Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:06:32.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meiotic behaviour of compound chromosomes in tricomplex heterozygotes in Drosophila melanogaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Jaakko Puro
Jaakko Puro
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 Turku, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A tricomplex heterozygote has a synthetic chromosome complement consisting of four pairs of arms of chromosomes 2 and 3 in the form of a compound of two homologous arms (a homocompound) and of three compounds of two nonhomologous arms (heterocompounds), each being homologous to an arm of different compounds. In meiosis, pairing of homologous arms results in the formation of a single and a multiple configuration that are structural equivalents of a univalent and a trivalent. Data are presented indicating that, in a given complement, the pattern of the distribution of three heterocompounds at division I is the same in males and in females. The distribution depends on the arrangement of the 2nd and the 3rd chromosome centromeres in the trivalent. In configurations presumed to be homocentric (all three chromosomes having homologous centromeres), the distribution was random or nearly random while, in configurations presumed to be heterocentric, the distribution appears non-random, with one of the segregation alternatives being roughly twice as frequent as either one of the two other alternatives that were more or less equal in frequency. The results could be explained in terms of the 3rd chromosome centromere being ‘strong’ in directing the two 2nd chromosome centromeres to the opposite pole at division I, an explanation implying a functional differentiation of the two autosomal centromeres or adjacent sequences. Data are also presented showing that in females the distribution of the homocompound is non-random with respect to the distribution of the heterocompounds; the homocompound was recovered preferentially together with the single one of the three heterocompounds. This is inconsistent with the prediction based on the theory assuming an existence of two independent pairing pools.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 287 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, K. S., Fitzgerald-Hayes, M. & Carbon, J. (1983). Structural analysis and sequence organization of yeast centromeres. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 47, 1175–1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Church, K. & Lin, H-P. (1982). Meiosis in Drosophila melanogaster. II. The prometaphase-I kinetochore microtubule bundle and kinetochore orientation in males. Journal of Cell Biology 93, 365–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, K. W. (1948). A new theory of non-disjunction in female Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A. 34, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, R., Baker, S. & Rahat, A. (1985 a). Segregation of centric Y-autosome translocations in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Segregation determinants in males. Genetical Research 45, 51–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, R., Rahat, A. & Baker, S. (1985 b). Segregation of centric Y-autosome translocations in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Segregation determinants in females. Genetical Research 45, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald-Hayes, M., Clarke, L. & Carbon, J. (1982). Nucleotide sequence comparisons and functional analysis of yeast centromere DNAs. Cell 29, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golubovsky, M. D. & Zaharov, I. K. (1972). The new autosomal mutation ‘almond eye’ and its interaction with certain dominant mutants in Drosophila melanogaster. Drosophila Information Service 49, 112.Google Scholar
Grell, R. F. (1976). Distributive pairing. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, vol. 1 a (ed. Ashburner, M. and Novitski, E.), pp. 435–486. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holm, D. G. (1976). Compound autosomes. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, vol. 1 b (ed. Ashburner, M. and Novitski, E.), pp. 529–561. Academic Press.Google Scholar
John, B. & Lewis, K. R. (1965). The Meiotic System. Protoplasmatologia 6. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H-P., Ault, J. G. & Church, K. (1981). Meiosis in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Chromosome identification and kinetochore microtubule numbers during the first and second meiotic divisions in males. Chromosoma 83, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1968). Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication, no. 627.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1940). An analysis of the process of structural change in chromosomes of Drosophila. Journal of Genetics 40, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novitski, E. (1954). The compound X chromosomes in Drosophila. Genetics 39, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novitski, E. & Childress, D. (1976). Compound chromosomes involving the X and the Y chromosomes. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, vol. 1 b (ed. Ashburner, M. and Novitski, E.), pp. 487503. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Novitski, E. & Puro, J. (1978). A critique of theories of meiosis in the female of Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 89, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östergren, G. (1951). The mechanism of co-orientation in bivalents and multivalents. The theory of orientation by pulling. Hereditas 37, 85–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puro, J. (1973). Tricomplex, a new type of autosome complement in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 75, 140–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puro, J. (1978). Recovery of radiation-induced autosomal chromatid interchanges in oocytes of Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 88, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puro, J. (1982). New mutants. Drosophila Information Service 58, 205–208.Google Scholar
Puro, J. (1985). Mechanisms contributing to non-recovery of translocations induced in meiotic cells. Mutation Research 149, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puro, J. & Nokkala, S. (1977). Meiotic segregation of chromosomes in Drosophila melanogaster. A cytological approach. Chromosoma 63, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, I. E. (1960). New mutants. Drosophila Information Service 34, 53.Google Scholar
Rickards, G. K. (1983). Orientation behavior of chromosome multiples of interchange (reciprocal translocation) heterozygotes. Annual Review of Genetics 17, 443–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed