Running head:Phenotypes in Drosophila 1

Observation of phenotypes in isolated populations of Drosophila melanogaster

Arizo J Niah

Stockton University

BIOL-2115-005

Dr. Aguiar

October 1, 2020
Phenotypes in Drosophila 2

Abstract

Genetic studies have come a long way and have helped develop ways for people to

manipulate and understand genes better. Model organisms are what help drive genetic studies

forward. Model organisms are perfect to observe and experiment on because of their

convenience; They are typically cheap to care for and acquire, do not take up much space,

produce lots of offspring, and have genetic functions similar to humans as well as are easy to

manipulate. One popular example of a model organism used in this experiment is the fruit fly

(Drosophila melanogaster). Drosophila melanogaster meets all of the requirements for being a

perfect model organism, and their genotypes closely correspond to their phenotypes, making

traits easy to observe. When observing traits, it is encouraged to use punnett squares and chi

square analysis to help with analyzing data. Both punnett squares and chi square analysis help

with understanding genetic frequencies and they work hand in hand. Punnett squares help find

genetic frequencies, while chi square analysis uses experimental data to check for genetic

infrequencies. If a chi square value is less than its corresponding P value, then the genetic

frequencies observed are as expected or normal. If it is the opposite, and the P value is less than

the chi square value, then there is something wrong with the genetic frequencies. Usually when

there is something wrong with the genetic frequencies, it means there are unknown mutations of

somesort or an error in the data.

Keywords: Genetic studies, model organism, Drosophila melanogaster, Chi square

analysis, punnett squares, genetic frequencies

Introduction

It is because of advancements in genetic studies that we now have improved knowledge

on heredity and various health sciences. Such advancements in these studies enable people to

understand their genetic make-up and their origins better. People can now trace their traits back

through generations to see how genes are passed. This becomes especially significant when

tracing birth defects or undesirable genetic diseases that make one’s life difficult. If a couple

wanted children for example, it would be of interest for them to know if they would be born

healthy or not. If they were carriers for a genetic disorder, they would need to know the

probability of that disease affecting their future children. Furthermore, many people now look

into genetic testing to see their ancestry. Someone may just simply have an interest in knowing

why they have a certain trait and seek to find its origin. On the same topic as genetic testing, it is

also possible to test for relatedness. If two siblings who were separated at birth for example,

wanted to see if they were in fact truly siblings, they may be able to be tested with the scientific

technology and information available today. Additionally, yet another way genetic studies has

impacted society is through genetic engineering. GMO crops are one example of genetic

engineering. With how quick the population continues to grow in some places, an effective way

to grow food rapidly is through genetically modifying crops or food sources; This helps them

grow faster and bigger (Oliver M. J., 2014). GMO foods seem to have bad reputations, however

they can be more beneficial than harmful. GMOs are not only used to grow surplus amounts of

food, but they may also be used to turn certain foods more nutritious. Golden rice is one example

of this as it had been genetically modified in the Philippines to yield more vitamin A, which

many people in that area were deficient of at one point (Oliver M. J., 2014).
Phenotypes in Drosophila 4

Genetic engineering of course wouldn’t have been possible without experimentation first.

In order to understand how to genetically modify things, scientists had to have first gone through

trial and error to understand how genes work for certain target species. Usually, experimentation

is done with model organisms. Model organisms are organisms that are easily obtainable, easy

and inexpensive to sustain, and usually produce lots of offspring. Model organisms also are often

easy to manipulate and have traits that can be easily observed. It is further important to note that

ethical factors also play a role in model organism selection. The more the organism resembles a

human, the less favorable the organism is to experiment with. For instance, doing genetic

experiments with actual humans is deemed unethical. Examples of some model organisms are

house mice (Mus musculus), yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), and fruit flies (Drosophila

melanogaster). All three of these organisms fit the criteria mentioned above.

The model organism that was specifically focused on, in the experiment done in the

laboratory, was Drosophila melanogaster. This specific model organism was chosen mainly

because it fit the qualifications of the experiment the most. They do not take up as much space as

mice, nor are they too small to observe traits carefully like yeast. They also have a life cycle that

is the perfect length. Additionally, genotypes also closely correspond to their phenotypes (York,

K. et al, 2020).Furthermore, their traits are easy to observe and Drosophila melanogaster were

actually the reasons many genetic breakthroughs happened (York, K. et al, 2020). With all these

factors put together, they are ultimately reliable specimens to observe when it comes to studying

genotypes and phenotypes in this experiment.

Since their genotypes closely correspond to their phenotypes, it can be hypothesized that

fly mating will have predictable offspring. The phenotypes predicted will be as follows; a 3:1

ratio for wing presence, a 9:3:3:1 ratio for wing shape and body color, and lastly a 1:1:1:1 ratio

for eye color and sex. Since it is known what the Drosophila melanogaster’s parents’ genotypes

are, the use of punnett squares and chi square analysis can be used to determine the probability of

2
certain phenotypes and genotypes. If the chi square 𝑥 value is off from the predicted P value, we

can also hypothesize that there is something off in the genetic mutations of the Drosophila

melanogaster.

Method

The experiment was done exactly as stated in BIOL 2115 GENETICS LABORATORY

MANUAL Spring 2020 (York, K. et al, 2020, p. 2-7). No alterations were done.

Results

Figure 1. The cross between the F1 Drosophila melanogaster generation that shows wing presence. The

results show a 1:2:1 genotypic ratio and a 3:1 phenotypic ratio. It is expected to have 75% with wildtype

wings and 25% with apterous wings (nubs).

Figure 2. Chi square value for wing presence in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. O represents

observed; E represents expected.

Figure 3. The cross between the F1 Drosophila melanogaster generation that shows wing shape and body

color. The results show that there is a 9:3:3:1 phenotypic ratio. The genotypic ratio would be

1:2:1:2:4:2:1:2:1.
Phenotypes in Drosophila 7

Figure 4. Chi square value for wing shape and body color in Drosophila melanogaster. O represents

observed; E represents expected.

Figure 5. The cross between the F1 Drosophila melanogaster generation that shows sex-linked traits for

eye color. The results show that 50% of males will have red eyes, 50% white. For females, the same

percentages apply; 50% red eyes, 50% white. The phenotypic ratio for red to white eyes is 1:1. The ratio

all together for sex and eye colors are 1:1:1:1. The genotypic ratio is 0:1:1:1:1.
Phenotypes in Drosophila 8

Figure 6. Chi square value for sex-linked traits for eye color in Drosophila melanogaster. O represents

observed; E represents expected.

Discussion

Upon calculating all of the chi square values and analyzing them, it was determined that

not all of the phenotypes were caused by random chance. Figure 2 shows that the traits for the

presence of wings was not due to random chance. The chi square value for that set of data was

9.3. Since the degrees of freedom (Df) was 1, the chi square value had to be 3.841 or below,

which it was not. The wildtype wings did not contribute much to the high chi square value since

the value for that was only 2.3. The apterous wings on the other, had a whopping number of 7,

which contributed to the high square value the most. With this, it can be concluded that the

apterous-winged Drosophila melanogaster had infrequencies. One such cause of this can be that

they were unable to fly, since they only had nubs as “wings”. Another cause of this could be that

the apterous gene caused a problem with the Drosophila melanogaster’s development. Another

possibility could even be that there was an error in the counting of the Drosophila melanogaster.
Phenotypes in Drosophila 9

This would also go hand in hand with the fact that the apterous Drosophila melanogaster can’t

fly, and therefore can’t make it to the transfer vial used in the experiment. Human error is always

a possibility too when it comes to experiments similar to these where population numbers are

important to be exact.

Figures 3 and 4 were on body color and wing shape. The punnett square for the F1 generation

cross was a phenotypic ratio of 9:3:3:1. The highlighted key in figure 3 shows the ratios visually

on the punnett square. The chi square analysis shown in figure 4 shows that this observed cross

on body color and wing shape was due to random chance and very possible. The degrees of

freedom was 3, therefore a chi square value of less than 7.81 was needed to prove its possibility.

The chi square calculated for that analysis was 6.15, which is less than 7.81. With this

information, it can be clear to say that nothing was off in the genetic frequency. Since its

possibility was proven with chi square analysis, it can be concluded that proper Mendelian

Inheritance did occur.

For the last recorded traits in figures 5 and 6, eye color, a sex-linked trait, was

observed. The punnett square in figure 5 shows that there was an equal distribution

among the sexes for eye color. Both males and females had equal possibilities of having

either white or red eyes. The reason the ratio is 1:1:1:1 is because of the sex differences

too. There is a ½ chance of being a male or female, and a ½ chance of having red or

white eyes. Both multiplied make ¼, which is essentially the same as 1:1:1:1. In figure 6

it is also seen that chi square value found was 2.315. Since the degrees of freedom is 3 for

that analysis, it is safe to say that there is nothing off about the genetic frequencies
Phenotypes in Drosophila 10

observed in that analysis either. 2.315 is less than 7.81. The observed traits for this cross

also demonstrate proper Mendelian Inheritance.

With all of this data, the hypothesis stated in the beginning does make sense and

is as expected. Punnett squares help identify phenotypic and genotypic ratios, while chi

square analysis helps with identifying any genetic infrequencies. Both paired together

give scientists a better understanding of genes and their probabilities. Infrequency in

genes can help identify problems or spontaneous mutations. They can also help with

identifying unknown sex-linked alleles that were not known of before, or even identify

errors in data. Genes can be more complex than just recessive and dominant traits. They

can even be more complex than sex-linked traits. Chi square analysis truly is an

important tool in analyzing genetic frequencies.

References

Oliver M. J. (2014). Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Missouri medicine, 111(6), 492–507.

York, K., Bierbrauer, S., Barbato, G., Rosche, W., Straub, P., Colby, R., & Sedia, K. (2020). BIOL

2115 GENETICS LABORATORY MANUAL Spring 2020.