Dominance in genetics is a relationship between alleles of one gene, in which the effect on phenotype of one allele masks the contribution of a second allele at the same locus.[1][2] The first allele is dominant and the second allele is recessive.  For genes on an autosome (any chromosome other than a sex chromosome), the alleles and their associated traits are autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive. Dominance is a key concept in Mendelian inheritance and classical genetics. Often the dominant allele codes for a functional protein whereas the recessive allele does not.
A classic example of dominance is the inheritance of seed shape in peas.  Peas may be round, associated with allele R, or wrinkled, associated with allele r. In this case, three combinations of alleles (genotypes) are possible: RR, Rr, and rr.  The RR individuals have round peas and the rr individuals have wrinkled peas.  In Rr individuals the R allele masks the presence of the r allele, so these individuals also have round peas. Thus, allele R is dominant to allele r, and allele r is recessive to allele R. This use of upper case letters for dominant alleles and lower case ones for recessive alleles is a widely followed convention.
More generally, where a gene exists in two allelic versions (designated A and a), three combinations of alleles are possible: AA, Aa, and aa. If AA and aa individuals (homozygotes) show different forms of some trait (phenotypes), and Aa individuals (heterozygotes) show the same phenotype as AA individuals, then allele A is said to dominate, be dominant to or show dominance to allele a, and a is said to be recessive to A.
Dominance is not inherent to either an allele or its phenotype. It is a relationship between two alleles of a gene and their associated phenotypes; one allele can be dominant over a second allele, recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth. Also, an allele may be dominant for a particular aspect of phenotype but not for other aspects influenced by the same gene. Dominance differs from epistasis, a relationship in which an allele of one gene affects the expression of another allele at a different gene.[3]
Background

The concept of dominance was introduced by Gregor Johann Mendel. Though Mendel, "The Father of Genetics", first used the term in the 1860s, it was not widely known until the early twentieth century. Mendel observed that, for a variety of traits of garden peas having to do with the appearance of seeds, seed pods, and plants, there were two discrete phenotypes, such as round versus wrinkled seeds, yellow versus green seeds, red versus white flowers or tall versus short plants. When bred separately, the plants always produced the same phenotypes, generation after generation. However, when lines with different phenotypes were crossed (interbred), one and only one of the parental phenotypes showed up in the offspring (green, or round, or red, or tall). However, when these hybrid plants were crossed, the offspring plants showed the two original phenotypes, in a characteristic 3:1 ratio, the more common phenotype being that of the parental hybrid plants. Mendel reasoned that each parent in the first cross was a homozygote for different alleles (one parent AA and the other parent aa), that each contributed one allele to the offspring, with the result that all of these hybrids were heterozygotes (Aa), and that one of the two alleles in the hybrid cross dominated expression of the other: A masked a. The final cross between two heterozygotes (Aa X Aa) would produce AA, Aa, and aa offspring in a 1:2:1 genotype ratio with the first two classes showing the (A) phenotype, and the last showing the (a) phenotype, thereby producing the 3:1 phenotype ratio.
Mendel did not use the terms gene, allele, phenotype, genotype, homozygote, and heterozygote, all of which were introduced later. He did introduce the notation of capital and lowercase letters for dominant and recessive alleles, respectively, still in use today.
Chromosomes, genes, and alleles

Most animals and some plants have paired chromosomes, and are described as diploid. They have two versions of each chromosome, one contributed by the mother's ovum, and the other by the father's sperm, known as gametes, described as haploid, and created through meiosis. These gametes then fuse during fertilization during sexual reproduction, into a new single cell zygote, which divides multiple times, resulting in a new organism with the same number of pairs of chromosomes in each (non-gamete) cell as its parents.
Each chromosome of a matching (homologous) pair is structurally similar to the other, and has a very similar DNA sequence (loci, singular locus). The DNA in each chromosome functions as a series of discrete genes that influence various traits. Thus, each gene also has a corresponding homologue, which may exist in different versions called alleles. The alleles at the same locus on the two homologous chromosomes may be identical or different.
The blood type of a human is determined by a gene that creates an A, B, AB or O blood type and is located in the long arm of chromosome nine. There are three different alleles that could be present at this locus, but only two can be present in any individual, one inherited from their mother and one from their father.[4]
If two alleles of a given gene are identical, the organism is called a homozygote and is said to be homozygous with respect to that gene; if instead the two alleles are different, the organism is a heterozygote and is heterozygous. The genetic makeup of an organism, either at a single locus or over all its genes collectively, is called its genotype. The genotype of an organism directly and indirectly affects its molecular, physical, and other traits, which individually or collectively are called its phenotype. At heterozygous gene loci, the two alleles interact to produce the phenotype.
Dominance
Complete dominance
In complete dominance, the effect of one allele in a heterozygous genotype completely masks the effect of the other.  The allele that masks the other is said to be dominant to the latter, and the allele that is masked is said to be recessive to the former.[5] Complete dominance, therefore, means that the phenotype of the heterozygote is indistinguishable from that of the dominant homozygote.

A classic example of dominance is the inheritance of seed shape (pea shape) in peas.  Peas may be round (associated with allele R) or wrinkled (associated with allele r). In this case, three combinations of alleles (genotypes) are possible: RR and rr are homozygous and Rr is heterozygous.  The RR individuals have round peas and the rr individuals have wrinkled peas.  In Rr individuals the R allele masks the presence of the r allele, so these individuals also have round peas. Thus, allele R is completely dominant to allele r, and allele r is recessive to allele R.
Incomplete dominance

Incomplete dominance (also called partial dominance, semi-dominance or intermediate inheritance) occurs when the phenotype of the heterozygous genotype is distinct from and often intermediate to the phenotypes of the homozygous genotypes. For example, the snapdragon flower color is homozygous for either red or white. When the red homozygous flower is paired with the white homozygous flower, the result yields a pink snapdragon flower. The pink snapdragon is the result of incomplete dominance. A similar type of incomplete dominance is found in the four o'clock plant wherein pink color is produced when true-bred parents of white and red flowers are crossed.  In quantitative genetics, where phenotypes are measured and treated numerically, if a heterozygote's phenotype is exactly between (numerically) that of the two homozygotes, the phenotype is said to exhibit no dominance at all, i.e. dominance exists only when the heterozygote's phenotype measure lies closer to one homozygote than the other.
When plants of the F1 generation are self-pollinated, the phenotypic and genotypic ratio of the F2 generation will be 1:2:1 (Red:Pink:White).[6]
See partial dominance hypothesis.
Co-dominance

Co-dominance occurs when the contributions of both alleles are visible in the phenotype.
For example, in the ABO blood group system, chemical modifications to a glycoprotein (the  H antigen) on the surfaces of blood cells are controlled by three alleles, two of which are co-dominant to each other (IA, IB) and dominant over the recessive i at the ABO locus.  The IA and IB alleles produce different modifications. The enzyme coded for by IA adds an N-acetylgalactosamine to the membrane-bound H antigen. The IB enzyme adds a galactose. The i allele produces no modification.  Thus IA and IB alleles are each dominant to i (IAIA and IAi individuals both have type A blood, and IBIB and IBi individuals both have type B blood, but IAIB individuals have both modifications on their blood cells and thus have type AB blood, so the IA and IB alleles are said to be co-dominant).
Another example occurs at the locus for the beta-globin component of hemoglobin, where the three molecular phenotypes of HbA/HbA, HbA/HbS, and HbS/HbS are all distinguishable by protein electrophoresis. (The medical condition produced by the heterozygous genotype is called sickle-cell trait and is a milder condition distinguishable from sickle-cell anemia, thus the alleles show incomplete dominance with respect to anemia, see above). For most gene loci at the molecular level, both alleles are expressed co-dominantly, because both are transcribed into RNA.
Co-dominance, where allelic products co-exist in the phenotype, is different from incomplete dominance, where the quantitative interaction of allele products produces an intermediate phenotype. For example, in co-dominance, a red homozygous flower and a white homozygous flower will produce offspring that have red and white spots. When plants of the F1 generation are self-pollinated, the phenotypic and genotypic ratio of the F2 generation will be 1:2:1 (Red:Spotted:White). These ratios are the same as those for incomplete dominance. Again, note that this classical terminology is inappropriate – in reality such cases should not be said to exhibit dominance at all.
Addressing common misconceptions

While it is often convenient to talk about a recessive allele or a dominant trait, dominance is not inherent to either an allele or its phenotype.  Dominance is a relationship between two alleles of a gene and their associated phenotypes.  A "dominant" allele is dominant to a particular allele of the same gene that can be inferred from the context, but it may be recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth.  Similarly, a "recessive" trait is a trait associated with a particular recessive allele implied by the context, but that same trait may occur in a different context where it is due to some other gene and a dominant allele.
Dominance is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, that is, whether it is regarded as "normal" or "abnormal," "standard" or "nonstandard," "healthy" or "diseased," "stronger" or "weaker," or more or less extreme. A dominant or recessive allele may account for any of these trait types.
Dominance does not determine whether an allele is deleterious, neutral or advantageous. However, selection must operate on genes indirectly through phenotypes, and dominance affects the exposure of alleles in phenotypes, and hence the rate of change in allele frequencies under selection. Deleterious recessive alleles may persist in a population at low frequencies, with most copies carried in heterozygotes, at no cost to those individuals. These rare recessives are the basis for many hereditary genetic disorders.
Dominance is also unrelated to the distribution of alleles in the population. Some dominant alleles are extremely common, while others are extremely rare. The most common allele in a population may be recessive when combined with some rare variants.
Nomenclature

In genetics, symbols began as algebraic placeholders. When one allele is dominant to another, the oldest convention is to symbolize the dominant allele with a capital letter. The recessive allele is assigned the same letter in lower case. In the pea example, once the dominance relationship between the two alleles is known, it is possible to designate the dominant allele that produces a round shape by a capital-letter symbol R, and the recessive allele that produces a wrinkled shape by a lower-case symbol r. The homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive genotypes are then written RR, Rr, and rr, respectively. It would also be possible to designate the two alleles as W and w, and the three genotypes WW, Ww, and ww, the first two of which produced round peas and the third wrinkled peas. Note that the choice of "R" or "W" as the symbol for the dominant allele does not pre-judge whether the allele causing the "round" or "wrinkled" phenotype when homozygous is the dominant one.
A gene may have several alleles. Each allele is symbolized by the locus symbol followed by a unique superscript. In many species, the most common allele in the wild population is designated the wild type allele. It is symbolized with a + character as a superscript. Other alleles are dominant or recessive to the wild type allele. For recessive alleles, the locus symbol is in lower case letters. For alleles with any degree of dominance to the wild type allele, the first letter of the locus symbol is in upper case. For example, here are some of the alleles at the a locus of the laboratory mouse, Mus musculus: Ay, dominant yellow; a+, wild type; and abt, black and tan. The abt allele is recessive to the wild type allele, and the Ay allele is codominant to the wild type allele. The Ay allele is also codominant to the abt allele, but showing that relationship is beyond the limits of the rules for mouse genetic nomenclature.
Rules of genetic nomenclature have evolved as genetics has become more complex. Committees have standardized the rules for some species, but not for all. Rules for one species may differ somewhat from the rules for a different species.[7][8]
Relationship to other genetic concepts
Multiple alleles

Although any individual of a diploid organism has at most two different alleles at any one locus (barring aneuploidies), most genes exist in a large number of allelic versions in the population as a whole. If the alleles have different effects on the phenotype, sometimes their dominance relationships can be described as a series.
For example, coat color in domestic cats is affected by a series of alleles of the TYR gene (which encodes the enzyme tyrosinase).  The alleles C, cb, cs, and ca (full colour, Burmese, Siamese, and albino, respectively) produce different levels of pigment and hence different levels of colour dilution.  The C allele (full colour) is completely dominant over the last three and the ca allele (albino) is completely recessive to the first three.[9][10][11]
Autosomal versus sex-linked dominance

In humans and other mammal species, sex is determined by two sex chromosomes called the X chromosome and the Y chromosome. Human females are typically XX; males are typically XY. The remaining pairs of chromosome are found in both sexes and are called autosomes; genetic traits due to loci on these chromosomes are described as autosomal, and may be dominant or recessive. Genetic traits on the X and Y chromosomes are called sex-linked, because they are linked to sex chromosomes, not because they are characteristic of one sex or the other. In practice, the term almost always refers to X-linked traits and a great many such traits (such as red-green colour vision deficiency) are not affected by sex. Females have two copies of every gene locus found on the X chromosome, just as for the autosomes, and the same dominance relationships apply. Males however have only one copy of each X chromosome gene locus, and are described as hemizygous for these genes. The Y chromosome is much smaller than the X, and contains a much smaller set of genes, including, but not limited to, those that influence 'maleness', such as the  gene for testis determining factor. Dominance rules for sex-linked gene loci are determined by their behavior in the female: because the male has only one allele (except in the case of certain types of Y chromosome aneuploidy), that allele is always expressed regardless of whether it is dominant or recessive.
Epistasis

Epistasis ["epi + stasis = to sit on top"] is an interaction between alleles at two different gene loci that affect a single trait, which may sometimes resemble a dominance interaction between two different alleles at the same locus. Epistasis modifies the characteristic 9:3:3:1 ratio expected for two non-epistatic genes. For two loci, 14 classes of epistatic interactions are recognized. As an example of recessive epistasis, one gene locus may determine whether a flower pigment is yellow (AA or Aa) or green (aa), while another locus determines whether the pigment is produced (BB or Bb) or not (bb). In a bb plant, the flowers will be white, irrespective of the genotype of the other locus as AA, Aa, or aa. The bb combination is not dominant to the A allele: rather, the B gene shows recessive epistasis to the A gene, because the B locus when homozygous for the recessive allele (bb) suppresses phenotypic expression of the A locus. In a cross between two AaBb plants, this produces a characteristic 9:3:4 ratio, in this case of yellow: green: white flowers.
In dominant epistasis, one gene locus may determine yellow or green pigment as in the previous example: AA and Aa are yellow, and aa are green. A second locus determines whether a pigment precursor is produced (dd) or not (DD or Dd). Here, in a DD or Dd plant, the flowers will be colorless irrespective of the genotype at the A locus, because of the epistatic effect of the dominant D allele. Thus, in a cross between two AaDd plants, 3/4 of the plants will be colorless, and the yellow and green phenotypes are expressed only in dd plants. This produces a characteristic 12:3:1 ratio of white: yellow: green plants.
Supplementary epistasis occurs when two loci affect the same phenotype. For example, if pigment color is produced by CC or Cc but not cc, and by DD or Dd but not dd, then pigment is not produced in any genotypic combination with either cc or dd. That is, both loci must have at least one dominant allele to produce the phenotype. This produces a characteristic 9:7 ratio of pigmented to unpigmented plants. Complementary epistasis in contrast produces an unpigmented plant if and only if the genotype is cc and dd, and the characteristic ratio is 15:1 between pigmented and unpigmented plants.[12]
Classical genetics considered epistatic interactions between two genes at a time. It is now evident from molecular genetics that all gene loci are involved in complex interactions with many other genes (e.g., metabolic pathways may involve scores of genes), and that this creates epistatic interactions that are much more complex than the classic two-locus models.
Hardy-Weinberg principle (estimation of carrier frequency)

The frequency of the heterozygous state (which is the carrier state for a recessive trait) can be estimated using the Hardy-Weinberg formula:

p

2

+
2
p
q
+

q

2

=
1

{\displaystyle p^{2}+2pq+q^{2}=1}

This formula applies to a gene with exactly two alleles and relates the frequencies of those alleles in a large population to the frequencies of their three genotypes in that population.
For example, if p is the frequency of allele A, and q is the frequency of allele a then the terms p2, 2<i data-parsoid='{"dsr":[27449,27455,2,2]}'>pq, and q2 are the frequencies of the genotypes AA, Aa and aa respectively.  Since the gene has only two alleles, all alleles must be either A or a and p + q = 1.  Now, if A is completely dominant to a then the frequency of the carrier genotype Aa cannot be directly observed (since it has the same traits as the homozygous genotype AA), however it can be estimated from the frequency of the recessive trait in the population, since this is the same as that of the homozygous genotype aa.  i.e. the individual allele frequencies can be estimated: q = √f(aa), p = 1 − q, and from those the frequency of the carrier genotype can be derived: f(Aa) = 2<i>pq.
This formula relies on a number of assumptions and an accurate estimate of the frequency of the recessive trait.  In general, any real-world situation will deviate from these assumptions to some degree, introducing corresponding inaccuracies into the estimate.  If the recessive trait is rare, then it will be hard to estimate its frequency accurately, as a very large sample size will be needed.
Dominant versus advantageous
The property of "dominant" is sometimes confused with the concept of advantageous and the property of "recessive" is sometimes confused with the concept of deleterious, but the phenomena are distinct. Dominance describes the phenotype of heterozygotes with regard to the phenotypes of the homozygotes and without respect to the degree to which different phenotypes may be beneficial or deleterious. Since many genetic disease alleles are recessive and because the word dominance has a positive connotation, the assumption that the dominant phenotype is superior with respect to fitness is often made. This is not assured however; as discussed below while most genetic disease alleles are deleterious and recessive, not all genetic diseases are recessive.
Nevertheless, this confusion has been pervasive throughout the history of genetics and persists to this day. Addressing this confusion was one of the prime motivations for the publication of the Hardy-Weinberg principle.
Molecular mechanisms
The molecular basis of dominance was unknown to Mendel. It is now understood that a gene locus includes a long series (hundreds to thousands) of bases or nucleotides of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) at a particular point on a chromosome. The central dogma of molecular biology states that "DNA makes RNA makes protein", that is, that DNA is transcribed to make an RNA copy, and RNA is translated to make a protein. In this process, different alleles at a locus may or may not be transcribed, and if transcribed may be translated to slightly different versions of the same protein (called isoforms). Proteins often function as enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions in the cell, which directly or indirectly produce phenotypes. In any diploid organism, the DNA sequences of the two alleles present at any gene locus may be identical (homozygous) or different (heterozygous). Even if the gene locus is heterozygous at the level of the DNA sequence, the proteins made by each allele may be identical. In the absence of any difference between the protein products, neither allele can be said to be dominant (see co-dominance, above). Even if the two protein products are slightly different (allozymes), it is likely that they produce the same phenotype with respect to enzyme action, and again neither allele can be said to be dominant.
Loss of function and haplosufficiency
Dominance typically occurs when one of the two alleles is non-functional at the molecular level, that is, it is not transcribed or else does not produce a functional protein product. This can be the result of a mutation that alters the DNA sequence of the allele. An organism homozygous for the non-functional allele will generally show a distinctive phenotype, due to the absence of the protein product. For example, in humans and other organisms, the unpigmented skin of the albino phenotype[13] results when an individual is homozygous for an allele that encodes a non-functional version of an enzyme needed to produce the skin pigment melanin. It is important to understand that it is not the lack of function that allows the allele to be described as recessive: this is the interaction with the alternative allele in the heterozygote. Three general types of interaction are possible:
In the typical case, the single functional allele makes sufficient protein to produce a phenotype identical to that of the homozygote: this is called haplosufficiency. For example, suppose the standard amount of enzyme produced in the functional homozygote is 100%, with the two functional alleles contributing 50% each. The single functional allele in the heterozygote produces 50% of the standard amount of enzyme, which is sufficient to produce the standard phenotype. If the heterozygote and the functional-allele homozygote have identical phenotypes, the functional allele is dominant to the non-functional allele. This occurs at the albino gene locus: the heterozygote produces sufficient enzyme to convert the pigment precursor to melanin, and the individual has standard pigmentation.
Less commonly, the presence of a single functional allele gives a phenotype that is not normal but less severe than that of the non-functional homozygote.  This occurs when the functional allele is not haplo-sufficient.  The terms haplo-insufficiency and incomplete dominance are typically applied to these cases. The intermediate interaction occurs where the heterozygous genotype produces a phenotype intermediate between the two homozygotes. Depending on which of the two homozygotes the heterozygote most resembles, one allele is said to show incomplete dominance over the other. For example, in humans the Hb gene locus is responsible for the Beta-chain protein (HBB) that is one of the two globin proteins that make up the blood pigment hemoglobin[13]. Many people are homozygous for an allele called HbA; some persons carry an alternative allele called HbS, either as homozygotes or heterozygotes. The hemoglobin molecules of HbS/HbS homozygotes undergo a change in shape that distorts the morphology of the red blood cells, and causes a severe, life-threatening form of anemia called sickle-cell anemia. Persons heterozygous HbA/HbS for this allele have a much less severe form of anemia called sickle-cell trait. Because the disease phenotype of HbA/HbS heterozygotes is more similar to but not identical to the HbA/HbA homozygote, the HbA allele is said to be incompletely dominant to the HbS allele.
Rarely, a single functional allele in the heterozygote may produce insufficient gene product for any function of the gene, and the phenotype resembles that of the homozygote for the non-functional allele. This complete haploinsufficiency is very unusual. In these cases the non-functional allele would be said to be dominant to the functional allele.  This situation may occur when the non-functional allele produces a defective protein that interferes with the proper function of the protein produced by the standard allele. The presence of the defective protein "dominates" the standard protein, and the disease phenotype of the heterozygote more closely resembles that of the homozygote for two defective alleles.  Note that the term dominant is often incorrectly applied to defective alleles whose homozygous phenotype has not been examined, but which cause a distinct phenotype when heterozygous with the normal allele. This phenomenon occurs in a number of trinucleotide repeat diseases, one example being Huntington's disease.[14]
Dominant-negative mutations
Many proteins are normally active in the form of a multimer, an aggregate of multiple copies of the same protein, otherwise known as a homomultimeric protein or homooligomeric protein.  In fact, a majority of the 83,000 different enzymes from 9800 different organisms in the BRENDA Enzyme Database[15] represent homooligomers.[16] When the wild-type version of the protein is present along with a mutant version, a mixed multimer can be formed.  A mutation that leads to a mutant protein that disrupts the activity of the wild-type protein in the multimer is a dominant-negative mutation.
A dominant-negative mutation may arise in a human somatic cell and provide a proliferative advantage to the mutant cell, leading to its clonal expansion.  For instance, a dominant-negative mutation in a gene necessary for the normal process of programmed cell death (Apoptosis) in response to DNA damage can make the cell resistant to apoptosis.  This will allow proliferation of the clone even when excessive DNA damage is present.  Such dominant-negative mutations occur in the tumor suppressor gene p53.[17][18] The P53 wild-type protein is normally present as a four-protein multimer (oligotetramer).  Dominant-negative p53 mutations occur in a number of different types of cancer and pre-cancerous lesions (e.g. brain tumors, breast cancer, oral pre-cancerous lesions and oral cancer).[17]
Dominant-negative mutations also occur in other tumor suppressor genes.  For instance two dominant-negative germ line mutations were identified in the Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene which increases susceptibility to breast cancer.[19] Dominant negative mutations of the transcription factor C/EBPα can cause acute myeloid leukemia.[20]  Inherited dominant negative mutations can also increase the risk of diseases other than cancer.  Dominant-negative mutations in Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) are associated with severe insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus and hypertension.[21]
Dominant-negative mutations have also been described in organisms other than humans.  In fact, the first study reporting a mutant protein inhibiting the normal function of a wild-type protein in a mixed multimer was with the bacteriophage T4 tail fiber protein GP37.[22]  Mutations that produce a truncated protein rather than a full-length mutant protein seem to have the strongest dominant-negative effect in the studies of P53, ATM, C/EBPα, and bacteriophage T4 GP37.
Dominant and recessive genetic diseases in humans
In humans, many genetic traits or diseases are classified simply as "dominant" or "recessive". Especially with so-called recessive diseases, which are indeed a factor of recessive genes, but can oversimplify the underlying molecular basis and lead to misunderstanding of the nature of dominance. For example, the recessive genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU)[23] results from any of a large number (>60) of alleles at the gene locus for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH).[24] Many of these alleles produce little or no PAH, as a result of which the substrate phenylalanine (Phe) and its metabolic byproducts accumulate in the central nervous system and can cause severe intellectual disability if untreated.
The genotypes and phenotypic consequences of interactions among three alleles are shown in the following table:[25]

In unaffected persons homozygous for a standard functional allele (AA), PAH activity is standard (100%), and the concentration of phenylalanine in the blood [Phe] is about 60 uM. In untreated persons homozygous for one of the PKU alleles (BB), PAH activity is close to zero, [Phe] ten to forty times standard, and the individual manifests PKU.
In the AB heterozygote, PAH activity is only 30% (not 50%) of standard, blood [Phe] is elevated two-fold, and the person does not manifest PKU. Thus, the A allele is dominant to the B allele with respect to PKU, but the B allele is incompletely dominant to the A allele with respect to its molecular effect, determination of PAH activity level (0.3% < 30% << 100%). Finally, the A allele is an incomplete dominant to B with respect to [Phe], as 60 uM < 120 uM << 600 uM. Note once more that it is irrelevant to the question of dominance that the recessive allele produces a more extreme [Phe] phenotype.
For a third allele C, a CC homozygote produces a very small amount of PAH enzyme, which results in a somewhat elevated level of [Phe] in the blood, a condition called hyperphenylalaninemia, which does not result in intellectual disability.
That is, the dominance relationships of any two alleles may vary according to which aspect of the phenotype is under consideration. It is typically more useful to talk about the phenotypic consequences of the allelic interactions involved in any genotype, rather than to try to force them into dominant and recessive categories.
See also
Evolution of dominance
List of Mendelian traits in humans
Mitochondrial DNA
Punnett square

. Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)  — Sickle-Cell Anemia
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)  — ABO blood groups

 (OMIM)
.  Huntington's Disease Outreach Project for Education at Stanford
 (YouTube)


Main Page
Seawise Giant, later Happy Giant, Jahre Viking, Knock Nevis, Oppama, and Mont, was a ULCC supertanker that was the longest ship ever, built by Sumitomo Heavy Industries in Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan. She possessed the greatest deadweight tonnage ever recorded. Fully loaded, her displacement was 657,019 tonnes (646,642 long tons; 724,239 short tons), the heaviest ship of any kind, and with a laden draft of 24.6m (81ft), she was incapable of navigating the English Channel, the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. Overall, she is generally considered the largest ship ever built.[5][6] She was sunk during the Iran–Iraq War, but was later salvaged and restored to service.[7] She was last used as a floating storage and offloading unit (FSO) moored off the coast of Qatar in the Persian Gulf at the Al Shaheen Oil Field.[8]
The vessel was sold to Indian ship breakers, and renamed Mont for its final journey in December 2009. After clearing Indian customs she sailed to Alang, Gujarat, where she was beached for scrapping.[8][9]
History
Seawise Giant was ordered in 1974 and delivered in 1979 by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. at its Oppama shipyard in Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan, as a 418,611 ton ULCC.[10] The vessel remained unnamed for a long time, and was identified by its hull number, 1016. During sea trials, 1016 exhibited massive vibration problems while going astern. The Greek owner refused to take delivery and the vessel was subject to a lengthy arbitration proceeding. Following settlement the vessel was sold and christened Oppama by S.H.I.[5]

The shipyard exercised its right to sell the vessel and a deal was brokered with Hong Kong Orient Overseas Container Line founder C. Y. Tung to lengthen the ship by several metres and add 146,152 tonnes of cargo capacity through jumboisation. Two years later it was relaunched as Seawise Giant.[5][11] "Seawise", a pun on "C.Y.'s", was used in the names of other ships owned by C.Y. Tung, including Seawise University.[12]
After the refit, the ship had a capacity of 564,763tonnes deadweight (DWT), a length overall of 458.45m (1,504.1ft) and a draft of 24.611m (80.74ft). It had 46 tanks, 31,541m2 (339,500sqft) of deck space, and drew too much water to pass through the English Channel.[5] The rudder weighed 230 tons, the propeller 50 tons.[13]
Seawise Giant was damaged and sunk[7] during the 1980-1988 Iran–Iraq War by an Iraqi Air Force attack while anchored off Larak Island, Iran, on 14 May 1988 and carrying Iranian crude oil. The ship was struck by parachute bombs. Fires ignited aboard the ship and blazed out of control,[14] and it sank in the shallow waters off the coast.[15] It was declared a total loss and was written off.[16]
Shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Norman International bought the shipwreck, salvaged and repaired it.[7] It was renamed Happy Giant after the repairs.[3] These repairs were done at the Keppel Company shipyard in Singapore after towing it from the Persian Gulf. It entered service in October 1991 as Happy Giant.[16]
Jørgen Jahre bought the tanker in 1991 for US$39 million and renamed it Jahre Viking. From 1991 to 2004, it was owned by Loki Stream AS and flew the Norwegian flag.[16]
In 2004, it was purchased by First Olsen Tankers Pte. Ltd., renamed Knock Nevis, and converted into a permanently moored storage tanker in the Qatar Al Shaheen oil field in the Persian Gulf.[5][16]

Knock Nevis was renamed Mont, and reflagged to Sierra Leone by new owners Amber Development Corporation, for its final voyage to India where it was scrapped by Priyablue Industries. The vessel was beached on December 22, 2009.[4][9][17] Its 36 tonne anchor was saved and sent to the Hong Kong Maritime Museum for exhibition.[18][19]
Size record
Seawise Giant was the longest ship ever constructed, at 458.45m, longer than the height of many of the world's tallest buildings: although slightly smaller than Taipei 101's 509m (1,670ft), it was larger than the Petronas Twin Towers' 451.9m (1,483ft).
Despite its great length, Seawise Giant was not the largest ship by gross tonnage, ranking fifth at 260,941 GT, behind the four 274,838 to 275,276 GT Batillus-class supertankers. It is the longest and largest by deadweight: 564,763 tonnes. Batillus-class ships and Seawise Giant were the largest self-propelled objects ever constructed.
Seawise Giant was featured on the BBC series Jeremy Clarkson's Extreme Machines while it was underway as Jahre Viking. According to its captain, S. K. Mohan, it could reach up to 16.5 knots (30.6km/h) in good weather, it took 9km (51⁄2mi) to stop from that speed, and its turning circle in clear weather was about 3km (2mi).[20]
See also
List of longest ships
TI-class supertanker
Freedom Ship

Further reading

 on YouTube
 on YouTube


The Italian Liberal Party (Italian: Partito Liberale Italiano, PLI) was a liberal and conservative political party in Italy.
The PLI, which is the heir of the liberal currents of both the Historical Right and the Historical Left, was a minor party after World War II, but also a frequent junior party in government, especially since 1979.
History
Origins

The origins of liberalism in Italy are in the Historical Right, a parliamentary group formed by Camillo Benso di Cavour in the Parliament of the Kingdom of Sardinia following the 1848 revolution. The group was moderately conservative and supported centralised government, restricted suffrage, regressive taxation, and free trade. They dominated politics following Italian unification in 1861 but never formed a party, basing their power on census suffrage and first-past-the-post voting system.
The Right was opposed by the more progressive Historical Left, which overthrew Marco Minghetti's government during the so-called "Parliamentary Revolution" of 1876, which brought Agostino Depretis to become Prime Minister. However, Depretis immediately began to look for support among Rightists MPs, who readily changed their positions, in a context of widespread corruption. This phenomenon, known in Italian as trasformismo (roughly translatable in English as "transformism"—in a satirical newspaper, the PM was depicted as a chameleon), effectively removed political differences in Parliament, which was dominated by an undistinguished liberal bloc with a landslide majority until World War I.
Two parliamentary factions alternated in government, one led by Sidney Sonnino and the other, by far the largest of the two, by Giovanni Giolitti. The latter was known as Liberal Union since 1913 and was finally re-joined also by Sonnino. At that time the Liberals governed in alliance with the Radicals, the Democrats and, eventually, the Reformist Socialists.[16]
The brief party

At the end of World War I, universal suffrage and proportional representation were introduced. These reforms caused big problems to the Liberals, which found themselves unable to stop the rise of two mass parties, the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and the Italian People's Party (PPI), which had taken the control of many local authorities in northern Italy even before the war. The Catholic PPI opposed the PSI, but also the Liberals and, generally, the Right, under the consequences of the capture of Rome and the struggles between the Holy See and the Italian state which the Liberals had ruled for more than fifty years.
The Parliament was thus divided in three different blocks with huge instability, while the Socialists and the rising Fascists instigators of political violence on opposite sides. In this chaotic situation, the Liberals founded the Italian Liberal Party (PLI) in 1922, which immediately joined an alliance led by Fascists and formed with them a joint list for the 1924 general election, transforming the Fascists from a small political force into an absolute-majority party. The PLI was banned by Benito Mussolini in 1925, while many old Liberal politicians were given prestigious, but not influential, political posts, such as seats in the Senate, which was stripped of any real power by Fascist reforms.
Post World War II

The PLI was re-founded in 1943 by Benedetto Croce, a prominent intellectual and senator whose international recognition allowed him to remain a free man during the Fascist regime, despite being an anti-fascist himself. After the end of World War II, Enrico De Nicola, a Liberal, became "Provisional Head of State" and another one, Luigi Einaudi, who as Minister of Economy and Governor of the Bank of Italy between 1945 and 1948 had reshaped Italian economy, succeeded him as President of Italy.
In the 1946 general election the PLI, which was part of the National Democratic Union, won 6.8% of the vote, which was somewhat below expectations. Indeed, the party was supported by all the survivors of the Italian political class before the rise of Fascism, from Vittorio Emanuele Orlando to Francesco Saverio Nitti. In the first years, the party was led by Leone Cattani, member of the internal left, and then by Roberto Lucifero, a monarchist-conservative. This fact caused the exit of the group of Cattani and Bruno Villabruna, a moderate, was elected secretary in 1948 in order to re-unite all the Liberals under a single banner.
Giovanni Malagodi

Under the leadership of Giovanni Malagodi (1954–1972) the party moved further to the right on economic issues. This caused in 1956 the exit of the party's left-wing, including Bruno Villabruna, Eugenio Scalfari and Marco Pannella, who founded the Radical Party. In particular, the PLI opposed the new centre-left coalition that included also the Italian Socialist Party and presented itself as the main conservative party in Italy.
Malagodi managed to draw some votes from the Italian Social Movement, the Monarchist National Party and especially Christian Democracy, whose electoral base was composed also by conservatives suspicious of the Socialists, increasing the party's share to a historical record of 7.0% in the 1963 general election. After Malagodi's resignation from the party's leadership, the PLI was defeated with a humiliating 1.3% in 1976, but tried to re-gain strength by supporting social reforms such as divorce.
The Pentapartito
After Valerio Zanone took over as secretary in 1976, the PLI adopted a more centrist and, to some extent, social-liberal approach. The new secretary opened to the Socialists, hoping to put in action a sort of Lib–Lab cooperation, similar to that experimented in the United Kingdom from 1977 to 1979 between the Labour Party and the Liberals. In 1983 the PLI finally joined the pentapartito coalition composed also of the Christian Democracy (DC), the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), the Italian Democratic Socialist Party (PSDI) and the Italian Republican Party (PRI). In the 1980s the party was led by Renato Altissimo and Alfredo Biondi.
With the uncovering of the corruption system nicknamed Tangentopoli by the Mani pulite investigation, many government parties experienced a rapid loss of their support. In the first months the PLI seemed immune to investigation. However, as the investigations further unraveled, the party turned out to be part of the corruption scheme. Francesco De Lorenzo, the Liberal Minister of Health, was one of the most loathed politicians in Italy for his corruption, that involved stealing funds from the sick, and allowing commercialisation of medicines based on bribes.
Dissolution and diaspora
The party was disbanded on 6 February 1994 and at least four heirs tried to take its legacy:
the Union of the Centre (UdC), led by Alfredo Biondi, Raffaele Costa and Enrico Nan, was an associate party of Forza Italia (FI) and was merged into it in 1998 (other Liberals, including Antonio Martino, Giuliano Urbani, Giancarlo Galan and Paolo Romani, joined directly FI);
the Italian Liberal Right (DLI), led by Gabriele Pagliuzzi and Giuseppe Basini, joined National Alliance (AN);
the Federation of Liberals (FdL), led by Raffaello Morelli and Valerio Zanone, first joined the Patto Segni, then The Olive Tree;
the Liberal Left (SL) of Gianfranco Passalacqua, representing the party's left-wingers, was finally merged into the Democrats of the Left in 2006.
In a few years after 1994, most Liberals migrated to FI, while others joined the centre-left, especially Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy (DL).
Re-foundation

The party was re-founded in 1997 by Stefano de Luca and re-took its original name in 2004. The new PLI gathered some of the former right-wing Liberals, but soon distanced itself from the centre-right coalition, led by FI, in order to follow an autonomous path.
Popular support
Before World Wars the Liberals constituted the political establishment that governed Italy for decades. They had their main bases in Piedmont, where many leading liberal politicians of the Kingdom of Sardinia and the Kingdom of Italy came from, and southern Italy. The Liberals never gained large support after World War II as they were not able to become a mass party and were replaced by Christian Democracy (DC) as the dominant political force. In the 1946 general election, the first after the war, the PLI gained 6.8% as part of the National Democratic Union. At that time they were strong especially in the South, as DC was mainly rooted in the North: 21.0% in Campania, 22.8% in Basilicata, 10.4% in Apulia, 12.8% in Calabria and 13.6% in Sicily.[17]
However, the party soon found its main constituency in the industrial elites of the "industrial triangle" formed by Turin, Milan and Genoa. The PLI had its best results in the 1960s, when it was rewarded by conservative voters for their opposition to the participation of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) in government. The party won 7.0% of the vote in 1963 (15.2% in Turin, 18.7% in Milan and 11.5% in Genoa) and 5.8% 1963. The PLI suffered a decline in the 1970s and settled around 2–3% in the 1980s, when its strongholds were reduced to Piedmont, especially the provinces of Torino and Cuneo, and, to a minor extent, western Lombardy, Liguria and Sicily.[18]
As the other parties of the pentapartito coalition (Christian Democrats, Socialists, Republicans and Democratic Socialists), the Liberals strengthened their grip on the South, while in the North they lost some of their residual votes to Lega Nord and its precursors. In the 1992 general election, the last before the Tangentopoli scandals, the PLI won 2.9% of the vote, largely thanks to the increase of votes from the South.[18] After the end of the "First Republic" former Liberals were very influent within Forza Italia (FI) in Piedmont, Liguria and, strangely enough, in Veneto, where Giancarlo Galan was three times elected President.
Electoral results
Italian Parliament

European Parliament

Leadership
Secretary: Alberto Giovannini (1922–1924), Quintino Piras (1924–1926), Giovanni Cassandro (1944), Manlio Brosio (1944–1945), Leone Cattani (1945–1946), Giovanni Cassandro (1946–1947), Roberto Lucifero (1947–1948), Bruno Villabruna (1948–1954), Alessandro Leone di Tavagnasco (1954), Giovanni Malagodi (1954–1972), Agostino Bignardi (1972–1976), Valerio Zanone (1976–1985), Alfredo Biondi (1985–1986), Renato Altissimo (1986–1993), Raffaele Costa (1993–1994)
President: Emilio Borzino (1922–1925), Benedetto Croce (1944–1947), Raffaele De Caro (1947–1961), Gaetano Martino (1961–1967), Vittorio Badini Confalonieri (1967–1972), Giovanni Malagodi (1972–1976), Agostino Bignardi (1976–1979), Aldo Bozzi (1979–1987), Salvatore Valitutti (1988–1991), Valerio Zanone (1991–1993), Alfredo Biondi (1993–1994)
Party Leader in the Chamber of Deputies: Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (1946), Luigi Einaudi (1946), Francesco Saverio Nitti (1946–1947), Epicarmo Corbino (1947–1948), Raffaele De Caro (1948–1961), Giovanni Malagodi (1961–1971), Aldo Bozzi (1971–1987), Paolo Battistuzzi (1987–1993), Savino Melillo (1993–1994)
Symbols

1958–1979
1979–1994

What is the largest liberal party in Italy?


Coordinates:

Ditherington Flax Mill (promoted as the Flaxmill Maltings), a flax mill located in Ditherington, a suburb of Shrewsbury, England, is the first iron-framed building in the world. As such, it is seen as the world's first skyscraper, described as "the grandfather of skyscrapers",[1] despite being only as tall as a modern five-storey building. Its importance was officially recognised in the 1950s,[2] resulting in it becoming a Grade I listed building.[3] It is also locally known as the "Maltings" from its later use.
The site is under restoration and is in the hands of Historic England with restricted public access.
History
The Flax Mill's architect was Charles Bage, who designed the mill using an iron-framed structure,[4] inspired by the work of William Strutt. The columns and cross-beams were made by William Hazledine at his foundry in Shrewsbury.[5] The construction of the mill ran from 1796 to 1797, at a cost (including equipment) of £17000.[6]
The mill was built for John Marshall of Leeds, Thomas Benyon, and Benjamin Benyon. The architect, Bage, was also a partner in the venture.[7] This partnership was dissolved in 1804, the mill being retained by John Marshall, who paid off his partners on the basis that it was worth £64000. Castlefields Mill was built by the other partners nearby. These two flax mills provided the 'chief manufacture' of Shrewsbury (according to an 1851 directory). The mill closed in 1886, and was sold (with a bleach yard at Hanwood) for a mere £3000. The building was then converted to a maltings (hence its more commonly used local name), and as a consequence many windows were bricked up.[2]
Its design effectively overcame much of the problem of fire damage from flammable atmosphere, due to the air containing many fibres, by using a fireproof combination of cast iron columns and cast iron beams,[8] a system which later developed into the modern steel frame which made skyscrapers possible.
The maltings closed in 1987, suffering competition with modern production methods, with the complex left derelict until its purchase by English Heritage with support from the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Advantage West Midlands in 2005.[9] Plans to transform the site into offices and shops were given approval in October 2010.[10] Following the split of English Heritage in 2015 the statutory and protection functions of the site were inherited by Historic England with the visitor attractions managed by local charity Friends of the Flaxmill-Maltings.
Following delays to restoration amid the Great Recession a new visitor centre, partly funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, opened in November 2015 in the former office and stables block. Phase Two of the restoration works started in June 2017 involving the Main Mill and the Kiln with an extra grant of £7.9 million on top of the previous £12.1 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund for conversion into a mixed-use venue.[11] This phase involves the restoration of the larger windows from the flax mill era to improve natural lighting although the existing smaller windows from the maltings era have been retained but with the frames replaced.[12]

Buildings in the group
Along with the main Flax Mill, a number of other buildings in the group are listed for their architectural and historic value: the apprentice house (Grade II*);[13] the dye house (Grade II*);[14] the flax dressing building or Cross Mill (Grade I);[15] the flax warehouse (Grade I);[16] the stables (Grade II);[17] and the workshops and offices (Grade II).[18] The mill and buildings are on the Heritage at Risk Register.
Public access
The visitor centre, in the former office and stables block, opens to the public on Saturdays from November to March and also on Fridays and Sunday from April to October with limited access to the site given the current restoration works. Free guided tours of the mill are conducted by Friends of the Flaxmill-Maltings on certain Saturdays over the summer and on Heritage Open Days in early to mid September.
Gallery

West side of the Main Mill c.2002 prior to restoration.
North-east side of the mill in June 2013 showing the scaffolding with white plastic sheeting for the restoration. Taken from the junction of St Michael's Street and Sultan Road.
The mill in snow in December 2017 from the junction of St Michael's Street and Sultan Road.
South-east side in snow in December 2017 taken from Marshalls Court.
West side of the site in snow, December 2017. Taken from Hencote Lane, Shrewsbury.
South-east side of the Main Mill facing Marshalls Court on a Heritage Open Day in September 2018. The white plastics sheets overhead have been removed following restoration of the roof.
Restoration work on the top floor of the Main Mill in September 2018 with the work on the windows.
West side of the Main Mill in September 2018.
East side facing the junction of St Michael's Street and Sultan Road in December 2018 after the scaffolding was removed for the first time in about ten years.
West side of the site in December 2018. Taken from Hencote Lane, Shrewsbury.

See also
Listed buildings in Shrewsbury (outer areas)
Notes

Heritage at Risk:

What was the oldest structure in Shrewsbury, England?


In fire classes, a Class B fire is a fire in flammable liquids or flammable gases, petroleum greases, tars, oils, oil-based paints, solvents, lacquers, or alcohols.[1] For example, propane, natural gas, gasoline and kerosene fires are types of Class B fires.[2][3]  The use of lighter fluid on a charcoal grill, for example, creates a Class B fire.[4] Some plastics are also Class B fire materials.[3]
Class B fires are distinguished from the other fire classes: Class A fires ("ordinary combustibles" such as wood, paper, or rubber); Class C fires (in which the burning material is energized electrical equipment) and Class D fires (in which the burning material is combustible metals).[3] The less-commonly-used Class K (known outside the United States as Class F) refers to fires involving cooking oil or fat; these materials are technically part of Class B.[5]
Fires are classified by the proper extinguishing agent.  While water is used on Class A fires, using water on a Class B fire (such as a grease fire) is extremely dangerous.[3][5] This is because burning grease is hotter than the boiling point of water (212 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius); when water is placed on grease, it creates steam which expands rapidly and splatters, causing burns and spreading the fire).[3] Because of this, Class A fire extinguishers use water, while Class B fire extinguishers use dry chemicals (foam or powder),[5] such as aqueous film-forming foam, multi-purpose dry chemicals such as ammonium phosphate, and halogenated agents (such as Halon 1301 and Halon 1211).[6]  or highly pressurized carbon dioxide.[5] Some fire extinguishers contain chemicals designed to fight both Class A and Class B fires.[6]
Grease and cooking oil fires pose a safety risk. One ten-year study, examining the years 1976 to 1985, found that 4.7% of hospitalized burn patients suffered burns from hot grease or oil, with 78% of such injuries occurring in the home.[7] According to the National Fire Protection Association, between 2010 and 2014, nearly half (46%) of home structure fires reported to fire departments in the United States involved cooking; over the same time period, cooking equipment was implicated in 19% of home fire deaths, 44% of home fire injuries, and 17% of total direct property damage.[8] Grease fires are an object of study in food science.[9]
See also

Grease duct – a duct designed to vent grease-laden flammable vapors to prevent them from building up near the flame of cooking apparatuses
Exhaust hood – a device containing a mechanical fan that for use above the stove or cooktop in the kitchen to remove airborne elements produced by cooking