Random mutagenesis screens for recessive phenotypes require three generations of breeding, using either a backcross (BC) or intercross (IC) strategy. Hence, they are more costly and technically demanding than those for dominant phenotypes. Maximizing the return from these screens requires maximizing the number of mutations that are bred to homozyosity in the G3 generation. Using a probabilistic approach, we compare different designs of screens for recessive phenotypes and the impact each one has on the number of mutations that can be effectively screened. We address the issue of BC versus IC strategies and consider genome-wide, region-specific screens and suppressor screens. We find that optimally designed BC and IC screens allow the screening of, on average, similar numbers of mutations but that interpedigree variation is more pronounced when the IC strategy is employed. By conducting a retrospective analysis of published mutagenesis screens, we show that, depending on the strategy, a threefold difference in the numbers of mutations screened per animal used could be expected. This method allows researchers to contrast, for a range of experimental designs, the cost per mutation screened and to maximize the number of mutations that one can expect to screen in a given experiment.
Mammalian Genome – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 23, 2007
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera