, M. G. (1955). Rank Correlation Methods. London: Charles Griffen & Co.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. G. (1978). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: no suppressor X effect on male recombination. Journal of Heredity 69, 417–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. G. (1979). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: the relationship between the P-M and I-R interaction systems. Genetical Research. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. G., Kidwell, J. F. & Sved, J. A. (1977). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: A syndrome of aberrant traits including mutation, sterility, and male recombination. Genetics 86, 813–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidwell, M. G. & Novy, J. (1979). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: sterility resulting from gonadal dysgenesis in the P-M system. Genetics. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1975). Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. San Francisco: Holden-Day Inc.Google Scholar
Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1968). Genetic variations of Drosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627.Google Scholar
Schaefeb, R. E., Kidwell, M. G. & Fausto-Sterling, A. (1979). Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: morphological and cytological studies of ovarian dysgenesis. Genetics. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Slatko, B. & Hiraizumi, Y. (1978). Genetic suppression of male recombination activity in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 88, s92.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. Jr & Wooddruff, R. C. (1978). Mutator genes: Pacemakers of evolution. Nature 274, 317–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. N. Jr, Woodruff, R. C. & Schaeffer, G. B. (1978). An assay of somatic recombination lines of Drosophila mdanogaster. Genetica 49. 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yannopoulos, G. & Pelecanos, M. (1977). Studies on male recombination in a Southern Greek Drosophila melanogaster population, (a) Effect of temperature. (b) Suppression of male recombination in reciprocal crosses. Genetical Research 29, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar