Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-76ns8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T04:05:33.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of the Drosophila testis to tri-ethylene melamine (TEM)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

O. S. Reddi  and
C. Auerbach
O. S. Reddi
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9
C. Auerbach
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9

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 sensitivity pattern of the Drosophila testis to TEM was analysed by means of a dual-purpose strain that allows the scoring of induced crossovers and sex-linked lethals in the progeny of the same flies. It was found that TEM produces the highest frequency of mutations in spermatocytes or late spermatogonia, while early spermatogonia are even less sensitive than mature spermatozoa. The discrepancy between this conclusion and that obtained by Fahmy & Fahmy (1955) is attributed to a difference in the method of analysis. The sensitivity pattern of the Drosophila testis to TEM resembles that to mustard gas and differs from that to X-rays. The sensitivity pattern of the mouse testis to TEM differs from that of the Drosophila testis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 1961 , pp. 63 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Alderson, T. (1960). Significance of ribonucleic acid in the mechanism of formaldehyde-induced mutagenesis. Nature, Lond., 185, 904–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auerbach, C. (1954). Sensitivity of the Drosophila testis to the mutagenic action of X-rays. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 86, 113–125.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C. & Moser, H. (1953). An analysis of the mutagenic action of formaldehyde food. I. Sensitivity of the Drosophila germ cells. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 85, 479–504.Google ScholarPubMed
Auerbach, C. & Slizynski, B. M. (1956). Sensitivity of the mouse testis to the mutagenic action of the X-rays. Nature, Lond., 177, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, C. & Sonbati, E. M. (1960). Sensitivity of the Drosophila testis to the mutagenic action of mustard gas. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 91, 237–252.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1960). The induction of dominant lethals mutations in rats and mice with Triethylenemelamine (TEM). Genet. Res. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattanach, B. M. (1959). The sensitivity of the mouse testis to the mutagenic action of triethylenemelamine. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 90, 1–6.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1953). Chromosome breaks among recessive lethals induced by chemical mutagens in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity, 6 (Suppl.), 149–162.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1954). Cytogenetics analysis of the action of carcinogens and tumor inhibitors in Drosophila melanogaster. II. The mechanism of induction of dominant lethals by 2:4:6-tri(ethyleneamino)-1:3:5 triazine. J. Genet. 52, 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1955). Cytogenetic analysis of the action of carcinogens and tumor inhibitors in Drosophila melanogaster. IV. The cell stage during spermatogenesis and the induction of intra and intergenic mutations by 2:4:6-tri(ethyleneamino)-1:3:5 triazine. J. Genet. 53, 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1957). Mutagenic response to alkylmethane-sulphonates during spermatogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature, Lond., 180, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1958). Mutagenic effects of alkylating agents. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 68 (3), 736–748.Google Scholar
Fahmy, O. G. & Fahmy, M. J. (1960). Cytogenetic analysis of the action of carcinogens and tumour inhibitors in Drosophila melanogaster. VI. The mutagenic cell stage response of the male germ line to the ‘nitrogen mustard’ derivatives of amino-acids, carboxylic acids and amines. Genet. Res. 1, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ives, P. T. (1960). The effects of gamma rays on fecundity and mutagenesis in Oregon-R males of Drosophila. Int. J. Rad. Biol. 2, 54–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Lüning, K. G. (1952). X-ray-induced mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas, Lund, 38, 108–109.Google Scholar
Parker, D. R. (1948). Observations on crossing-over induced by X-rays in male Drosophila. Genetics, 33, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1944). Synchronous mitosis and differentiation sheltering the germ track. Drosophila Inform. Serv., 18, 54.Google Scholar
Sobels, F. G. (1956). Studies on the mutagenic action of formaldehyde in Drosophila. II. The production of mutations in females and the induction of crossing-over. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 87, 743–752.Google ScholarPubMed
Strømnaes, O. (1959). Stock differences in X-ray mutational sensitivity pattern of Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas, Lund, 221–229.Google Scholar
Vogt, M. (1950). Eräzende Befund zur mutagenen Wirkung der Urethane (Carbaminsäureester) bei Drosophila. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. Vererbhehre, 83, 341–346.Google ScholarPubMed
Yanders, A. F. (1958). Relative time of eclosion of Drosophila females heterozygous for sex-linked recessive lethals. Amer. Nat. 92, 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar