Huntington's Disease: Risk of Inheritance in Early 20s

  • Thread starter Thread starter glxvr6turbo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disease
AI Thread Summary
A man in his early twenties learns his father has Huntington's Disease, which is caused by a dominant allele. Since his mother does not carry the allele, the father's genotype is Hh, while the mother's is hh. The probability of the son inheriting the dominant allele and developing the disease later in life is 50%. This is determined through a Punnett square analysis, showing equal chances of the son being either Hh (affected) or hh (normal). Understanding these genetic probabilities is crucial for assessing the risk of inheritance.
glxvr6turbo
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
A man in his early twenties who is normal learns that his father has developed Huntington's Disease, a rare, fatal disease caused by a dominant allele, which usually manifests itself in middle age (since the disease is rare, it is safe to assume that he is heterozygous). What is the probability that the younger man wil also develop the symptons later in life? (His mother does not carry a dominant allele.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physicsforums! If you've already looked around, I believe you will find some very interesting and informative discussions here.
If you may have missed it, you probably want to read this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=94381. It will help you understand what you need to do when posting a thread.

To get you started: what do you think the genotypes are of the young man's father and mother with respect to the gene discussed?
 
It is a literal 50% chance of developing the disease. Let's say H represents the allele for Huntington's.. and h represents normal. Then the father would be Hh, and the mother would be hh. Then in having a child, there is a 50% chance of the child being Hh, 50% chance of the child being hh. (we can determine this probability using a punnett square)
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
13K
Replies
2
Views
15K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Back
Top