Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:51:12.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Production of Mutations by Chemical Substances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2018

C. Auerbach  and
J. M. Robson
C. Auerbach
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics and Department of Pharmacology, University of Edinburgh
J. M. Robson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics and Department of Pharmacology, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

The production of mutations by the action of chemical substances on germ cells has often been reported. However, the variability of the spontaneous mutation rate and its dependence not only on environmental conditions and physiological factors, but also on the genotype, make it extremely difficult to assess the value of tests in which only small increases over the spontaneous mutation rate have been found. For this reason, Muller was still able to conclude in 1941 that there was no definite proof that chemical substances could exert an effect on the mutation rate. Since then, Thomas and Chevais (1943) have reported results with sulphonamides which, if they can be confirmed, would indicate a real, though slight, action of these substances on the chromosomes, at least as far as gene mutations are concerned. Stubbe (1940), working on plant material, observed a significant increase in mutation rate with phenol and potassium thiocyanate. It is of interest that Auerbach and Robson (1943) independently observed a similar effect with allyl isothiocyanate in experiments on Drosophila. Even these definite effects are, however, very slight.

During the last four years we have been testing a number of chemical substances. Among these a certain group has been found which increases the rate of occurrence of mutations and chromosome rearrangements to a similar extent as that brought about by X-rays and similar physical agencies. The best known representative of this group is mustard gas, and the present report deals only with the effects produced by this substance. Results obtained with other effective substances will be published later.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , January 1945 , pp. 271 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

Auerbach, C., 1944. “Report on new mutants”, Drosophila Information Service (D.I.S.), XVIII, 40.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., 1945. “New Mutants”, Drosophila Information Service (D.I.S.), XIX, p. 45.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C., 1946. “Chemically induced mosaicism in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 211–222.Google Scholar
Bishop, M., 1938. “X-chromosome duplications in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Genetics, XXIII, 140.Google Scholar
Demerec, M., and Kaufmann, B. P., 1941. “Time required for Drosophila males to exhaust the supply of mature sperm”, Amer. Nat., LXXV, 366–379.Google Scholar
Hanson, F. B., and Heys, F., 1929. “Duration of the effects of X-rays on male germ cells in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Amer. Nat., LXIII, 511–516.Google Scholar
Harris, B. B., 1929. “The effect of ageing of X-rayed males upon mutation frequency in Drosophila ”, Journ. Hered., XX, 299–302.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1930. “Radiation and genetics”, Amer. Nat., LXIV, 220–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1940. “An analysis of the process of structural change in chromosomes of Drosophila ”, Journ. Gen., XL, 1–66.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., 1941. “Induced mutations in Drosophila ”, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. on Quant. Biol., IX, 151–165.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J., and Altenburg, E., 1930. “The frequency of translocations produced by X-rays in Drosophila ”, Genetics, XV, 283–311.Google Scholar
Neuhaus, M. J., 1939. “A cytogenetic study of the Y-chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster ”, Journ. Gen., XXXVII, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. T., Stone, W. S., Bedichek, S., and Suche, M., 1934. “The production of translocations in Drosophila ”, Amer. Nat., LXVIII, 359–369.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., 1940. “Researches on the mechanism of induced chromosome rearrangements in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Edin., 1–146.Google Scholar
Slizynski, B. M., and Slizynska, H., 1946. “Genetical and cytological studies of lethals induced by chemical treatment in Drosophila melanogaster ”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., b, LXII, 234–242.Google Scholar
Sonnenblick, B. P., 1940. “Cytology and development of the embryos of X-rayed adult Drosophila melanogaster ”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. U.S.A., XXVI, 373–381.Google Scholar
Stadler, L. J., 1939. “Genetic studies with ultra-violet radiation”, Proc. 7th Internat. Genet. Congr., 269–276.Google Scholar
Stubbe, H., 1940. “Neue Forschungen zur experimentellen Erzeugung von Mutationen”, Biol. Zbl., LX, 113–129.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. A., and Chevais, S., 1943. “Production expérimentale de mutations par les trois amino-phenylsulfamides isomères chez la mouche Drosophile. Action sur les cellules mâles”, C.R. Soc. Biol., CXXXVII, 185–187.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W., 1937. “Zur Frage über einen ‘direkten’ oder ‘indirekten’ Einfluss der Bestrahlung auf den Mutationsvorgang”, Biol. Zbl., LVII, 233–248.Google Scholar