DOCSLIB.ORG

Key Genetics Problems and Chi Square

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Key Genetics Problems and Chi Square The Chi-square Test and Genetics 1. In fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), wild type flies are normal looking and have no obvious mutations. Wild type traits tend to be dominant to many of the mutations that affect fruit flies. One recessive mutation in particular causes a fly to be born with white eyes. In 1910, Thomas Hunt Morgan noticed a white-eyed male fly in his experimental fly population. He bred this fly to several wild type females and 1,237 flies were produced in the F1 generation. Male and female flies were roughly in equal proportions, and all flies had normal red eyes. Morgan then allowed the F1 to mate with each other to produce the F2 generation. The F2 generation had mostly red-eyed flies, and some white-eyed flies, but all the white-eyes flies were males. a. Use Punnett squares to show how the white eye mutation was being passed on in the flies. b. A student performed these crosses and, in the F2 generation, counted 824 flies with the wild phenotype (red eyes) and 297 flies with the white eye phenotype. Perform a Chi- square test to test the null hypothesis (H0) that the observed result of the crosses is statistically indistinguishable from the expected result. Category Observed Expected Expected (O-E)2/E proportion Red eyed 824 3/4 840.75 0.33 White eyed 297 1/4 280.25 1.01 Total 1121 S c2 = 1.34 The critical value for 2 categories at 0.05 is 3.84. Because 1.34 is less than this, the student accepts the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no statistically significant difference between the observed and expected result. 2. In the late 1890s, Austrian agronomist Erich Tschermak, German botanist Carl Correns, and Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries independently rediscovered Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics. Both Correns and Tschermak replicated Mendel’s experiments to test his hypotheses of independent assortment and segregation. For example, each crossed yellow and green (for cotyledon color) varieties of peas (Lathyrus odoratus), and self-fertilized the subsequent F1 progeny to get F2 progeny arrays. The F1 offspring were all yellow. Correns observed 1,394 yellow and 453 green, while Tschermak observed 3,580 yellow and 1,190 green. Are these values consistent with Mendel’s results? Use a chi-square test to compare each scientist’s results to what Mendel would have expected. Correns: Category Observed Expected Expected (O-E)2/E proportion yellow 1394 3/4 1385.25 .055 green 453 1/4 461.75 .165 Total 1847 S c2 = .220 0.220 is smaller than the critical value of 3.84 at 0.05 Tschermak: Category Observed Expected Expected (O-E)2/E proportion yellow 3580 3/4 3577.5 .002 green 1190 1/4 1192.5 .005 Total 4770 S c2 = .007 0.007 is smaller than the critical value of 3.84 at 0.05 Comparing Correns’s results to Tschermak’s results using the Chi square test: 2 ñ In both experiments, the S c was less than the critical value at 0.05, so H0 was accepted. ñ In Correns’s experiment, the S c2 value was 0.220, which means that the probability of his distribution occurring by chance was between 0.45 and 0.15. ñ In Tschermak’s experiment,the S c2 value was 0.007, which means that the probability of his distribution occurring by chance was more than 0.90. ñ These differences could be attributed to the difference in sample size between the two experiments (1847 for Correns and 4770 for Tschermak). 3. A group of fish biologists were studying the genetics of eye color and body patterning in largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). They crossed a largemouth bass with stripes and red eyes with another largemouth bass that had black eyes and no stripes (plain). An F1 generation (brood) of 134 fish was produced and all the offspring looked the same. From this F1 generation, 5 males and 5 females were randomly selected, paired, and mated. Each breeding pair produced one brood (ranging between 45 and 187 little fish), thus creating the F2 generation. The results of the F1 cross (the F2 generation) are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1. Results of a dihybrid cross between five pairs of Largemouth Bass parents. Breeding Phenotype Pair Total Stripes/Red Eyes Stripes/Black Eyes Plain/Red Eyes Plain/Black Eyes 1 80 50 15 12 3 2 101 64 21 12 4 3 45 24 10 9 2 4 187 106 31 36 14 5 67 39 15 9 4 Total 480 283 92 78 27 a. What are the dominant phenotypes and what are the recessive phenotypes? Dominant phenotypes: striped body patterning and red eye color Recessive phenotypes: plain body patterning and black eye color b. What is the genotype for all 134 fish in the F1 Brood? Striped with red eyes c. Construct a Punnett Square that shows the predicted outcome for the phenotypes of the F2 generation. d. Can we accept these results as those from a true dihybrid cross? Provide statistical evidence and a statement that argues in favor of the evidence. Category Observed Expected Expected (O-E)2/E proportion Stripes/Red 283 9/16 270 0.62 Strips/Black 92 3/16 90 0.04 Plain/Red 78 3/16 90 1.60 Plain/Black 27 1/16 30 0.30 Total 480 S c2 = 2.56 2.56 is smaller than the critical value of 7.81 at 0.05 (H0 is supported) and the probability of the distribution occurring by chance is 0.50. Therefore, we can accept the evidence that these data are reflective of a true dihybrid cross. Chi-Square Table of Critical Values Probability of Distribution Occurring by Chance 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.75 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 # of df Categ Critical Values 1 2 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.45 1.10 1.32 2.71 3.84 5.02 6.63 7.88 2 3 0.02 0.10 0.21 0.58 0.71 1.39 2.40 2.77 4.61 5.99 7.38 9.21 10.60 3 4 0.11 0.35 0.58 1.21 1.42 2.37 3.70 4.11 6.25 7.81 9.35 11.34 12.84 4 5 0.30 0.71 1.06 1.92 2.02 3.36 4.90 5.39 7.78 9.49 11.14 13.28 14.86 5 6 0.55 1.15 1.61 2.67 3.00 4.35 6.10 6.63 9.24 11.07 12.83 15.09 16.75 6 7 0.87 1.64 2.20 3.45 3.83 5.35 7.20 7.84 10.64 12.59 14.45 16.81 18.55 7 8 1.24 2.17 2.83 4.25 4.67 6.35 8.40 9.04 12.02 14.07 16.01 18.48 20.28 8 9 1.65 2.73 3.49 5.07 5.53 7.34 9.50 10.22 13.36 15.51 17.53 20.09 21.95 9 10 2.09 3.33 4.17 5.90 6.39 8.34 10.60 11.39 14.68 16.92 19.02 21.67 23.59 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relaxed Selection in the Wild
    TREE-1109; No of Pages 10 Review Relaxed selection in the wild David C. Lahti1, Norman A. Johnson2, Beverly C. Ajie3, Sarah P. Otto4, Andrew P. Hendry5, Daniel T. Blumstein6, Richard G. Coss7, Kathleen Donohue8 and Susan A. Foster9 1 Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA 2 Department of Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA 3 Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA 4 Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada 5 Redpath Museum and Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada 6 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 7 Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA 8 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 02138, USA 9 Department of Biology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA Natural populations often experience the weakening or are often less clear than typical cases of trait evolution. removal of a source of selection that had been important When an environmental change results in strong selection in the maintenance of one or more traits. Here we refer to on a trait from a known source, a prediction for trait these situations as ‘relaxed selection,’ and review recent evolution often follows directly from this fact [2]. When studies that explore the effects of such changes on traits such a strong source of selection is removed, however, no in their ecological contexts. In a few systems, such as the clear prediction emerges. Rather, the likelihood of various loss of armor in stickleback, the genetic, developmental consequences can only be understood by integrating the and ecological bases of trait evolution are being discov- remaining sources of selection and processes at all levels of ered.
    [Show full text]
  • Inclusive Fitness As a Criterion for Improvement LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104110/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Birch, Jonathan (2019) Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76. ISSN 1369-8486 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101186 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Inclusive Fitness as a Criterion for Improvement Jonathan Birch Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected] Webpage: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/birchj1 This article appears in a special issue of Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences on Optimality and Adaptation in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Nicola Bertoldi. 16 July 2019 1 Abstract: I distinguish two roles for a fitness concept in the context of explaining cumulative adaptive evolution: fitness as a predictor of gene frequency change, and fitness as a criterion for phenotypic improvement. Critics of inclusive fitness argue, correctly, that it is not an ideal fitness concept for the purpose of predicting gene- frequency change, since it relies on assumptions about the causal structure of social interaction that are unlikely to be exactly true in real populations, and that hold as approximations only given a specific type of weak selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Doxorubicin-Induced Death in Neuroblastoma Does Not Involve Death Receptors in S-Type Cells and Is Caspase-Independent in N-Type Cells
    Oncogene (2002) 21, 6132 – 6137 ª 2002 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0950 – 9232/02 $25.00 www.nature.com/onc Doxorubicin-induced death in neuroblastoma does not involve death receptors in S-type cells and is caspase-independent in N-type cells Sally Hopkins-Donaldson1, Pu Yan1, Katia Balmas Bourloud1, Annick Muhlethaler1, Jean-Luc Bodmer2 and Nicole Gross*,1 1Department of Pediatric Onco-Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, CH1011 Lausanne, Switzerland; 2Institute of Biochemistry, University of Lausanne, CH-1066, Epalinges, Switzerland Death induced by doxorubicin (dox) in neuroblastoma tumors in infants frequently undergo spontaneous (NB) cells was originally thought to occur via the Fas remission. Failure to undergo programmed cell death pathway, however since studies suggest that caspase-8 is a putative mechanism for cancer cell resistance to expression is silenced in most high stage NB tumors, it is chemotherapy, while in contrast spontaneous remission more probable that dox-induced death occurs via a is thought to be a result of increased apoptosis (Oue et different mechanism. Caspase-8 silenced N-type invasive al., 1996). NB cell lines LAN-1 and IMR-32 were investigated for Apoptosis signaling occurs via two different path- their sensitivity to dox, and compared to S-type ways which converge on a common machinery of cell noninvasive SH-EP NB cells expressing caspase-8. All demise that is activated by caspases (Strasser et al., cell lines had similar sensitivities to dox, independently of 2000). The death receptor pathway is activated by caspase-8 expression. Dox induced caspase-3, -7, -8 and ligands of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) family -9 and Bid cleavage in S-type cells and death was which induce the trimerization of their cognate blocked by caspase inhibitors but not by oxygen radical receptors (Daniel et al., 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Educator Materials
    Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Scientists at Work Educator Materials OVERVIEW This document provides background information, discussion questions, and responses that complement the short video “Genetically Modified Mosquitoes” from the Scientists at Work series. The Scientists at Work series is intended to provide insights into the daily work of scientists that builds toward discoveries. The series focuses especially on scientists in the field and what motivates their work. This 8-minute 35-second video is appropriate for any life science student audience. It can be used as a review of the nature of science or to enhance a discussion on transgenic technology. Classroom implementation of the material in this document might include assigning select discussion questions to small groups of students or selecting the top five questions to discuss as a class. KEY CONCEPTS • Researchers genetically modified mosquitoes to help prevent the spread of a virus. • Male GM mosquitoes pass on a lethality gene to the offspring when they mate with non-GM females in the wild. CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS Standards Curriculum Connection NGSS (2013) HS-LS1.A, HS-LS3.A AP Bio (2015) 3.A.1 IB Bio (2016) 3.1, 3.5 Vision and Change (2009) CC1, CC2, CC3 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE Students should • be familiar with the idea that genes code for proteins and that genetic information can be passed to offspring. • have some understanding of transgenic technology and what it means for an organism to be genetically modified. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Mosquitoes can transmit pathogens that cause many human diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, chikungunya, and Zika fever.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgenic Rescue from Embryonic Lethality and Renal Carcinogenesis in the Eker Rat Model by Introduction of a Wild-Type Tsc2 Ge
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 3990–3993, April 1997 Medical Sciences Transgenic rescue from embryonic lethality and renal carcinogenesis in the Eker rat model by introduction of a wild-type Tsc2 gene (hereditary cancerytwo-hit modelytumor suppressor geneyanimal modelygene therapy) TOSHIYUKI KOBAYASHI*, HIROAKI MITANI*, RI-ICHI TAKAHASHI†,MASUMI HIRABAYASHI†,MASATSUGU UEDA†, HIROSHI TAMURA‡, AND OKIO HINO*§ *Department of Experimental Pathology, Cancer Institute, 1-37-1 Kami-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 170, Japan; †YS New Technology Institute Inc., Shimotsuga-gun, Tochigi 329-05, Japan; and ‡Laboratory of Animal Center, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1, Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173, Japan Communicated by Takashi Sugimura, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, February 3, 1997 (received for review December 9, 1996) ABSTRACT We recently reported that a germ-line inser- activity for Rap1a and localizes to Golgi apparatus. Other tion in the rat homologue of the human tuberous sclerosis gene potential functional domains include two transcriptional acti- (TSC2) gives rise to dominantly inherited cancer in the Eker vation domains (AD1 and AD2) in the carboxyl terminus of the rat model. In this study, we constructed transgenic Eker rats Tsc2 gene product (19), a zinc-finger-like region (our unpub- with introduction of a wild-type Tsc2 gene to ascertain lished observation), and a potential src-homology 3 region whether suppression of the Eker phenotype is possible. Rescue (SH3) binding domain (20). However, the function of tuberin from embryonic lethality of mutant homozygotes (EkeryEker) is not yet fully understood. and suppression of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea-induced renal car- Human tuberous sclerosis is an autosomal dominant genetic cinogenesis in heterozygotes (Ekery1) were both observed, disease characterized by phacomatosis with manifestations defining the germ-line Tsc2 mutation in the Eker rat as that include mental retardation, seizures, and angiofibroma, embryonal lethal and tumor predisposing mutation.
    [Show full text]
  • I Xio- and Made the Rather Curious Assumption That the Mutant Is
    NOTES AND COMMENTS NATURAL SELECTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANCE P. M. SHEPPARD Deportment of Genetics, University of Liverpool and E.B. FORD Genetic Laboratories, Department of Zoology, Oxford 1. INTRODUCTION CROSBY(i 963) criticises the hypothesis that dominance (or recessiveness) has evolved and is not an attribute of the allelomorph when it arose for the first time by mutation. None of his criticisms is new and all have been discussed many times. However, because of a number of apparent mis- understandings both in previous discussions and in Crosby's paper, and the fact that he does not refer to some important arguments opposed to his own view, it seems necessary to reiterate some of the previous discussion. Crosby's criticisms fall into two parts. Firstly, he maintains, as did Wright (1929a, b) and Haldane (1930), that the selective advantage of genes modifying dominance, being of the same order of magnitude as the mutation rate, is too small to have any evolutionary effect. Secondly, he criticises, as did Wright (5934), the basic assumption that a new mutation when it first arises produces a phenotype somewhat intermediate between those of the two homozygotes. 2.THE SELECTION COEFFICIENT INVOLVED IN THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANCE Thereis no doubt that the selective advantage of modifiers of dominance is of the order of magnitude of the mutation rate of the gene being modified. Crosby (p. 38) considered a hypothetical example with a mutation rate of i xio-and made the rather curious assumption that the mutant is dominant in the absence of modifiers of dominance.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Drosophila to Teach Genetics
    Curriculum Units by Fellows of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute 1996 Volume V: Genetics in the 21st Century: Destiny, Chance or Choice Using Drosophila to Teach Genetics Curriculum Unit 96.05.01 by Christin E. Arnini The objectives of this unit are to take basic concepts of genetics and apply them to an organism, easily raised and observed in the classroom. It has been a challenge in the teaching of High School Biology, to take the abstract ideas of genes, chromosomes, heredity, and make them visable and tangible for the students. Drosophila melanogaster offers a way for teachers to help students make connections between populations, the organism, the cell, the chromosome, the gene, and the DNA. As a part of a unit on genetics, this unit on Drosophila can give students the opportunity to get to know an organism well, observing closely its development and physical characteristics, and then questioning how it is that the fly came to be this way. Unit Format: I. Discussion of Drosophila 1. Review of genetics concepts 2. Thomas Hunt Morgan and the historical frame 3. Drosophila chromosomes, characteristics, and developmental stages 4. Mutations 5. Homeobox genes 6. Homologs in other vertebrates 7. Making a map 8. DNA Sequencing II. Activities: 1. Observations of the individual flies, 2. Doing genetic crossses, and predicting offspring outcomes in the Lab, 3. Salivary gland extraction, and staining of chromosomes 4. Creating a genetic map 5. DNA sequencing simulation, 6. Virtual Fly Lab. III. Appendix IV. Bibliography and resources Curriculum Unit 96.05.01 1 of 21 Chromosomes are the structures that contain the hereditary material of an organism.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Limits of Selection Under Plant Domestication Robin G Allaby1
    The limits of selection under plant domestication Robin G Allaby1* ,Dorian Q Fuller2, James L Kitchen1, 3 1. School of Life Sciences, Gibbet Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL 2. Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY 3. Computational and Systems Biology, Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts. * corresponding author email: [email protected] 1 Abstract Plant domestication involved a process of selection through human agency of a series of traits collectively termed the domestication syndrome. Current debate concerns the pace at which domesticated plants emerged from cultivated wild populations and how many genes were involved. Here we present simulations that test how many genes could have been involved by considering the cost of selection. We demonstrate the selection load that can be endured by populations increases with decreasing selection coefficients and greater numbers of loci down to values of about s = 0.005, causing a driving force that increases the number of loci under selection. As the number of loci under selection increases, an effect of co-selection increases resulting in individual unlinked loci being fixed more rapidly in out-crossing populations, representing a second driving force to increase the number of loci under selection. In inbreeding systems co-selection results in interference and reduced rates of fixation but does not reduce the size of the selection load that can be endured. These driving forces result in an optimum pace of genome evolution in which 50-100 loci are the most that could be under selection in a cultivation regime. Furthermore, the simulations do not preclude the existence of selective sweeps but demonstrate that they come at a cost of the selection load that can be endured and consequently a reduction of the capacity of plants to adapt to new environments, which may contribute to the explanation of why selective sweeps have been so rarely detected in genome studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hereditary Statistics of Hugo De Vries
    Acta Bot. Neerl. 47(4), December 1998, p. 427—463 The Hereditary Statistics of Hugo de Vries Erik Zevenhuizen Institute for Systematics and Population Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 318, 1098 SM Amsterdam, The Netherlands CONTENTS Introduction 427 The theory of pangenesis 429 The use of statistics 432 The laws of chance 435 The Veronica-note: the 5/16-law 439 The Veronica-note: the 1.2.1-law 446 The Aster-note 449 Conclusion: in search of the laws of nature 452 Keywords: Hugo de Vries, Mendel’s laws, mutation theory, pangenesis. INTRODUCTION de Vries is remembered the first of three botanists in Today, Hugo chiefly as who, 1900, publicly announced that they had discovered what we now call the laws of Mendel. All three maintainedthat they had foundthe laws on their own and that, at the moment they did their discovery, they had been completely unaware of the fact that the Austrian amateur botanist Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) had published similar conclusions already in 1866. Whereas his contributions to the development of evolutionary thought are De Vries is credited in generally unappreciated or simply unknown, many surveys on the history of genetics for his rediscovery of Mendel’s laws. It is generally accepted that, together with his two fellow-rediscoverers, Carl Correns from Tubingen and Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg from Vienna, De Vries made these basic rules of genetics scientific widely known to the world. The year 1900 can be considered as the year of birth of modern genetics, and Hugo de Vries as one of the founders of the discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Influence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation Of
    | PERSPECTIVES Darwin’sInfluence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation of Mendel’s Paper Daniel J. Fairbanks*,1 and Scott Abbott† *Department of Biology and †Department of Integrated Studies, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah 84058 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7422-0549 (D.J.F.) ABSTRACT Gregor Mendel’s classic paper, Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybrids), was published in 1866, hence 2016 is its sesquicentennial. Mendel completed his experiments in 1863 and shortly thereafter began compiling the results and writing his paper, which he presented in meetings of the Natural Science Society in Brünn in February and March of 1865. Mendel owned a personal copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, a German translation published in 1863, and it contains his marginalia. Its publication date indicates that Mendel’s study of Darwin’s book could have had no influence while he was conducting his experiments but its publication date coincided with the period of time when he was preparing his paper, making it possible that Darwin’s writings influenced Mendel’s interpretations and theory. Based on this premise, we prepared a Darwinized English translation of Mendel’s paper by comparing German terms Mendel employed with the same terms in the German translation of Origin of Species in his possession, then using Darwin’s counterpart English words and phrases as much as possible in our translation. We found a substantially higher use of these terms in the final two (10th and 11th) sections of Mendel’s paper, particularly in one key paragraph, where Mendel reflects on evolutionary issues, providing strong evidence of Darwin’sinfluence on Mendel.
    [Show full text]
  • Tutorial: Mendelian Genetics
    Mendelian Genetics Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Heredity Before Mendel ..................................................................................................... 2 Mendel and the Laws of Heredity....................................................................................... 4 The “Rediscovery” of Mendel ............................................................................................. 7 The Misuse of Mendel ........................................................................................................ 8 Mendel in the Modern World ........................................................................................... 10 References and Resources ................................................................................................ 10 Supplemental Material ..................................................................................................... 11 Introduction Today, when the word “genetics” is mentioned the mind is at once occupied with terms like cloning, PCR, the genome project, and genomics. Just a few decades ago, however, the word genetics conjured up a very different set of terms including crossing, segregation, Punnett square, and binomial expansion. It is not that these terms have disappeared or have been replaced since, it is, rather, that genetics moved full force into the molecular era in the late 1970s and, in the beginning of the twenty-first century,
    [Show full text]
  • How Genetic Engineering Differs from Conventional Breeding Hybridization
    GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT BREEDING; How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer by Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D. Research Associate Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union January, 2000 Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millenia within the genetic potential of the species. Genetic engineering works primarily through insertion of genetic material, although gene insertion must also be followed up by selection. This insertion process does not occur in nature. A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment inserts the genetic material into the host plant cell and then, with the help of genetic elements in the construct, this genetic material inserts itself into the chromosomes of the host plant. Engineers must also insert a “promoter” gene from a virus as part of the package, to make the inserted gene express itself. This process alone, involving a gene gun or a comparable technique, and a promoter, is profoundly different from conventional breeding, even if the primary goal is only to insert genetic material from the same species.
    [Show full text]