Polar overdominance at the ovine callipyge locus

Science

Volumn 273, Issue 5272, 1996, Pages 236-238

  Cockett, Noelle E ^a   Jackson, Sam P ^b   Shay, Tracy L ^a   Farnir, Frédéric ^c   Berghmans, Stéphane ^c   Snowder, Gary D ^d   Nielsen, Dahlia M ^a   Georges, Michel ^c  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^d USDA ARS US Sheep Experiment Station   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENE MAPPING; INHERITANCE; MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY; MUTATION; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHEEP;

EID: 0029818632     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5272.236     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. N. E. Cockett et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 3019 (1994). The pedigree material used in this publication, comprising lambs from the 1991 and 1992 season, was characterized by a distorted sex ratio (98 males to 152 females). This distortion was due to the fact that males of the 1991 lamb crop had been culled (which is a conventional breeding procedure) before sampling and was therefore not indicative of any unexplained biological phenomenon.
2. Sheared animals were phenotyped as callipygous or normal after repeated visual examination by two experienced observers, each dealing with one flock (N.E.C. and S.P.J.). All animals were appraised every 2 weeks from the animal's birth until 5 months of age. Animals exhibiting an ambiguous phenotype at 5 months were dropped from further analysis. Phenotypic classification was performed before genotyping, because most animals were slaughtered by the time genotypes became available.
3. Genotyping for chromosome 18-specific micro- and minisatellites was performed as previously described (1).
4. N. E. Cockett et al., data not shown.
5. N. E. Morton, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 8, 80 (1956).
6. J. C. Bregliano and M. G. Kidwell, in Mobile Genetic Elements, J. A. Shapiro, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1983), pp. 363-410.
7. N. Wakasugi, J. Reprod. Fertil. 41, 85 (1974).
8. C. Sapienza et al., Genetics 132, 241 (1992); P. A. Baldacci et al., Mamm. Genome 2, 100 (1992).
9. C. Sapienza et al., Genetics 132, 241 (1992); P. A. Baldacci et al., Mamm. Genome 2, 100 (1992).
10. A. Efstratiadis, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 4, 265 (1994).
11. C. V. Beechey and B. M. Cattanach, Mouse Genome 92, 505 (1994); B. M. Cattanach and C. Raspberry, ibid. 91, 858 (1993).
12. C. V. Beechey and B. M. Cattanach, Mouse Genome 92, 505 (1994); B. M. Cattanach and C. Raspberry, ibid. 91, 858 (1993).
13. I. K. Temple et al. J. Med. Genet. 28, 511 (1991); J.-C. Wang et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48, 1069 (1991).
14. I. K. Temple et al. J. Med. Genet. 28, 511 (1991); J.-C. Wang et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48, 1069 (1991).
15. C. Sapienza, Dev. Suppl. 1990, 107 (1990); J. Forejt and S. Gregorova, Cell 70, 443 (1992).
16. C. Sapienza, Dev. Suppl. 1990, 107 (1990); J. Forejt and S. Gregorova, Cell 70, 443 (1992).
17. C. Sapienza et al., Development 107, 165 (1989); N. D. Allen et al., Cell 61, 853 (1990).
18. C. Sapienza et al., Development 107, 165 (1989); N. D. Allen et al., Cell 61, 853 (1990).
19. K. D. Tartof and S. Henikoff, Cell 65, 201 (1991)
20. M. Georges et al., Genetics 139, 907 (1995); D. Nielsen, unpublished data.
21. M. Georges et al., Genetics 139, 907 (1995); D. Nielsen, unpublished data.
22. M. G. Lathrop and J.-M. Lalouel, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 36, 460 (1984); R. W. Cottinghma, R. M. Idury, A. A. Schaffer, ibid. 53, 252 (1993).
23. M. G. Lathrop and J.-M. Lalouel, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 36, 460 (1984); R. W. Cottinghma, R. M. Idury, A. A. Schaffer, ibid. 53, 252 (1993).
24. F. Farnir et al., unpublished data.
25. We are indebted to L. Ferretti and A. Teale for providing microsatellite sequence data before publication as well as to H. Lewin for sharing unpublished mapping data. We are very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which allowed us to considerably improve the manuscript, and for calling our attention to the mouse Om mutation. We thank L. Andersson, A. Chakravarti, C. Haley, A. Kamb, G. Vassart, and P. Visscher for critically reviewing this manuscript before publication. This material is based on work supported by the Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture under agreement number 94-37205-1032; by the Utah Centers of Excellence program; by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, UT; and by the Fonds National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Belgium. S. B. is a fellow of the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture. Approved as journal paper number 4863.