Aneuploidy Induced by Agricultural Pesticides: Where Do We Stand?
Even though aneuploidy is one of the worst afflictions of man, efforts to develop a mammalian test system for the study of induced nondisjunction have largely failed. A few scattered successes usually deal with Drosophila, fungi, plants, and mammalian cell cultures. The present paper discusses possible avenues to be explored for developing reliable test systems. These include: (i) epidemiological studies, (ii) analysis of fluorescent Y bodies, (iii) direct visualization of sperm chromosomes, (iv) analysis of out-of-phase centromere separation sequences, and (v) the soybean spot test.
Currently there is no satisfactory explanation for (i) a lack of mutagen-induced nondisjunction, (ii) the repeated occurrence of births of trisomic children to some couples, (iii) the astounding success of selection of a rare disomic sperm for fertilizing an egg in the presence of millions of normal ones, and (iv) having twice as many errors occurring in meiosis I as in meiosis II. An hypothesis is presented which suggests that out-of-phase separation of a centromere during early embryogenesis results in formation of mosaic individuals. Such mosaicism for a given chromosome in the gametic tissue would account for all the dilemmas mentioned above. Some supporting evidence for this concept is presented. It requires a new look at the mechanism of the origin and potential of transmission of aneusomic gametes.
KeywordsDown Syndrome Meiotic Division Mitotic Chromosome Aspergillus Nidulans Methyl Thiophanate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bajnoczky, K., Meggyessy, V., and Mehés, K., 1980, Cytogenetic investigations in prednisolone-treated infants, Acta Paediat. Acad. Seien. Hungaricae, 21:139–143.Google Scholar
- Belcheva, R. G., Konstantinov, G. H., Ilieva, H. L., 1980, Sequence of centromere separation in mitotic chromosomes of Rana ridibunda, Pall. (Amphibia, Anura) Compt. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 33:1689–1692.Google Scholar
- Bryant, M. L., and Murnik, M. R., 1979, Mutagenicity of the herbicide trifluralin in Drosophila melanogaster, Genetics, 91(suppl.): s15.Google Scholar
- Farook, A., and Vig, B. K., 1980, Sequence of centromere separation: Analysis of mitotic chromosomes of Crepis capillaris and Haplopappus gracilis, Biol. Zbl., 99:675–682.Google Scholar
- Kappas, A., Georgopoulos, S. G., and Hastie, A. C., 1974, On the genetic activity of benzimidazole and thiophanate fungicides on diploid Aspergillus nidulans, Mutat. Res., 26:11–21.Google Scholar
- Liang, G. H., and Liang, Y. T. S., 1972, Effects of atrazine on chromosomal behavior in sorghum, Can. J. Genet. Cytol., 14:423–427.Google Scholar
- Menés, K., 1975, Nonrandom anaphase segregation of mitotic chromosomes, Acta Genet. Med. Gamellol., 24:175.Google Scholar
- Menés, K., 1978, Nonrandom centromere division: a mechanism of non-disjunction causing aneuploidy? Hum. Hered., 28:225–260.Google Scholar
- Murata, M., and Vig, B. K., 1980, Sequence of centromere separation: Analysis of mitotic chromosomes in a reconstructed karyotype of Vicia faba (L.), Biol. Zbl., 99:683–693.Google Scholar
- Murnik, M. R., 1976, Mutagenicity of widely used herbicides, Genetics, 83: s54.Google Scholar
- Shirasu, Y., Moriya, M., Kato, K., Tezuka, H., Henmi, R., Shingu, A., Kaneda, M., and Teramoto, S., 1978, Mutagenicity testing on o-phenylphenol, Mutat. Res., 54:227.Google Scholar
- Sorsa, M., and Gripenberg, U., 1976, Organization of a mutagenicity test system combining instructive purposes: testing for mutagenic effects of the herbicide “amitrole,” Mutat. Res., 38:132–133.Google Scholar
- Vachkova-Petrova, R., 1980, Mutagenicity study of the organophosphate pyrasophos in rats, Mutat. Res., 74:236–237.Google Scholar
- Vargová, M., Poláková, H., Podstavková, S., Sisková, A., and Dolan, L., 1980, Evaluation of the mutagenic effect of the new fungicide trimorphamide, Mutat. Res., 73:361–367.Google Scholar
- Vig, B. K., 1975, Soybean (Glycine max): A new test system for study of genetic parameters as affected by environmental mutagens, Mutat. Res., 31:49–56.Google Scholar