Stockton University

Drosophila Melanogaster Genetics

Austin Celestino

Adam Aguiar

Genetics Laboratory

BIOL 2115

18 October 2023
Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to discover and view why varying phenotypic traits are expressed
more readily than others in Drosophila Melanogaster, all while in a controlled laboratory setting. This
species is also known as the common fruit fly. The framework of the experiment involved different
phenotypic sets of parent generations being stored in culture tubes containing mediums of yeast. The
culture tubes were then lightly tapped to disorient the individuals as to keep them from flying about the
medium, then individuals were transferred and placed under a microscope for analysis. These individuals
were then all separated by sex and an even distribution of males and females were placed into a culture
tube. After a week the process was repeated with the resulting first filial generation (F1) up until sexing,
where instead the individuals were separated based on phenotype. The process was repeated which
resulted in the second filial generation (F2) this paper draws hypotheses for. After performing a Chi-
square analysis for each cross, the main results and conclusions of this experiment are wildtype wings are
dominant to apterous, the reason why the results for cross two experienced less ebony-wildtype and
wildtype-vestigial individuals is not due to random chance because of the resulting P value, red eyes are
dominant to white eyes, and wildtype body and eye color are more prominent than other dihybrid variants
such as ebony body color and scarlet eye color because they are on the same chromosome and
recombination is the reason why they occur at all.

Introduction
The study of genetics is of great importance as it has led to numerous scientific breakthroughs including
but not limited to the transmission of human diseases, pharmacological investigations, and the artificial
selection of more nutritious food products. The field of genetics has shaped our modern world and
progressed society to a great degree. A wealth of information regarding genetics has been widely
developed due to the use of model organisms for genetic studies. These types of organisms typically have
an array of traits that make them beneficial for study such as: being inexpensive to procure and sustain,
having a short generation time, possessing a low number of chromosomes, at least giving an opportunity
to be easily reared in a laboratory setting, containing similar bodily systems to humans or another
organism to be benefitted, and not having many ethical concerns regarding their study. Drosophila
melanogaster fits perfectly into all the scenarios above when it comes to being a great model organism.
This is notably one of the best organisms for the sake of study time as it only takes about ten days to
evolve from an egg to an adult fly.

The information in the previous paragraph is the rationale and purpose of studying Drosophila
melanogaster in a laboratory setting, as to witness how different genetic traits are passed down to new
generations when it comes to dominant and recessive alleles, as well as seeing what happens when
varying alleles are on the same or different chromosome. There were four different crosses and thus four
associated hypotheses for this experiment. The first cross being a monohybrid regarding heterozygous of
an F1 generation’s wildtype - apterous individuals and the resulting F2 was hypothesized to be a 1:2:1
genotypic ratio and a 3:1 phenotypic ratio with wildtype wings being the dominant allele in this situation.
The second cross being a dihybrid regarding individuals of an F1 generation with vestigial wings and
ebony body color, the resulting F2 was hypothesized to be a 1:2:2:4:1:3:1:1:1 genotypic ratio and a
9:3:3:1 phenotypic ratio with wildtype body color and vestigial wings being the common. The third cross
being a sex-lined regarding red or whiten eye color from the F1 generation, the resulting F2 generation
was hypothesized to have a 1:1:1:1 genotypic ratio due to sex chromosomes and a 1:1 phenotypic ratio.
The fourth cross being a dihybrid regarding eye color and body color from the F1 generation, the
resulting F2 generation was hypothesized to have a 1:2:1:2:4:2:1:2:1 genotypic ratio and a 9:3:3:1
phenotypic ratio with the majority possessing a mix of the phenotypic traits with wildtype being most
prominent and scarlet ebony being least prominent.

Materials and Methods

See Kinsley 2017 Genetics Lab Manual, Pages 1 – 6

Results

Cross 1: AP ap
Monohybrid
Cross
AP APAP APap

ap Apap apap

Figure 1. Monohybrid Cross of F1 generation wing type: APap x APap

Expected Genotypic Ratio: ¼ APAP, ½ APap, ¼ apap
Expected Phenotypic Ratio: ¾ Wildtype, ¼ Apterous

Cross 2: VgE Vge vgE vge

Dihybrid
Cross
VgE VgVgEE VgVgEe VgvgEE VgvgEe

Vge VgVgEe VgVgee VgvgEe Vgvgee

vgE VgvgEE VgvgEe vgvgEE vgvgEe

vge VgvgEe Vgvgee vgvgEe vgvgee

Figure 2. Dihybrid Cross of F1 generation wing type and body color: VgvgEe x VgvgEe
Expected Genotypic Ratio: 1/16 VgVgEE, 2/16 VgVgEe, 2/16 VgvgEE, 4/16 VgvgEe, 1/16 VgVgee,
3/16 Vgvgee, 1/16 vgvgEE, 1/16 vgvgEe, 1/16 vgvgee
Expected Phenotypic Ratio: 9/16 wildtype – wildtype, 3/16 ebony – wildtype, 3/16 wildtype – vestigial,
1/16 ebony – vestigial
 Cross 3: XW Xw
Sex-linked
Cross
Xw XWXw XwXw

Y XWY XwY

Figure 3. Sex-linked Cross of F1 generation eye color: XWXw x XWY

Expected Genotypic Ratio: ¼ XWXw, ¼ XwXw, ¼ XWY, ¼ XwY
Expected Phenotypic Ratio: ¼ red-eyed females, ¼ white-eyed females, ¼ red-eyed males, ¼ white-eyed
males

Cross 4: StE Ste stE ste

Dihybrid
Cross
StE StStEE StStEe StstEE StstEe

Ste StStEe StStee StstEe Ststee

stE StstEE StstEe ststEE ststEe

ste StstEe Ststee ststEe ststee

Figure 4. Dihybrid Cross of F1 generation eye color and body color: StstEe x StstEe
Expected Genotypic Ratio: 1/16 StStEE, 2/16 StStEe, 1/16 StStee, 2/16 StstEE, 4/16 StstEe, 2/16 Ststee,
1/16 ststEE, 2/16 ststEe, 1/16 ststee
Expected Phenotypic Ratio: 9/16 wildtype – wildtype, 3/16 scarlet – wildtype, 3/16 wildtype – ebony,
1/16 scarlet - ebony
 Chi Square Degrees of Chi Square Value equivalent to P
Chi Square Analysis Value Freedom value of 0.05
O O-E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E 1 3.841
921
5 1430 2044900 262.6718048
116
5 806 649636 250.3414258
513.0132306
Figure 5. The Chi Square Analysis and P value of Cross 1: Monohybrid.

Chi Square Degrees of Chi Square Value equivalent to P

Chi Square Analysis Value Freedom value of 0.05
O O-E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E 3 7.815
627
0 122 14884 2.420949902
197
5 -74 5476 2.672523182
190
5 -144 20736 10.12005857
780 96 9216 13.47368421
28.68721586
Figure 6. The Chi Square Analysis and P value of Cross 2: Dihybrid.

Chi Square Degrees of Chi Square Value equivalent to P

Chi Square Analysis Value Freedom value of 0.05
O O-E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E 3 7.815
498
0 29 841 0.1698646738
497
0 19 361 0.07291456271
499
0 39 1521 0.3072106645
486
0 -91 8281 1.672591396
2.222581297
Figure 7. The Chi Square Analysis and P value of Cross 3: Sex-linked.
 Chi Square Value
Chi Square Degrees of equivalent to P value of
Chi Square Analysis Value Freedom 0.05
O O-E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E 3 7.815
269 - 6266305
5 7916 6 5905.480728
697 1158721
0 3404 6 3249.359506
687 1094948
5 3309 1 3070.521873
248
5 1296 1679616 1412.6291
13637.99121
Figure 8. The Chi Square Analysis and P value of Cross 4: Dihybrid.

Discussion

For Cross 1 with individuals possessing APap, there were high chi square values because it was expected
to see a 3:1 phenotypic ratio due to the crossing of two heterozygotes in a monohybrid cross, however, it
was not witnessed. This in turn led to the rejection of the original hypothesis. This being due to apterous
wings increasing mortality rate during development due to underdeveloped wings and increasing the
difficulty to mate. The chi square values present indicate the results were not due to random chance. The
new hypothesis is heterozygous individuals for apterous wings do not follow the standard 3:1 phenotypic
ratio for a monohybrid cross. For Cross 2 with individuals possessing VgvgEe, there were high chi square
values because there was likely human error when it came to analyzing individuals or recording the
correct amount of every individual’s phenotype. Although, the expected phenotypic ratio of 9:3:3:1 for a
dihybrid cross matched the observed outcome. Thus, the hypothesis for this cross will be sustained but
will need further research to be better supported. The chi square values showed it was not due to random
chance.

For Cross 3 with individuals possessing XWXw and XwY, there were low chi square values as the
expected phenotypic ratio of 1:1:1:1 for a sex-linked cross possessed similar values for the expected and
observed outcomes. Regarding the previous statement, the original hypothesis for this cross will be
sustained. The chi square value was small enough to be representative of random chance. For Cross 4
with individuals possessing StstEe, there were high chi square values because it would be expected to see
a phenotypic ratio of 9:3:3:1 for dihybrid cross as mentioned previously. However, this would not be
expected in this instance as the alleles in question are on the same chromosome. For example, ebony body
color and scarlet eye color are on the same chromosome and would have to become recombinant to be
seen together. Mating patterns may be another reason for the low number of certain phenotypes. There is
overall not an even likelihood of random chance happening with these alleles. Therefore, the original
hypothesis of having a phenotypic ratio of 9:3:3:1 is rejected in this dihybrid instance and replaced with
another hypothesis: due to these alleles there is a 1:2:2:1 phenotypic ratio as that is what was observed.
The chi square values found show that the results for this cross were not due to random chance. More
study will be needed to better understand and support the hypotheses rejected and instituted in this
experiment.

References

 Knisley K. 2017. Student Handbook For Writing In Biology. 5th Edition.

 Zolfaghari Emameh, R., Syrjänen, L., Barker, H., Supuran, C. T., & Parkkila, S. 2015. Drosophila
melanogaster: a model organism for controlling Dipteran vectors and pests. Journal of Enzyme
Inhibition & Medicinal Chemistry, 30(3), 505–513.
https://doi.org/10.3109/14756366.2014.944178