Maternal control of heterosis for yield in Drosophila melanogaster

Barnes, Bret

doi:10.1038/hdy.1968.74

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is also possible and perhaps more realistic to interpret our results in terms of directional selection. Ultimately, this would lead to the evolution of unidirectional dominance, together with duplicate gene interactions as described by Barnes (1968b). Indeed, this is what we find for inter-genotypic sensitivity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Furthermore, Bonnier (1961) has demonstrated that the proportion of freshly hatched larvae that reached eclosion was higher in the hybrids between three unrelated wildtype stocks of D. melanogaster than in the stocks themselves. However, Barnes (1968b) described the involvement not only of heterosis determined by the progeny's own genotype, but also that determined by the maternal genotype.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The biometrical genetics of competitive parameters in Drosophila melanogaster

Hemmat

Eggleston

1990

Heredity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of competition as an evolutionary determinant in natural populations there have been few studies of the genetical control of competitive ability. Here, we report the results of a biometrical analysis of four continuously varying traits which, between them, describe the competitive interactions in mixed cultures of Drosophila melanogas fee. The analysis involved the parental, F1, F2 and backcross generations (including all reciprocals) derived from crosses between two highly inbred lines isolated from the Texas population of D. melanogasfer. The competitive performance of each genotype in monoculture and in duoculture with a phenotypically distinct tester were assessed using a yield-density regression analysis. Appropriate genetic models were fitted using a variance weighted least squares procedure and the resulting genetic components of the generation means used to define the genetical architecture of competition. Of the four competitive parameters investigated here the e-value, which describes the competitive performance of the indicator genotype at a fixed reference density, was found to be determined by simple additive genetic effects with no evidence of significant dominance. Conversely, competitive performance in monoculture (intra-genotypic competition) did display a significant net dominance component and the observed values in the F1 and parental generations indicated some degree of heterosis. Of the two competitive parameters determining performance in duoculture (inter-genotypic sensitivity and inter-genotypic pressure) the former was found to have a complex genetic determination involving not only additive and dominance components of the progeny's own genotype but also dominance components of the F1 maternal genotypes. There were also additive-dominance and dominance-dominance non-ailelic interactions. Heterosis was evident, determined both by the progeny's own genotype and by one of the F1 maternal genotypes. All dominance and heterosis was directed towards reduced inter-genotypic sensitivity or, iii other words, superior competitive ability. The analysis of maternal effect components for inter-genotypic competitive pressure could not be accommodated for reasons described in the text, although the data provided evidence for their involvement. The fitting of a simplified model revealed significant additive and dominance components of similar magnitude together with heterosis determined by the progeny's own genotype. There was no evidence of non-allelic interaction. As before all dominance and heterosis was directed towards superior competitive ability (i.e., increased inter-genotypic pressure). Throughout the experiment, there was no evidence for sex-linkage in the determination of competitive parameters. This is thought to be a prerequisite for stability of the sex ratio in the intense competitive environment of natural populations. Possible interpretations of the genetical architecture of competition are discussed in the light of these results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The biometrical genetics of competitive parameters in Drosophila melanogaster

Hemmat

Eggleston

1990

Heredity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because preening is used to fend off other flies, perhaps to space them over the available food or egg-laying space (Connolly, 1968;Hay, 1 972b), the level of preening should be related to the density of flies in the cultures. Density in turn is influenced by several factors known to be controlled by the maternal genotype, such as egg hatchability and also egg-laying capacity, for which F1 mothers show heterosis (Barnes, 1968). Hence, additive maternal effects on egg hatchability should be a greater influence on preening in the fresh conditions than in the low-density main Cavalli cross, except for any effects acting at the larval stage.…”

Section: J%tatural Selection and The Genetical Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Genetical and maternal determinants of the activity and preening behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster reared in different environments

Hay

1972

Heredity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this latter approach, some of the parameters used, for example those for row and column effects in such a data matrix, could then have recognisable biological meaning in the context of the experiment. Mather and Jinks (1971) Barnes (1968). Estimates of cytoplasmic effects across segregating generations, in terms of comparisons among row and column means in a 4 x 4 data matrix, were also made through the group of orthogonal comparisons shown in table 5.…”

Section: (C) Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such an arrangement, which provides parental F1, F2 and backcross generations, including all reciprocals, has been used by Barnes (1968) in an analysis of the genetic system controlling yield in Drosophila melanogaster. Variation amongst generation means was summarised by fitting models through a weighted least-squares procedure, and testing these models for adequacy by x2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytoplasmic effects on plant weight in crosses between flax genotypes and genotrophs

Tyson

1973

Heredity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYCrosses were made between two flax genotrophs, L and S, and two other flax genotypes. With a given pair of parents and their reciprocal F1 hybrids, crosses were made in all ways to generate 16 different progenies. Progeny means for total plant fresh weight were examined. Cytoplasmic effects were detected in these progeny. No reciprocal F1 differences were found; cytoplasmic effects were seen as differences between the progeny of the one compared to the other F1 hybrid. Genetic and cytoplasmic effects were estimated by weighted least squares procedures. A depressant cytoplasmic effect was transmitted through the male gametes of S, while a positive effect was passed through the female gametes of L.

show abstract

Maternal control of heterosis for yield in Drosophila melanogaster

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

The biometrical genetics of competitive parameters in Drosophila melanogaster

The biometrical genetics of competitive parameters in Drosophila melanogaster

Genetical and maternal determinants of the activity and preening behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster reared in different environments

Cytoplasmic effects on plant weight in crosses between flax genotypes and genotrophs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About