Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
LISAZ1984 LISAZ1984
wrote...
Posts: 1
Rep: 0 0
10 years ago
Pedigree 3 from Part A is shown below. Recall that this pedigree shows the inheritance of a rare, autosomal recessive condition.

Note that individual II-3 has no family history of this rare condition.
Fill in the genotypes for the indicated individuals in the pedigree by dragging the best label to the appropriate location. Labels can be used once, more than once, or not at all.

Please see attached diagram
 Attached file 
You must login or register to gain access to this attachment.
Read 23634 times
12 Replies
Replies
wrote...
Staff Member
Educator
10 years ago
I suggest reading up on this thread: https://biology-forums.com/index.php?topic=77247.0
cow0003,  angelarenteria9,  ROOLAAD,  Anas1718,  alexharger,  somtonwogbo
Mastering in Nutritional Biology
Tralalalala Slight Smile
wrote...
10 years ago
thank you!!!
cow0003
wrote...
Staff Member
Educator
10 years ago
I will mark the thread solved. Feel free to change it back.
DiamondBlue,  Gizelle018
Mastering in Nutritional Biology
Tralalalala Slight Smile
wrote...
10 years ago
Isnt that the answer for autosomal dominant pedigree? Not the recessive type??
wrote...
Staff Member
Educator
10 years ago
How would the answer change, do you know?
Mastering in Nutritional Biology
Tralalalala Slight Smile
wrote...
10 years ago
Wouldnt affected people become rr? Carriers are still Rr, and RR are for people with no family history of the autosomal recessive disease?
wrote...
10 years ago Edited: 10 years ago, dramadeur
So what's the answer? I tried as in picrelated, - but it's wrong.
rr = homozygous for the recessive, condition-causing allele.
Rr = heterozygous carrier.
RR = homozygous for the wild-type allele.
R_ = an unaffected individual whose genotype cannot be determined.

There's no explanation for autosomal recessive condition Frowning Face

Post Merge: 10 years ago

Do III-2, III-3, III-4 are all R_? If yes, why? We do know history of one of III-4 parents... or do we have to know history of both parents?
Post Merge: 10 years ago

Also, apparently II-3 is RR (homozygous for the wild-type allele)

WTF?Neutral Face Doesn't make sense.
 Attached file(s) 
Thumbnail(s):
You must login or register to gain access to these attachments.
cosberg,  jpruitt,  druthless,  asample,  tiffany.g96,  magindol,  sho3
wrote...
10 years ago
Thank you!
wrote...
10 years ago
This question, and what the answer ended up being was really confusing! If anyone could explain it that would be super helpful! Slight Smile
wrote...
10 years ago
I totally agree this stuff is really confusing
Answer verified by a subject expert
vzujurvzujur
wrote...
Posts: 1
10 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
immurani,  amontoya,  adaizy,  rpot1,  randomaccount12,  frogmnb,  ek95,  mbl0020,  xyz18,  shagababe13,  colleenbowen,  jonguyen,  Mediocre,  h1`

Related Topics

wrote...
9 years ago
Thank you for the help! This helped clear autosomal recessive pedigrees.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1113 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 106
  
 16
  
 49
Your Opinion
Which of the following is the best resource to supplement your studies:
Votes: 249