Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:40:23.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decanalization of scutellar bristle number in Drosophila

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

W. R. Scowcroft  and
B. D. H. Latter
W. R. Scowcroft
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Industry, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia
B. D. H. Latter
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Industry, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

A major difference in developmental stability has been demonstrated between two populations produced by artificial selection for supernumerary scutellar bristles. The test system involves the substitution of an X-ray induced partial revertant of sc1 for the wild-type allele at the scute locus, enabling direct comparisons to be made of the degree of canalization at the wild-type level of expression of the character. One population is comparable with the unselected Canberra stock in stability, though it differs appreciably in mean bristle number: the other population shows a marked reduction in the level of regulation of bristle number variability. The alleles responsible for the reduced level of canalization are rare in the base population, and are of particular importance in the determination of limits to directional selection. Their effects on developmental stability have been shown to depend on the activity of the allele at the scute locus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 95 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

References

REFERENCES

Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Latter, B. D. H. (1964). Selection for a threshold character in Drosophila. I. An analysis of the phenotypic variance on the underlying scale. Genetical Research 5, 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latter, B. D. H. (1966). Selection for a threshold character in Drosophila. II. Homeostatic behaviour on relaxation of selection. Genetical Research 8, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latter, B. D. H. (1970). Selection for a threshold character in Drosophila. III. Genetic control of variability in plateaued populations. Genetical Research 15, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendel, J. M. (1965). Bristle pattern in scute stocks of Drosophila melanogaster. American Naturalist 99, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendel, J. M. (1967). Canalisation and Gene Control. London: Logos Press.Google Scholar
Rendel, J. M., Sheldon, B. L. & Finlay, D. E. (1966). Selection for canalisation of the scute phenotype. II. American Naturalist 100, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1965). Variation in scutellar bristle number—an alternative hypothesis. American Naturalist 99, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scowcroft, W. B., Green, M. M. & Latter, B. D. H. (1968). Dosage at the scute locus, and canalisation of anterior and posterior scutellar bristles in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 60, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, B. L., Rendel, J. M. & Finlay, D. E. (1964). The effect of homozygosity on developmental stability. Genetics 49, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Young, S. S. Y. (1967). Selection for and against a canalised phenotype in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 10, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed