, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 824–825 | Cite as

Infecundity and dominant lethal mutations induced inMusca domestica L. by sodium azide (NaN3)

  • J. N. Thakur
  • S. K. Mann


Results of our study suggest that sodium azide is effective in the induction of sterility and dominant lethal mutations in both sexes ofM. domestica L. When treated males were crossed with nontreated females, 100% dominant lethal mutations and 72.3% infecundity were found, whereas in the crosses of nontreated males and treated females, 82.5% dominant lethal mutations and 33.1% infecundity were found. This showed that males are more sensitive to sodium azide than females.


Sodium Azide Sodium Azide Lethal Mutation Dominant Lethal Mutation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    J. E. McCann Choi, E. Yamasaki and B. N. Ames, Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA72, 5135 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Kleinhofs and J. R. Smith, Mutation Res.41, 233 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. D. Goldsmith, E. B. Tobias and M. E. Harnly, Anat. Res.101, 93 (1948).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. R. Painter and W. W. Kilgore, J. econ. Ent.58, 888 (1965).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. F. Howland, P. Vial and T. H. Henneberry, J. econ. Ent.58, 635 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. H. Roach and J. A. Buxton, J. econ. Ent.58, 802 (1965).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. E. LaChance and J. G. Reimann, Mut. Res.1, 318 (1964).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. R. Whiting and R. C. Von-Borstel, Genetics39, 317 (1954).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. E. LaChance and A. P. Leverich, Ann. ent. Soc. Am.61, 164 (1968).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. M. Mouschen, Experientia25, 1337 (1969).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. B. DeMilo, A. B. Borkovec and D. G. McHaffey, J. econ. Ent.65, 1548 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. B. Borkovec, C. W. Woods and D. G. McHaffey, J. econ. Ent.65, 1543 (1972).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. F. Smith, A. J. Boswell and T. J. Henneberry, J. econ. Ent.58, 98 (1965).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. P. Bhalla and A. G. Robinson, J. econ. Ent.59, 378 (1966).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Keiser, L. F. Steiner and H. Kamasaki, J. econ. Ent.58, 682 (1965).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. W. Stimmann and D. G. Gough, J. econ. Ent.65, 994 (1972).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. C. LaBrecque, J. econ. Ent.54, 684 (1961).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Sander, R. A. Nilam, A. Kleinhofs and B. K. Vig, Mut. Res.50, 67 (1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Thakur
    • 1
  • S. K. Mann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Bio-SciencesH. P. UniversitySimla(India)

Personalised recommendations