Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:07:05.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regular responses to selection I. Description of responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

J. M. Thoday  and
T. B. Boam
J. M. Thoday
Affiliation:
Genetics Department, Sheffield University
T. B. Boam
Affiliation:
Genetics Department, Sheffield University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. Several lines of Drosophila melanogaster have been selected for increase of sternopleural chaeta-number.

2. Three lines of the same origin, dp 1, dp 2 and dp 6, showed remarkably similar patterns of response involving an accelerated response from 24 to 28 chaetae and a plateau at about 30 chaetae. A line formed by crossing two of these was not responsive to selection, suggesting that the two parent lines were genetically similar.

3. A fourth line, vg 4, related to these others, showed a similar accelerated response but continued to respond beyond 30 chaetae, reaching a plateau at about 37 chaetae.

4. A further line, vg 6, set up by crossing two ‘improved’ lines, one with 30, the other with 22 chaetae, reached 46 chaetae and suggests there may sometimes be merit in selecting from the hybrids of ‘improved’ strains.

5. It is argued that the event making possible the accelerated response is probably a recombinational event.

6. The line vg 4 clearly demonstrates that some of the genes that may be exploited in a selection experiment have to be exploited in a particular order because of gene interactions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 1961 , pp. 161 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Benzer, S. (1959). On the topology of the genetic fine structure. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. Wash. 45, 1607–1619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinsley, Marjorie. (1960). Ph.D. Thesis, Sheffield.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1955). Patterns of response in selection experiments with mice. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 178–196.Google ScholarPubMed
Lerner, I. M. (1954). Genetic Homeostasis. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Mather, K. (1943). Polygenic inheritance and natural selection. Biol. Rev. 18, 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1953). The genetical structure of populations. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 7, 66–95.Google Scholar
Mather, K. & Harrison, B. J. (1949). The manifold effects of selection. Heredity, 3, 1–52, 131–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Pontecorvo, G. (1959). Trends in Genetic Analysis. Columbia, New York.Google Scholar
Rees, H. (1955). Genotypic control of chromosome behaviour in rye. Heredity, 9, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scossirolli, R. R. (1953). Effectiveness of artificial selection under irradiation of plateaued populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I.U.B.S. Symposium on Genetics of Population Structure, Pavia, pp. 42–66.Google Scholar
Sohultz, J. & Redfield, H. (1951). Interchromosomal effects on crossing over in Drosophila. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 16, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismanidis, A. (1942). Selection for an almost invariable character in Drosophila. J. Genet. 44, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. (1955). Balance, heterozygosity and developmental stability. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 318–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thoday, J. M. (1958 a). Homeostasis in a selection experiment. Heredity, 12, 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. (1958 b). The cytoplasm and quantitative variation in Drosophila. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 148, 325–355.Google ScholarPubMed
Thoday, J. M. (1960). Effects of disruptive selection. III. Coupling and repulsion. Heredity, 14, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1958). The Strategy of the Genes. Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar