Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T05:56:04.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XXV.—Chemically Induced Mosaicism in Drosophila melanogaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Charlotte Auerbach
Affiliation:
The Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh.
Get access

Extract

Muller's classical discovery in 1927 of the mutagenic action of X-rays has provided an extremely useful tool for studying the nature of gene mutation and chromosome breakage. It has always been realized that if, in addition, chemical substances were found capable of producing mutations and/or chromosome breaks a further important step forward in the analysis of the mutation process would follow. The search for such mutagenic substances has therefore been going on in various laboratories for some ten years, until recently, however, without definitely positive results. Only during the last few years has it been shown that certain chemical substances, such as mustard gas (ββ′-dichlordiethylsulphide, (ClCH2 · CH2)2S), may be as effective as X-rays in producing mutations and chromosome breaks (Auerbach, 1943; Auerbach and Robson, 1944; Auerbach, 1945; Auerbach and Robson, 1946). Indeed, the similarities between the results of these two types of treatment are impressive. In the course of more than four years during which work of this kind has been carried out by the author, only few differences between the genetical results of chemical treatment and of irradiation have come to light. Particular interest attaches to these dissimilarities, because they, rather than the many similarities, may throw some new light on the process of mutation and through this on the nature of the gene. One of the few striking dissimilarities is the high frequency of certain types of mosaics which can be produced by chemical treatment. It is the object of the present paper to summarize the data on chemically induced mosaicism, contrast them with similar data from X-ray experiments, and discuss the similarities and differences from the point of view of the mechanism of induced mutation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1946

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.)

References

References to Literature

Auerbach, C., 1943. “Chemically induced mutations and re-arrangements,” Drosophila Information Service (D.I.S.). XVII, 4850.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., 1945. “The problem of chromosome re-arrangements in somatic cells of Drosophila melanogasterProc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 120127.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1944. “Production of mutations by allyl isothiocyanate,” Nature, CLIV, 8182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, C., and Robson, J. M., 1946. “Chemical production of mutations,” Nature, CLVII, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. W., 1942. “Spermatocyte chromosome aberrations in grasshoppers subjected to X-radiation during embryonic stages,” Journ. Morph., LXXI, 391425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demerec, M., and Fano, U., 1944. “Frequency of dominant lethals induced by radiation in sperms of Drosophila melanogaster,” Genetics, XXIX, 209222.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., and Kaufmann, B. P., 1941. “Time required for Drosophila males to exhaust the supply of mature sperm,” Amer. Nat., LXXV, 366379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, F. B., and Heys, F., 1929. “Duration of the effects of X-rays on male germ cells in Drosophila melanogaster,” Amer. Nat., LXIII, 511516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, B. B., 1929. “The effect of ageing of X-rayed males upon mutation frequency in Drosophila,” Journ. Hered., XX, 299302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W. G., 1934. “A comparison of the frequencies of visible mutations produced by X-ray treatment in different developmental stages of Drosophila,” Genetics, XIX, 209222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1928. “The problem of genic modification,” Verhandl. 5th Intern. Congress of Genetics, Ztschr. indukt. Abst. Vererb. L. Suppl., I, 234260.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1940. “An analysis of the process of structural change in chromosomes of Drosophila,” Journ. Gen., XL, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhaus, M. J., 1935. “Zur Frage der Nachwirkung der Röntgenstrahlen auf den Mutations-prozess,” Ztschr. indukt. Abst. Vererb. L., LXX, 257264.Google Scholar
Panshin, I. B., 1935. “The analysis of a bilateral mosaic mutation in Drosophila melanogasterTrud. Inst. Genet. (Mosc.), X, 227232. (Russian with English summary.)Google Scholar
Parks, H. B., 1936. “Cleavage patterns in Drosophila and mosaic formation,” Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., XXIX, 350392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. T., 1929. “The production of mutations in somatic cells of Drosophila melanogaster by means of X-rays,” Journ. exp. Zool., LIII, 327372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. T., 1931. “The production of gynandromorphs in Drosophila melanogaster by X-rays,” Journ. exp. Zool., LX, 173211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. T., 1933. “The mechanism of mosaic formation in Drosophila,” Genetics, XVIII, 3252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. T., and Stone, W., 1938. “Gynandromorphs in Drosophila melanogaster,” The University of Texas Publ., No. 3825, 167.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., 1942. “The problem of dominant lethals,” Journ. Gen., XLIII, 295300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., 1944. “Synchronous mitoses and differentiation sheltering the germ track,” Drosophila Information Service (D.I.S.), XVIII, 5455.Google Scholar
Stadler, L. J., 1941. “Genetic studies with ultra-violet radiation,” Proc. 7th Intern. Genetic Congr.,Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1937. “Zur Frage über einen ‘direkten’ oder ‘indirekten’ Einfluss der Bestrahlung auf den Mutationsvorgang,” Biol. Zbl., LVII, 233248.Google Scholar