No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Characterization of fractional mutations in Drosophila: differential inhibition of complete and fractional mutations by inhibitors of repair synthesis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 April 2009
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.
The ‘maxy’ technique was used for scoring the frequencies of whole body and fractional mutations in the progeny of males of Drosophila melanogaster that had been irradiated with 2000 R, irradiation being followed or preceded by treatment with caffeine or acriflavine. Three 2-day broods were used, and males irradiated without subsidiary chemical treatment were used as controls. Both chemicals whether given as post- or pre-treatment strongly reduced the frequencies of fractional mutants in all broods. The frequency of whole-body mutants was unaffected in the first two broods and suffered a moderate reduction in the third. These results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that repair processes regulate the development of a primary lesion into either a whole-body or a fractional mutant and that the functioning of the repair enzymes depends on the state of maturity of the male germ cell.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978
References
REFERENCES
Alderson, T. & Khan, A. H. (1967). Caffeine-induced mutagenesis in Drosophila. Nature 215, 1080–1081.Google Scholar
Altenburg, E. & Browning, L. S. (1961). The relatively high frequency of whole body mutations compared with fractionals induced by X-ray in Drosophila melanogaster sperm. Genetics 46, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, C. (1946). Chemically induced mosaicism in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Boyal Society of Edinburgh, B 62, 307–320.Google Scholar
Brink, N. G. (1970). Complete and mosaic visible mutations produced by Ethylmethane-sulphonate in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutation Research 10, 227–236.Google Scholar
Cattanach, B. M. (1962). Genetical effects of caffeine in mice. Zeitschrift Vererbungslehre 93, 215–219.Google Scholar
Chevaillier, Ph. & Philippe, M. (1976). In situ detection of DNA polymerase activity in the nuclei of mouse spermatozoa. Chromosoma 54, 33–37.Google Scholar
Clark, A. M. & Clark, E. G. (1968). The genetic effects of caffeine in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutation Research 6, 227–234.Google Scholar
Epler, J. L. (1966). Ethylmethanesulphonate-induced lethals in Drosophila. Frequency–dose relationship and multiple mosaicism. Genetics 54, 31–36.Google Scholar
Goon, A. M., Gupta, M. K. & Dasgupta, B. (1968). Fundamentals of Statistics, 3rd ed.Calcutta: The World Press Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
Inagaki, R. & Nakao, Y. (1966). Comparison of frequency pattern between whole body and fractional mutations induced by X-ray in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutation Research 3, 268–272.Google Scholar
Janders, A. F. & Seaten, R. C. (1962). The lack of mutagenicity of caffeine in Drosophila. American Naturalist 46, 277.Google Scholar
Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1968). Genetic variation of Drosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Institut Wash. Publ. no. 627.Google Scholar
Malling, H. V. & Wassom, J. S. (1975). Action of mutagenic agents. In Handbook of Teratology (ed. Wilson, J. G. and Frazer, F. Clarke). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mandal, S. K., Rahaman, R. & Mukherjee, A. S. (1977). Characterization of fractional mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Effect of fractionation of dose, dose rate of X-ray and mitomycin C in post-meiotic broods. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 15, 8–12.Google Scholar
Matsudaira, Y., Ito, T., Yamasaki, T., Ishizaka, S. & Domon, M. (1964). On the fractional and whole body mutations induced by soft X-ray in Drosophila. Japanese Journal of Genetics 38, 288–289.Google Scholar
Mendelson, D. (1973). The effect of caffeine on a repair system in Drosophila melanogaster. Genen Phaenen 16, 129–132.Google Scholar
Mendelson, D. & Sobels, F. H. (1974). The inhibiting effect of caffeine on the maternal repair of radiation induced chromosome breaks in Drosophila. Mutation Research 26, 123–128.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1928). The problem of genie modifications. Zeitschrift induktiv Abstammung Vererbungslehre, Suppl. I, 234–160.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1954). A semi-automatic breeding system (Maxy) for finding sex linked mutations at specific visible loci. Drosophila Information Service 28, 140–141.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., Carlson, E. A. & Schalet, A. (1961). Mutation by alteration of already existing gene. Genetics 96, 213–226.Google Scholar
Norman, A. (1971). DNA repair in lymphocytes and some other human cells. In DNA Repair Mechanism (ed. Schattaner, F. K.), pp. 9–16. Symposium, Schloss Reinhartshausen, Rhein. Stuttgart: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Painter, R. B. (1974). DNA damage and repair in eukaryotic cells. Genetics 78, 139–184.Google Scholar
Snedecor, W. G. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Sobels, F. H. (1965). Radiosensitivity and repair in different germ cell stages of Drosophila. In ‘Genetics Today’, Proceedings of the ltth International Congress of Genetics, The Hague (ed. Geerts, S. J.), 2, 234–255. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sobels, F. H., Michael, B., Mukherjee, R. N., Olivieri, G., Olivieri, A., Shankeran-Arayanan, K. & Watson, W. A. F. (1966). Processes underlying repair and radiosensitivity in spermatozoa and spermatids of Drosophila. In Genetical Aspects of Radiosensitivity: Mechanisms of Repair, Intern. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
You have
Access