Heredity

Heredity, the sum of all biological processes by which

particular characteristics are transmitted from parents to
their offspring. The concept of heredity encompasses two
seemingly paradoxical observations about organisms: the
constancy of a species from generation to generation and
the variation among individuals within a species.
Constancy and variation are actually two sides of the
same coin, as becomes clear in the study of genetics. Both
aspects of heredity can be explained by genes, the
functional units of heritable material that are found within
all living cells. Every member of a species has a set of
genes specific to that species. It is this set of genes that
provides the constancy of the species. Among individuals
within a species, however, variations can occur in the form each gene takes, providing the genetic
basis for the fact that no two individuals (except identical twins) have exactly the same traits.
The set of genes that an offspring inherits from both parents, a combination of the genetic material of
each, is called the organisms genotype. The genotype is contrasted to the phenotype, which is the
organisms outward appearance and the developmental outcome of its genes. The phenotype includes
an organisms bodily structures, physiological processes, and behaviours. Although the genotype
determines the broad limits of the features an organism can develop, the features that actually develop,
i.e., the phenotype, depend on complex interactions between genes and their environment. The
genotype remains constant throughout an organisms lifetime; however, because the organisms
internal and external environments change continuously, so does its phenotype. In conducting genetic
studies, it is crucial to discover the degree to which the observable trait is attributable to the pattern of
genes in the cells and to what extent it arises from environmental influence.
Because genes are integral to the explanation of hereditary observations, genetics also can be defined
as the study of genes. Discoveries into the nature of genes have shown that genes are important
determinants of all aspects of an organisms makeup. For this reason, most areas of biological research
now have a genetic component, and the study of genetics has a position of central importance in
biology. Genetic research also has demonstrated that virtually all organisms on this planet have similar
genetic systems, with genes that are built on the same chemical principle and that function according
to similar mechanisms. Although species differ in the sets of genes they contain, many similar genes
are found across a wide range of species. For example, a large proportion of genes in bakers yeast are
also present in humans. This similarity in genetic makeup between organisms that have such disparate
phenotypes can be explained by the evolutionary relatedness of virtually all life-forms on Earth. This
genetic unity has radically reshaped the understanding of the relationship between humans and all
other organisms. Genetics also has had a profound impact on human affairs. Throughout history
humans have created or improved many different medicines, foods, and textiles by subjecting plants,
animals, and microbes to the ancient techniques of selective breeding and to the modern methods of
recombinant DNA technology. In recent years medical researchers have begun to discover the role that
genes play in disease. The significance of genetics only promises to become greater as the structure
and function of more and more human genes are characterized.
This article begins by describing the classic Mendelian patterns of inheritance and also the physical
basis of those patternsi.e., the organization of genes into chromosomes. The functioning of genes at
the molecular level is described, particularly the transcription of the basic genetic material, DNA, into

RNA and the translation of RNA into amino acids, the primary components of proteins. Finally, the
role of heredity in the evolution of species is discussed.
Basic features of heredity
Prescientific conceptions of heredity
Heredity was for a long time one of the most puzzling and mysterious phenomena of nature. This was
so because the sex cells, which form the bridge across which heredity must pass between the
generations, are usually invisible to the naked eye. Only after the invention of the microscope early in
the 17th century and the subsequent discovery of the sex cells could the essentials of heredity be
grasped. Before that time, ancient Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle (4th century bc)
speculated that the relative contributions of the female and the male parents were very unequal; the
female was thought to supply what he called the matter and the male the motion. The Institutes of
Manu, composed in India between 100 and 300 ad, consider the role of the female like that of the field
and of the male like that of the seed; new bodies are formed by the united operation of the seed and
the field. In reality both parents transmit the heredity pattern equally, and, on average, children
resemble their mothers as much as they do their fathers. Nevertheless, the female and male sex cells
may be very different in size and structure; the mass of an egg cell is sometimes millions of times
greater than that of a spermatozoon.
The ancient Babylonians knew that pollen from a male date
palm tree must be applied to the pistils of a female tree to
produce fruit. German botanist Rudolph Jacob Camerarius
showed in 1694 that the same is true in corn (maize). Swedish
botanist and explorer Carolus Linnaeus in 1760 and German
botanist Josef Gottlieb Klreuter, in a series of works published
from 1761 to 1798, described crosses of varieties and species of
plants. They found that these hybrids were, on the whole,
intermediate between the parents, although in some
characteristics they might be closer to one parent and in others
closer to the other parent. Klreuter compared the offspring of
reciprocal crossesi.e., of crosses of variety A functioning as a
female to variety B as a male and the reverse, variety B as a female to
A as a male. The hybrid progenies of these reciprocal crosses were
usually alike, indicating that, contrary to the belief of Aristotle, the
hereditary endowment of the progeny was derived equally from the
female and the male parents. Many more experiments on plant hybrids were made in the 1800s. These
investigations also revealed that hybrids were usually intermediate between the parents. They
incidentally recorded most of the facts that later led Gregor Mendel (see below) to formulate his
celebrated rules and to found the theory of the gene. Apparently, none of Mendels predecessors saw
the significance of the data that were being accumulated. The general intermediacy of hybrids seemed
to agree best with the belief that heredity was transmitted from parents to offspring by blood, and
this belief was accepted by most 19th-century biologists, including English naturalist Charles Darwin.
The blood theory of heredity, if this notion can be dignified with such a name, is really a part of the
folklore antedating scientific biology. It is implicit in such popular phrases as half blood, new
blood, and blue blood. It does not mean that heredity is actually transmitted through the red liquid
in blood vessels; the essential point is the belief that a parent transmits to each child all its
characteristics and that the hereditary endowment of a child is an alloy, a blend of the endowments of
its parents, grandparents, and more-remote ancestors. This idea appeals to those who pride themselves
on having a noble or remarkable blood line. It strikes a snag, however, when one observes that a
child has some characteristics that are not present in either parent but are present in some other
relatives or were present in more-remote ancestors. Even more often, one sees that brothers and

sisters, though showing a family resemblance in some traits, are clearly different in others. How could
the same parents transmit different bloods to each of their children?
Mendel disproved the blood theory. He showed (1) that heredity is transmitted through factors (now
called genes) that do not blend but segregate, (2) that parents transmit only one-half of the genes they
have to each child, and they transmit different sets of genes to different children, and (3) that, although
brothers and sisters receive their heredities from the same parents, they do not receive the same
heredities (an exception is identical twins). Mendel thus showed that, even if the eminence of some
ancestor were entirely the reflection of his genes, it is quite likely that some of his descendants,
especially the more remote ones, would not inherit these good genes at all. In sexually reproducing
organisms, humans included, every individual has a unique hereditary endowment.
Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste [Credit: Photos.com/Thinkstock]Lamarckisma school of thought named
for the 19th-century pioneer French biologist and evolutionist Jean-Baptiste de Monet, chevalier de
Lamarckassumed that characters acquired during an individuals life are inherited by his progeny,
or, to put it in modern terms, that the modifications wrought by the environment in the phenotype are
reflected in similar changes in the genotype. If this were so, the results of physical exercise would
make exercise much easier or even dispensable in a persons offspring. Not only Lamarck but also
other 19th-century biologists, including Darwin, accepted the inheritance of acquired traits. It was
questioned by German biologist August Weismann, whose famous experiments in the late 1890s on
the amputation of tails in generations of mice showed that such modification resulted neither in
disappearance nor even in shortening of the tails of the descendants. Weismann concluded that the
hereditary endowment of the organism, which he called the germ plasm, is wholly separate and is
protected against the influences emanating from the rest of the body, called the somatoplasm, or soma.
The germ plasmsomatoplasm are related to the genotypephenotype concepts, but they are not
identical and should not be confused with them.
The noninheritance of acquired traits does not mean that the genes cannot be changed by
environmental influences; X-rays and other mutagens certainly do change them, and the genotype of a
population can be altered by selection. It simply means that what is acquired by parents in their
physique and intellect is not inherited by their children. Related to these misconceptions are the beliefs
in prepotencyi.e., that some individuals impress their heredities on their progenies more
effectively than othersand in prenatal influences or maternal impressionsi.e., that the events
experienced by a pregnant female are reflected in the constitution of the child to be born. How ancient
these beliefs are is suggested in the Book of Genesis, in which Laban produced spotted or striped
progeny in sheep by showing the pregnant ewes striped hazel rods. Another such belief is telegony,
which goes back to Aristotle; it alleged that the heredity of an individual is influenced not only by his
father but also by males with whom the female may have mated and who have caused previous
pregnancies. Even Darwin, as late as 1868, seriously discussed an alleged case of telegony: that of a
mare mated to a zebra and subsequently to an Arabian stallion, by whom the mare produced a foal
with faint stripes on his legs. The simple explanation for this result is that such stripes occur naturally
in some breeds of horses.
All these beliefs, from inheritance of acquired traits to telegony, must now be classed as superstitions.
They do not stand up under experimental investigation and are incompatible with what is known about
the mechanisms of heredity and about the remarkable and predictable properties of genetic materials.
Nevertheless, some people still cling to these beliefs. Some animal breeders take telegony seriously
and do not regard as purebred the individuals whose parents are admittedly pure but whose mothers
had mated with males of other breeds. Soviet biologist and agronomist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
was able for close to a quarter of a century, roughly between 1938 and 1963, to make his special brand
of Lamarckism the official creed in the Soviet Union and to suppress most of the teaching and
research in orthodox genetics. He and his partisans published hundreds of articles and books allegedly
proving their contentions, which effectively deny the achievements of biology for at least the

preceding century. The Lysenkoists were officially discredited in 1964.

HERITABILITY
Although hereditary diseases and malformations are, unfortunately,
by no means uncommon in the aggregate, no one of them
occurs very frequently. The characteristics by which one person
is distinguished from anothersuch as facial features, stature,
shape of the head, skin, eye and hair colours, and voiceare
not usually inherited in a clear-cut Mendelian manner, as are
some hereditary malformations and diseases. This is not as
strange as it may seem. The kinds of gene changes, or
mutations, that produce morphological or physiological effects
drastic enough to be clearly set apart from the more usual
phenotypes are likely to cause diseases or malformations just
because they are so drastic.

The variations that occur among healthy persons are, as a general

rule, caused by polygenes with individually small effects. The
same is true of individual differences among members of various
animal and plant species. Even brown-blue eye colour in
humans, which in many families behaves as if caused by two
forms of a single gene (brown being dominant and blue
recessive), is often blurred by minor gene modifiers of the
pigmentation. Some apparently blue-eyed persons actually carry
the gene for the brown eye colour, but several additional modifier
genes decrease the amount of brown pigment in the iris. This
type of genetic process can influence susceptibility to many
diseases (e.g., diabetes) or birth defects (e.g., cleft lipwith or
without cleft palate).

The question geneticists must often attempt to answer is how much

of the observed diversity between persons or between
individuals of any species is because of hereditary, or genotypic,
variations and how much of it is because of environmental
influences. Applied to human beings, this is sometimes referred
to as the nature-nurture problem. With animals or plants the
problem is evidently more easily soluble than it is with people.
Two complementary approaches are possible. First, individual
organisms or their progenies are raised in environments as
uniform as can be provided, with food, temperature, light,
humidity, etc., carefully controlled. The differences that persist
between such individuals or progenies probably reflect
genotypic differences. Second, individuals with similar or
identical genotypes are placed in different environments. The
phenotypic differences may then be ascribed to environmental
induction. Experiments combining both approaches have been
carried out on several species of plants that grow naturally at
different altitudes, from sea level to the alpine zone of the Sierra
Nevada in California. Young yarrow plants (Achillea) were cut
into three parts, and the cuttings were replanted in experimental
gardens at sea level, at mid-altitude (4,800 feet [1,460 metres]),
and at high altitude (10,000 feet [3,050 metres]). It was observed
that the plants native at sea level grow best in their native
habitat, grow less well at mid-altitudes, and die at high altitudes.
On the other hand, the alpine race survives and develops better
at the high-altitude transplant station than it does at lower
altitudes.

With organisms that cannot survive being cut into pieces and
placed in controlled environments, a partitioning of the observed
variability into genetic and environmental components may be
attempted by other methods. Suppose that in a certain
population individuals vary in stature, weight, or some other trait.

These characters can be measured in many pairs of parents

and in their progenies raised under different environmental
conditions. If the variation is owing entirely to environment and
not at all to heredity, then the expression of the character in the
parents and in the offspring will show no correlation (heritability =
zero). On the other hand, if the environment is unimportant and
the character is uncomplicated by dominance, then the means
of this character in the progenies will be the same as the means
of the parents; with differences in the expression in females and
in males taken into account, the heritability will equal unity. In
reality, most heritabilities are found to lie between zero and
one.usceptibility and a variety of environmental factors is
exceeded, the birth defect results.
It is important to understand clearly the meaning of heritability estimates. They show that, given the
range of the environments in which the experimental animals lived, one could predict the average
body sizes in the progenies of pigs better than one could predict the average numbers of piglets in a
litter. The heritability is, however, not an inherent or unchangeable property of each character. If one
could make the environments more uniform, the heritabilities would rise, and with more-diversified
environments they would decrease. Similarly, in populations that are more variable genetically, the
heritabilities increase, and in genetically uniform ones, they decrease. In humans the situation is even
more complex, because the environments of the parents and of their children are in many ways
interdependent. Suppose, for example, that one wishes to study the heritability of stature, weight, or
susceptibility to tuberculosis. The stature, weight, and liability to contract tuberculosis depend to some
extent on the quality of nutrition and generally on the economic well-being of the family. If no
allowance is made for this fact, the heritability estimates arrived at may be spurious; such heritabilities
have indeed been claimed for such things as administrative, legal, or military talents and for social
eminence in general. It is evident that having socially eminent parents makes it easier for the children
to achieve such eminence also; biological heredity may have little or nothing to do with this.
A general conclusion from the evidence now available may be stated as follows: diversity in almost
any traitphysical, physiological, or behaviouralowes in part to genetic variables and in part to
environmental variables. In any array of environments, individuals with more nearly similar genetic
endowments are likely to show a greater average resemblance than the carriers of more diverse genetic
endowments. It is, however, also true that in different environments the carriers of similar genetic
endowments may grow, develop, and behave in different ways.

http://www.britannica.com/science/heredity-genetics