16. In a transplantation experiment, the area of presumptive ectoderm from an early frog gastrula was transplanted to a region of the newt gastrula destined to become parts of the mouth. The resulting salamander larvae had frog like mouth parts (frog tadpole suckers) instead of balancers as observed during development of wild type newt embryo. This is an example of (1) Determination (2) Genetic specificity of interaction (3) Regional specificity of interaction (4) Autonomous specification
  1. In a transplantation experiment, the area of presumptive ectoderm from an early frog gastrula was transplanted to a region of the newt gastrula destined to become parts of the mouth. The resulting salamander larvae had frog like mouth parts (frog tadpole suckers) instead of balancers as observed during development of wild type newt embryo. This is an example of
    (1) Determination
    (2) Genetic specificity of interaction
    (3) Regional specificity of interaction
    (4) Autonomous specification

    In a classic developmental biology transplantation experiment, presumptive ectoderm from an early frog gastrula was transplanted into the region of a newt gastrula destined to become mouth parts. Remarkably, the resulting salamander larvae developed frog-like mouth structures (tadpole suckers) rather than the expected newt structures (balancers). This experiment provides insight into how genetic factors determine species-specific developmental responses.

    This phenomenon exemplifies genetic specificity of interaction. Although the transplanted frog ectoderm experienced the inductive environment of the newt host, it followed its own intrinsic genetic program to develop frog-type structures. This indicates that the developmental fate of the transplanted cells was influenced by genetic identity rather than solely by the host’s embryonic signals.

    This differs from determination, where cell fate is fixed regardless of the environment but does not necessarily imply species-specific responses. It also differs from regional specificity of interaction, which focuses on positional influence on fate within a species, and autonomous specification, where cell fate is determined intrinsically without influence from the environment.

    Key points:

    • The transplanted frog tissue maintained its species-specific developmental program despite newt host signals.

    • This shows that genetic makeup dictates how cells respond to developmental cues.

    • The interaction between host signals and donor genetics guides development.

    • Cross-species transplantation experiments reveal the role of genetic specificity in embryogenesis.

    Therefore, the correct answer is:

    (2) Genetic specificity of interaction

2 Comments
  • Deepika sheoran
    November 17, 2025

    Genetic specificity of interaction.

  • Muskan Yadav
    December 7, 2025

    (2) Genetic specificity of interaction .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Courses