Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T03:45:30.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XIV.—Cytological Analysis of Formaldehyde Induced Chromosomal Changes in Drosophila melanogaster*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

H. Slizynska
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh.
Get access


Structural changes induced in male auxocytes after formaldehyde feeding were analysed cytologically. In comparison with the effects of X-rays (on mature sperm) there is: (1) a high proportion of mosaics; (2) an excess of repeats and deficiencies; (3) a shortage of translocations, and (4) fewer breaks in the heterochromatic regions.

The very high frequency of mosaics and the low ratio of inter- to intrachromosomal changes may be explained by the delayed opening of potential breaks which tend to open simultaneously in the same chromosome but at different times in different chromosomes. The high number of “isochromatid” breaks (repeats) points to some connection with the reduplication cycle.

The shortage of “eu-heterochromatic” changes in which “heterochromatic” breaks in salivary gland analysis are scored, can be similarly explained by a difference in the time of opening of potential breaks in the two types of chromatin.

Initial non random distribution of breaks as well as the conditions of rejoining in premeiotic cells may also play some role.

Research Article
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1957

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.)



This paper was assisted in publication by a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.


References to Literature

Auerbach, C., 1949. “Chemical induction of mutations”, (8th Int. Conf. Genet.) Hereditas (Lund), Suppl. 128.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., 1951. “Problems in chemical mutagenesis”, Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol., 16, 199.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Moser, H., 1953 a. “Analysis of the mutagenic action of formaldehyde food. I. Sensitivity of Drosophila germ cells”, Z. indukt. Abstamm.-u. Vererb Lehre, 85, 479504.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Moser, H., 1953 b. “Analysis of mutagenic action of formaldehyde food. II. The mutagenic potentialities of the treatment”, Ibid., 85, 547563.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1947. “Test of chemical substances for mutagenic action”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, 62, 284291.Google Scholar
Bauer, H., 1939. “Röntgenauslösung von Chromosomenmutationen bei Drosophila melanogaster”, Chromosoma, I, 343390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, M. J., and Fahmy, O. G., 1953. “Cytogenetic analysis of the action of carcinogens and tumour inhibitors in Drosophila melanogaster. I. 1:2:3 : 4-diepoxybutane”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, 140, 556578.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D., and Donzhansky, Th., 1942. “Temperature and ‘sex-ratio’ in Drosophila pseudoobscura”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 28, 4548.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G., and Bird, M. J., 1953. “Chromosome breaks among recessive lethals induced by chemical mutagens in Drosophila melanogaster”. Heredity, 6, Suppl. 149159.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G., and Fahmy, M. J., 1955. “Cytogenetic analysis of the action of carcinogens and tumour inhibitors in Drosophila melanogaster. III. Chromosome structural changes induced by 2:4 : 6-tri(ethyleneimino) 1:3 : 5-triazine”, J. Genet., 53, 181199.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G., and Fahmy, M. J., 1956. Ibid. “V. Differential genetic response to the alkylating mutagens and X-ray radiation”, J. Genet., 54, 146164.Google Scholar
Ford, D. E., 1949. “Chromosome breakage in nitrogen mustard treated Vicia faba root-tip cells”. (8th Int. Conf. Genet.) Hereditas, Suppl. 570.Google Scholar
Herskowitz, T. H., and Schalet, A., 1954. “Sex-linked recessive lethal mutations connected with gross chromosomal rearrangements following nitrogen mustard treatment of mature Drosophila sperm”. Genetics, 39, 970971.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, B. P., and Bate, R. C., 1938. “An X-ray induced intercalary duplication in Drosophila involving union of sister chromatids”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 24, 368371.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, B. P., and Gay, H., and Rothberg, H. Jr., 1949. “The influence of infra-red radiation on the production by nitrogen mustard of chromosome rearrangement in Drosophila, J. Exp. Zool., III, 415436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, D. E., 1946. Action of Radiations on Living Cells. (C.U.P.).Google Scholar
Loveless, A., and Revell, S., 1949. “New evidence on the mode of action of ‘mitotic poisons’”, Nature, Lond., 164, 938.Google Scholar
McLeish, J., 1953. “The action of maleic hydrazide in Vicia”, Heredity, 6, Suppl. 125147.Google Scholar
Nasrat, G. E., Kaplan, W. D., and Auerbach, C., 1954. “A quantitative study of mustard gas induced chromosome breaks and rearrangements in Drosophila melanogaster”, Z. indukt. Abstamm.-u. Vererb Lehre., 86, 249262.Google Scholar
Oehlkers, F., 1953. “Chromosome breaks influenced by chemicals”, Heredity, 6, Suppl. 95105.Google Scholar
Revell, S. H., 1953. “Chromosome breakage by X-rays and radiomimetic substances in Vicia”, Heredity, 6, Suppl. 107124.Google Scholar
Slizynska, H., and Slizynski, B. M., 1947. “Genetical and cytological studies of lethals induced by chemical treatment in Drosophila melanogaster”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, 62, 234242.Google Scholar
Slizynski, B. M., 1952. “Salivary gland preparations without any loss of material”, Drosophila Inform. Serv., 26, 134.Google Scholar