Table 2 Viability of flies homozygous (or hemizygous) for Nup160sim and heterozygous for Nup96sim
Maternal genotypeaNumber of Flies
Cy wCy w+Cy+ wCy+ w+ (Viabilityb)
w; Int(2L)D+S, Nup160sim/CyO
  GenotypeNup160sim/+; +/+Nup160sim/+; Nup96sim/+Nup160sim/Nup160sim; +/+Nup160sim/Nup160sim; Nup96sim/+
   Females13220235c25 (0.71)c
   Males14620639c35 (0.90)c
 w; Df(2L)Nup160M190/CyO
  Genotype(Nup160sim or Df-Nup160)/+; +/+(Nup160sim or Df-Nup160)/+; Nup96sim/+Nup160sim/Df-Nup160; +/+Nup160sim/Df-Nup160; Nup96sim/+
   Females1802017720 (0.26)
   Males15518810568 (0.65)
Segregation ratio expected2211
  • a Crossed with w; Int(2L)D+S, Nup160sim/CyO; Nup96sim/+ males. The balancer CyO has Cy as a dominant marker.

  • b Calculated as (number of flies in the fourth class) divided by (number of flies in the third class).

  • c The viability of Int(2L)D+S homozygotes was low because of linked recessive lethals that presumably accumulated on the chromosome.