Primates

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 119–123 | Cite as

Changes in relative mobility of pancreatic amylase variants in isoelectric focusing

  • Jürgen Tomiuk
  • Lars Sommer Jermiin
Short Communication
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Using isoelectric focusing with one ampholytic solution, double- and single-banded amylase phenotypes were found in a sample of rhesus monkeys,Macaca mulatta. When applying different ampholytic solutions, these variants were shown to change their position relative to each other. Single-banded phenotypes showed either a position corresponding to one of the bands of the double-banded phenotype or to an intermediate one. Family studies, however, suggested that the differences between the observed patterns were not caused by genetic differences. This discloses a problem with respect to the interpretation of electrophoretic data, i.e. bands with different positions produced by isoelectric focusing may not necessarily represent genetic differences.

Key Words

Macaca mulatta Amylase Isoelectric focusing Unstable mobility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aquadro, C. F. &J. C. Avise, 1982. An assessment of “hidden” heterogeneity within electromorphs at three enzyme loci in deer mice.Genetics, 102: 269–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dawson, W. D. &L. L. Huang, 1981. Comparative genetics of hamster amylase.Biochem. Genet., 19: 623–633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Graur, D., 1986. The evolution of electrophoretic mobility of proteins.J. Theor. Biol., 118: 443–469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kühnl, P. &H. Tischberger, 1980. Amylase polymorphism of human parotid saliva: Detection of a new allele, AMY15 by isoelectric focusing and AMY1 population data from Germany.Electrophoresis, 1: 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lewontin, R. C. &J. L. Hubby, 1966. A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. II. Amount of variation and degree of heterozygosity in natural populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura.Genetics, 54: 595–609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Nei, M., 1972. Genetic distance between populations.Amer. Naturalist, 106: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ————, 1975.Molecular Population Genetics and Evolution. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Nielsen, J. T., 1977. Variation in the number of genes coding for salivary amylase in the bank voleClethrionomy glareola.Genetics, 85: 155–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pronk, J. C., R. R. Frants, W. Jansen, A. W. Eriksson, &G. J. M. Tonino, 1982. Evidence for duplication of the human salivary amylase gene.Human Genet., 60: 32–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shibata, K., J. Constans, M. Viau, &H. Matsumoto, 1982. Polymorphism of the haptoglobin peptides by isoelectric focusing electrophoresis and isoelectric point determinations.Human Genet., 61: 210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Singh, R. S., R. C. Lewontin, &A. A. Felton, 1976. Genetic heterogeneity within electrophoretic “Alleles” of Xanthine dehydrogenase inDrosophila pseudoobscura.Genetics, 84: 609–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Smithies, O., 1955. Zone electrophoresis in starch gels: group variation in the serum proteins of normal adults.Biochem. J., 61: 629–641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tomiuk, J., 1989. Gene duplication and polymorphism at the amylase loci ofMacaca fascicularis andMacaca mulatta.Primates, 30: 89–94.Google Scholar
  14. ———— &D. Graur, 1988. Nei's modified genetic identity and distance measures and their sampling variances.Syst. Zool., 37: 156–162.Google Scholar
  15. Waye, J. S. &R. M. Fourney, 1990. Agarose gel electrophoresis of linear genomic DNA in the presence of ethidium bromide: band shifting and implications for forensic identity testing.Appl. Theor. Electrophoresis, 1: 193–196.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Tomiuk
    • 1
  • Lars Sommer Jermiin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations