Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:22:17.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mutagenic effects of X-rays and formaldehyde food in spermatogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

H. Slizynska
H. Slizynska
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9
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.

The structural changes induced by X-rays in cells at different stages of spermatogenesis were analysed in salivary gland chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster and compared with the changes induced by formaldehyde added to the food (FF) of the larvae.

The different stages of spermatogenesis vary in sensitivity to X-rays when measured by the percentage of sex-linked lethals, by the percentage of spermatozoa carrying structural changes, and by the number of changes in 100 spermatozoa. The proportions of the different types of change (T, In, Rp, Df), however, are fairly similar in all stages of spermatogenesis, but entirely different from those found after FF treatment. This suggests that it is the mutagen and not the sensitive stage which is responsible for the characteristic pattern of the FF effects.

The differences between the effects of X-rays and of FF are attributed to the different proportions of potential breaks induced by these two mutagens. Evidence has been presented indicating that while most of FF induced breaks are potential (about 73%), most of the X-rays induced breaks are immediate. For the dose rate used in the present experiment (below 1000 r/min.) only a small proportion (4–10%) of breaks induced by X-rays was found to be potential.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 1963 , pp. 248 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

References

REFERENCES

Auerbach, C. (1949). Chemical induction of mutations (8th Int. Conf. Genet.). Hereditas, Lund, Suppl. 128.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C. (1951). Problems in chemical mutagenesis. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 16, 199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auerbach, C. (1954). Sensitivity of Drosophila testis to the metagenic action of X-rays. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 86, 113–125.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C. & Moser, H. (1953 a). Analysis of mutagenic action of formaldehyde food. I. Sensitivity of Drosophila germ cells. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 85, 479–504.Google ScholarPubMed
Auerbach, C. & Moser, H. (1953 b). Analysis of metagenic action of formaldehyde food. II. The mutagenic potentialities of the treatment. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 85, 547–563.Google Scholar
Bauer, H. (1939). Rontgenauslosung von Chromosomenmutationen bei Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma, 1, 343–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. M. (1956). Genetic effects of X-rays in relation to dose-rate in Drosophila. Nature, Lond. 177, 787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, W. L., Russel, L. B. & Cupp, B. (1959). Dependence of mutation frequency on radiation dose rate in female mice. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash. 45, No. 1, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slizynska, H. (1957). Cytological analysis of formaldehyde induced chromosomal changes in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. roy. Soc. Edinb. LXVI, 288–304.Google Scholar
Slizynska, H. (1963). Origin of repeats in Drosophila chromosomes. Genet. Res. 4, 154–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobels, F. H. (1960). Chemical steps involved in the production of mutations and chromosome aberrations by X-irradiation in Drosophila. I. The effect of post treatment with cyanide in relation to dose-rate and oxygen tension. Int. J. Rad. Biol. 2, No. 1, 68.Google ScholarPubMed
Stone, W. S. (1956). Indirect effects of radiation on genetic material. Mutation. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology, 8, 171–180.Google Scholar
Wolff, S. (1957). Recent studies of chromosome breakage and rejoining. Advanc. Radiobiology, 463–470.Google Scholar