Advertisement

Genetica

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 405–424 | Cite as

Génétique de la physiologie ovocytaire chez un nematode libre autofécondCaenorhabditis elegans I. Influence du génotype et de la sélection sur la fécondité des hermaphrodites et la viabilité des oeufs

  • B. Béguet
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

In the free-living hermaphroditic autogamous nematodeC. elegans, a strain heterozygous at one locus, which controls size but also has a pleiotropic effect on fecundity, was created artificially. We have studied the inbreeding effects on fecundity and viability for the three genotypes obtained by self-fertilization with controlled cultures submitted to intensive inbreeding.

An effect which produced a 10% significant reduction in homozygote wild type fecundity was found. After four generations, the fecundity of homozygous wild type returned to the heterozygous level.

The initial reduction in fecundity is caused by the low viability of the homozygous eggs. This is an expression of the genetic load. A hypothesis is suggested concerning the next homozygous generations: the regulatory processes specific to inbreeding would contribute to maintaining the best genetic state.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Allard, R. W., S. K. Jain &P. L. Workman (1968). The genetics of inbreeding populations.Advances in Genetics 14: 55–132.Google Scholar
  2. Birky, C. W. Jr. (1967). Studies on the physiology and genetics of the rotifer Asplanchna: III. Results of outcrossing, selfing, and selection.J. exp. Zool. 164: 105–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Béguet, B. &J. L. Brun (1972). Influence of parental aging on the reproduction of the F1 generation in a hermaphrodite nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.Exp. Geront. 7: 195–206.Google Scholar
  4. Béguet, B. (1972). The persistence of processes regulating the level of reproduction in the hermaphrodite nematode Caenorhabditis elegans despite the influence of parental aging, over several consecutive generations.Exp. Geront. 7: 207–218.Google Scholar
  5. Brun, J. (1966). L'adaptation aux températures élevées chez un Nématode Caenorhabditis elegans Maupas 1900. I. L'adaptation et son évolution.Annls. Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 6: 127–158.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, H. L. (1967). Permanent heterozygosity. In: Evolutionary Biology. I: 143–168. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York.Google Scholar
  7. Dion, M. &J. L. Brun (1971). Cartographie génique du Nématode libre Caenorhabditis elegans Maupas 1900, var. Bergerac. I. Etude de deux mutants nains.Molec. Gen. Genetics 112: 133–151.Google Scholar
  8. Dobzhansky, Th. &E. Boesiger (1968). Essais sur l'évolution. Masson & Cie, Editeurs, Paris, 184 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to quantitative genetics. The Ronald Press C.O., New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hebert, P. D. N. (1973). Phenotypic variability of lactate dehydrogenase in Daphnia magna.J. exp. Zool. 186: 33–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Johannsen, W. (1903). Über erblichkeit in populationen und reinen linien. Fischer/Jena.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, D. F. (1939). Continued inbreeding in maize.Genetics 24: 462–473.Google Scholar
  13. Lints, F. A. (1962). Les théories de l'hétérosis et les relations caryocytoplasmiques.Acta Biotheoretica 16: 1–26.Google Scholar
  14. Majumdar, P. K., R. Prakash &F. Haque (1969). Genotypic and phenotypic variability in quantitative characters in ground nut.Indian J. Genet. Pl. Breed. 29: 291–296.Google Scholar
  15. Mal Bhag (1969). Genotypic and phenotypic variability in yield and other quantitative characters in pea.Indian J. Hered. 1: 99–104.Google Scholar
  16. Mérat, P. (1972). Quelques effets du gènedw sur la ponte et la qualité des oeufs.Ann. Génét. Sélect. animale Fr. 4: 217–223.Google Scholar
  17. Müntzing, A. (1963). A case of preserve heterozygosity in rye in spite of long continued inbreeding.Hereditas 50: 377–413.Google Scholar
  18. Nollen, P. M. (1971). Viability of a self-fertilizing strain of Philophthalmus megalurus (Trematoda: Digenea).J. Parasit. 57: 1222–1226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. White, M. J. D. (1970). Heterozygosity and genetic polymorphism in parthenogenetic animals. In: Evolutionary Biology. Supplementary volume. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, W. (1960). Relative variability of inbred lines and F1 hybrids in Lycopersicum esculentum.Genetics 45: 1457–1465.Google Scholar
  21. Zimmering, S., L. Sandler &B. Nicoletti (1970). Mechanisms of meiotic drive.Ann. Review of Genetics 4: 409–436.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Béguet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General and Applied Biology Associate Laboratory of the C.N.R.S.University of Claude BernardVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations