No abstract

In a Finnish rural population 79.0% of 233 persons had the cusp of Carabelli in first upper molars. Of these 20% showed "positive cusps" and 59% "negative cusps". The occurrence of the structure was bilateral with varying degrees of asymmetry, but if there was no structure on one side of the jaw, the other never showed the cusp. There was no sexual dimorphism either in the occurrence or in the degree of expression of character. Results of the statistical analyses suggested low heritability of the character. However, the dichotomy of having a cusp or not may have genetic basis, but there is large variation in the expression of the "cusp-genotype".

This paper presents a history of the changing meanings of the term "gene," over more than a century, and a discussion of why this word, so crucial to genetics, needs redefinition today. In this account, the first two phases of 20th century genetics are designated the "classical" and the "neoclassical" periods, and the current molecular-genetic era the "modern period." While the first two stages generated increasing clarity about the nature of the gene, the present period features complexity and confusion. Initially, the term "gene" was coined to denote an abstract "unit of inheritance," to which no specific material attributes were assigned. As the classical and neoclassical periods unfolded, the term became more concrete, first as a dimensionless point on a chromosome, then as a linear segment within a chromosome, and finally as a linear segment in the DNA molecule that encodes a polypeptide chain. This last definition, from the early 1960s, remains the one employed today, but developments since the 1970s have undermined its generality. Indeed, they raise questions about both the utility of the concept of a basic "unit of inheritance" and the long implicit belief that genes are autonomous agents. Here, we review findings that have made the classic molecular definition obsolete and propose a new one based on contemporary knowledge.

The concept of the gene is and has always been a continuously evolving one. In order to provide a structure for understanding the concept, its history is divided into classical, neoclassical, and modern periods. The classical view prevailed into the 1930s, and conceived the gene as an indivisible unit of genetic transmission, recombination, mutation, and function. The discovery of intragenic recombination in the early 1940s and the establishment of DNA as the physical basis of inheritance led to the neoclassical concept of the gene, which prevailed until the 1970s. In this view the gene (or cistron, as it was called then) was subdivided into its constituent parts, mutons and recons, identified as nucleotides. Each cistron was believed to be responsible for the synthesis of a single mRNA and hence for one polypeptide. This colinearity hypothesis prevailed from 1955 to the 1970s. Starting from the early 1970s, DNA technologies have led to the modern period of gene conceptualization, wherein none of the classical or neoclassical criteria are sufficient to define a gene. Modern discoveries include those of repeated genes, split genes and alternative splicing, assembled genes, overlapping genes, transposable genes, complex promoters, multiple polyadenylation sites, polyprotein genes, editing of the primary transcript, and nested genes. We are currently left with a rather abstract, open, and generalized concept of the gene, even though our comprehension of the structure and organization of the genetic material has greatly increased.

No abstract