Abstract
This paper draws attention to the formal parallelism that exists between chromosomal-loss mosaicism and mutagenically induced mosaicism in Drosophila and suggests that, although the underlying processes by which these two types of genetic mosaics are generated are very different, the more refined methodology employed in developmental analyses of genetically induced chromosomal-loss mosaics may be profitably extrapolated to mutagenesis studies. Results obtained from various studies of genetically induced mosaics and from a previous EMS mutation induction experiment at the yellow locus are utilized to illustrate this methodology and to estimate the total mutagenicity rates of EMS.—The following are some of the tentative conclusions that have been drawn in this report regarding an EMS concentration that produced 31% F2 lethals in the standard X-linked recessive lethal test: (1) The frequency of cuticular mosaics is at least 5 times that of F3 lethals. (2) At least 60% of all cuticular mosaics go undetected in the standard X -linked recessive lethal test since their mutant tissue does not extend into the germ line. (3) The frequency of EMS-induced cryptic mosaics is probably less than 10% the frequency of cuticular mosaics. (4) Some EMS-induced mutations are probably bona fide completes; if confirmed, this inference must be taken into consideration in estimating the total mutagenicity rates of this agent and in molecular interpretations of its mechanism of action. (5) The fact that the proportion of mutant tissue in EMS-induced mosaics is greater than 25% is consistent with the suggestion that the action of EMS is occasionally delayed until after the first cleavage division of the embryo. (6) Such an EMS concentration causes on the average more than 5 independent genetic alterations in the entire haploid genome of an X-bearing sperm.—This report clarifies the experimental evidence that must be generated, and the methodology that can be used to analyze this evidence, if it is of interest to render these and related conclusions regarding the effect of EMS on D. melanogaster more accurate, or if it is of interest to conduct a similar analysis for other mutagens that cause a significant degree of mosaicism.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (637.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Gehring W. J. Developmental genetics of Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet. 1976;10:209–252. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.10.120176.001233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hartl D. L. Recurrence risks for germinal mosaics. Am J Hum Genet. 1971 Mar;23(2):124–134. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hotta Y., Benzer S. Mapping of behavior in Drosophila mosaics. Symp Soc Dev Biol. 1973;31:129–167. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-612975-5.50010-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins J. B. Mutagenesis at a complex locus in Drosophila with the monofunctional alkylating agent, ethyl methanesulfonate. Genetics. 1967 Dec;57(4):783–793. doi: 10.1093/genetics/57.4.783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kankel D. R., Hall J. C. Fate mapping of nervous system and other internal tissues in genetic mosaics of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol. 1976 Jan;48(1):1–24. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(76)90041-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee W. R., Kirby C. J., Debney C. W. The relation of germ line mosaicism to somatic mosaicism in Drosophila. Genetics. 1967 Mar;55(3):619–634. doi: 10.1093/genetics/55.3.619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]