How Does Parental Genotype Affect Offspring in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter colton4286
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weinberg
AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about the impact of parental genotype on offspring in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, a participant seeks help calculating the probability of offspring expressing a recessive trait when both parents do not express it. The initial calculation incorrectly assumes that the frequency of the recessive trait can be directly applied to the offspring's probability without considering the parents' genotypes. Other participants emphasize the importance of using the Punnett square correctly and understanding how parental genotypes influence allele frequencies. They suggest recalculating based on the known frequencies of the alleles rather than the overall population frequency. The conversation highlights the need for careful consideration of genetic principles when determining probabilities in such scenarios.
colton4286
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hardy Weinberg problem please help

If 4% of a population in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium expresses a recessive trait, what is the probability that the offspring of 2 individuals who do not express the trait will express it?

I did what I could and got an answer. My work is below. Could you please check my work and comment? Thanks.

rr = expresses recessive trait = 4% = 4/100
Rr, RR = doesn't express recessive trait = 100-4= 96% = 96/100

q = 2(4) + 96 = 104/200 = 0.52

The punnett square Rr X Rr can only result in offspring who will express the recessive trait so
rr would equal 0.52*o.52= 0.270
 
Physics news on Phys.org
colton4286 said:
q = 2(4) + 96 = 104/200 = 0.52

The punnett square Rr X Rr can only result in offspring who will express the recessive trait so
rr would equal 0.52*o.52= 0.270

Hi colton4286! :smile:

I don't understand what you've done here … why did you add 8? :confused:

Hint: you know RrxRr is the only possiblity that can produce rr. So …

i) what is P(rr|RrxRr)?
ii) what is P(RrxRr|(not rr)x(not rr))? :smile:
 
I would from the HW law work out the r allele frequency
colton4286 said:
The punnett square Rr X Rr can only result in offspring who will express the recessive trait so
I confess it is the first time I met the word punnett in this context, but I looked it up and that statement I think is just not true, so start again.


colton4286 said:
rr would equal 0.52*o.52= 0.270

For all quantitative calculations I strongly recommend the habit of plausibility, qualitative (e.g. something > or < something else) and when possible order-of-magnitude checks, as we do not have such an inbuilt instinct for just formulae. It will help and prevent persisting with mistakes when you realize whether a result is reasonable or not.

Here you know (are given) the frequency of expressing the trait when you know nothing about parents.
Then, when you do know that the parents do not express the trait, that shifts the frequency you expect in the offspring - in what direction?

The trait is not all that frequent, so the r gene frequency is here not what you call rare but not all that high. So is its expression in your case likely to be rare, not all that different from when you don't know the parents, or pretty frequent as you have concluded?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...
Back
Top