. 2007 Sep;177(1):79–87. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.075143

TABLE 1.

Genetic interaction between JIL-1 and Su(var)3-9 alleles

Cross	Genotypes (no. of adult flies)		% expected ratio^a
JIL-1^z2/TM6 × JIL-1^z2/TM6	JIL-1^z2/TM6 (685)	JIL-1^z2/JIL-1^z2 (0)	0.0
JIL-1^z2/TM6 × JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹/TM6	JIL-1^z2/TM6 or JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹/TM6 (350)	JIL-1^z2/JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹ (144)	87.4
JIL-1^z2/TM6 × JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9²/TM6	JIL-1^z2/TM6 or JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9²/TM6 (280)	JIL-1^z2/JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9² (57)	50.7
JIL-1^z2/TM6 × JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9⁰⁶/TM6	JIL-1^z2/TM6 or JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9⁰⁶/TM6 (209)	JIL-1^z2/JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9⁰⁶ (53)	60.7
JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹/TM6 × JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9²/TM6	JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹/TM6 or JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9²/TM6 (892)	JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9¹/JIL-1^z2 Su(var)3-9² (204)	55.8

In these crosses, the TM6 chromosome was identified by the Stubble marker. Consequently, the experimental genotypes could be distinguished from balanced heterozygotic flies by absence of the Stubble marker. The expected Mendelian ratio of non-Stubble to Stubble flies was 1:2 since TM6/TM6 is embryonic lethal. The percentage of expected genotypic ratios was calculated as observed non-Stubble flies × 300/total observed flies.