Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:59:15.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The mutational rate of Drosophila viability decline: tinkering with old data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2002

A. GARCÍA-DORADO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain
A. CABALLERO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Bioquímica, Genética e Inmunología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Vigo, 36200 Vigo, Spain
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

In the first 25 generations of his classical mutation accumulation experiment, T. Mukai estimated a large rate of early linear decay for the relative viability of Drosophila melanogaster chromosome II (ΔMII = 0.004). Mukai forced through zero the regression of viability decline on generation number, but it has recently been shown (Fry, 2001) that a similar decline (ΔMII = 0.006) is obtained from unforced regression even if generation 32 instead of generation 25 (whose validity has been questioned) is included. We show that, from the perspective of the whole long-term experiment, it is hard to decide up to which generation viability can be considered to decline linearly. Depending on this decision, and on whether or not the regression is forced through the origin, very different estimates are obtained. Furthermore, the particular behaviour of the lines used as control suggests that they could have been different from the remaining lines at the beginning of the experiment, and casts doubts on the adequacy of a forced regression. Estimates from the linear unforced regression (ΔMII = 0.011) or from the linear term in a quadratic unforced regression (ΔMII = 0.001) are very different. The data fit both models very well, and the choice between them should be based on biological grounds.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2002 Cambridge University Press