Hitchhiker's thumb (H) is dominant to no hitchhiker's thumb (h). A woman who does not have hitchhiker's thumb marries a man who is heterozygous for hitchhiker's thumb. What is the probable genotypic ratio of their children

Genotype is the allelic combination of the trait. The the probable genotypic ratio  (Hh:hh) of their children is 1:1.

Hitchhiker's thumb:

It is a trait in which person have very flexible thumb that can bent backward more than the normal range of motion.

Given here,

Hitchhiker's thumb (H) - Dominant trait

No hitchhiker's thumb (h) - Recessive trait

Mother- hh - recessive

Father - Hh - Heterozygous

           h           h

H         Hh        Hh

h           hh       hh

From punnet square, the 50% of child have heterogygous genotype while 50% have recessive.

Therefore, the the probable genotypic ratio  (Hh:hh) of their children is 1:1.

To know more about Genetics,

link

Genotypic ratio of offsprings will be: 1 (Hh) : 1 (hh)

Explanation:

This question involves a single gene coding for the possession or not of Hitchhiker's thumb in humans. The allele that codes for Hitchhiker's thumb (H) is dominant over the allele for no hitchhiker's thumb (h).

Based on this question, if woman who does not have hitchhiker's thumb (hh) marries a man who is heterozygous for hitchhiker's thumb (Hh) i.e. hh × Hh, the following gametes will be produced by each parent:

hh - h and h

Hh - H and h

Using these gametes in a punnet square (see attached image), the offsprings with the following genotypic ratio will be likely produced:

1 (Hh) : 1 (hh)

N.B:

- Two (2) of them were Hh i.e. with Hitchhiker's thumb

- The other two were hh i.e. no hitchhiker's thumb.

"griffith's experiment discovering the "transforming principle" in pneumococcus bacteria. griffith's experiment, reported in 1928 by frederick griffith, was the first experiment suggesting that bacteria are capable of transferring genetic information through a process known as transformation." - griffith's experiment.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."