Microvariation at the human D1S80 locus

Microvariant allelic polymorphisms have been known since 1966 when Harris, Hubby and Lewontin described the huge store of genetic variation detectable at the polypeptide level. Later Jeffreys used MVR (minisatellite variant repeat) analysis to describe the variation hidden within minisatellite VNTRs and to propose a mutational mechanism.^ The questions I have asked follow these traditions: (1) How much microvariant polymorphism exists at the discrete allele minisatellite D1S80 locus? (2) Do alleles or groups of alleles associate randomly with the flanking markers to form haplotypes? (3) What mechanisms might explain mutations at this locus? What are the phylogenetic relationships among the alleles?^ The minisatellite locus D1S80 (1p35-36), GenBank sequence (Accession # D28507), is a highly polymorphic Variable Number of Tandem Repeat (VNTR) based on a 16 base core. D1S80 alleles are electrophoretically separable into discontinuous sets of equivalent length alleles. Sequence variation or minor length variation within these classes was expected: I have sought to determine the nature of this microvariant heterogeneity by sequencing nominal and variant alleles.^ Alleles were analyzed by Single-Strand Conformation Polymorphism (SSCP) analysis. Sequences were determined to ascertain whether sequence variation or size variation is the major cause of altered electrophoretic migration of microvariant D1S80 alleles. Twenty three alleles from 14 previously typed individuals were sequenced. The individuals were from African American, Caucasian, or Hispanic databases.^ A Tsp509 I restriction site, previously reported as a Hinf I flanking polymorphism, and a 3$\sp\prime$ flanking region BsoF I restriction site polymorphism were identified. There appears to be a strong association of the 5$\sp\prime$ flanking region Hinf I(+) and Tsp509 I(-) site and the 3$\sp\prime$ flanking region BsoF I(-) site with the 18 allele, while the 24 tends to be associated with the Hinf I(-), Tsp509 I(+) and BsoF I(+) sites.^ The general conclusion for this locus is clearly the closer you look, the more you find. D1S80 allelic polymorphisms are primarily due to variation in the number of repeat units and to sequence variation among repeats. The sequenced based gene tree depicts two major classes of alleles which conform to the two most common alleles, reflecting either equivalent age or population size bottlenecks. ^

Mutation at the Human D1S80 Minisatellite Locus

Little is known about the general biology of minisatellites. The purpose of this study is to examine repeat mutations from the D1S80 minisatellite locus by sequence analysis to elucidate the mutational process at this locus. This is a highly polymorphic minisatellite locus, located in the subtelomeric region of chromosome 1. We have analyzed 90,000 human germline transmission events and found seven (7) mutations at this locus. The D1S80 alleles of the parentage trio, the child, mother, and the alleged father were sequenced and the origin of the mutation was determined. Using American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) guidelines, we found a male mutation rate of 1 . 0 4 × 1 0− 4 and a female mutation rate of 5 . 1 8 × 1 0− 5 with an overall mutation rate of approximately 7 . 7 7 × 1 0− 5. Also, in this study, we found that the identified mutations are in close proximity to the center of the repeat array rather than at the ends of the repeat array. Several studies have examined the mutational mechanisms of the minisatellites according to infinite allele model (IAM) and the one-step stepwise mutation model (SMM). In this study, we found that this locus fits into the one-step mutation model (SMM) mechanism in six out of seven instances similar to STR loci.

Social-cognitive antecedents of ambidextrous orientation in family-owned startups: The role of family ties, achievement motivation, and internal locus of control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore "new ideas", exploit "old certainties" and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research —achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.