Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:39:16.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterokaryon formation in Coprinus lagopus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

K. M. Swiezynski  and
P. R. Day
K. M. Swiezynski
Affiliation:
John Innes Horticultural Institution, Bayfordbury, Hertford, Herts.
P. R. Day
Affiliation:
John Innes Horticultural Institution, Bayfordbury, Hertford, Herts.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. The four possible kinds of heterokaryon of Coprinus lagopus with no, one or both mating-type factors in common (dikaryon, common A, common B and common AB) were produced. Analysis of hyphal tips of common A and common AB heterokaryons has shown that both nuclei may be present in the same hypha.

2. All four heterokaryons are prototrophic when synthesized from two auxotrophic components with different requirements.

3. When synthesized in this way compatible heterokaryons were stable in all tests, but the other heterokaryons showed different degrees of stability. Common B heterokaryons were the most stable and rarely gave rise to monokaryotic mycelia. Dissociation of the common A and the common AB heterokaryon into either component took place much more easily.

4. Comparisons of the growth-rates of wild-type heterokaryons on complete medium show that common A heterokaryons are less vigorous, and dikaryons more vigorous than their monokaryon components. On minimal medium both compatible and common A heterokaryons are less vigorous than their wild-type monokaryon components. The possible reasons for this are discussed.

5. Fruit-bodies have been obtained from both common A and common B heterokaryons. Both types showed normal segregation at the heterozygous locus (B or A), but showed in addition the segregation of new reactions at the ‘homozygous’ locus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 114 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. E. (1959). Induced mutants in Coprinus lagopus. (Abstract). Heredity, 13, 411–412.Google Scholar
Day, P. R. (1959). A cytoplasmically controlled abnormality of the tetrads of Coprinus lagopus. Heredity, 13, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, L. (1953). Factors promoting growth of Coprinus fimetarius (L) under high temperature conditions. Physiol. Plant. 6, 551–563.Google Scholar
Fulton, I. W. (1950). Unilateral nuclear migration and the interactions of haploid mycelia in the fungus Cyathus stercoreus. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 36, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, W. F. (1925). The problem of sex in Corpinus lagopus. Ann. Bot. 39, 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. & Day, P. R. (1958). John Innes Hort. Instn Ann. Rep. 1957, p. 18.Google Scholar
Nobles, M. K., Macrae, R. & Tomlin, B. P. (1957). Results of interfertility tests on some species of hymenomycetes. Canad. J. Bot. 35, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papazian, H. P. (1950). Physiology of the incompatibility factors in SchizophyUum commune. Bot. Gaz. 112, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintanilha, A. (1933). Le problème de la sexualité chez les champignons. Bol. Soc. Broteria. (2*** serie), 8, 100 pp.Google Scholar
Raper, J. R. (1953). Tetrapolar sexuality. Quart. Rev. Biol. 28, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raper, J. R. & San Antonio, J. P. (1954). Heterokaryotic mutagenesis in hymenomycetes. 1. Heterokaryosis in Schizophyllum commune. Amer. J. Bot. 41, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, P. J. & Raper, J. R. (1958). Nuclear migration in Schizophyllum commune. Amer. J. Bot. 45, 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swiezynski, K. M. & Day, P. R. (1960). Migration of nuclei in Coprinus lagopus. Genet. Res. 1, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar