Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:44:53.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferential segregation in Saccharomyces*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Ernest E. Shult ,
Sharon Desborough  and
Carl C. Lindegren
Ernest E. Shult
Affiliation:
Biological Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
Sharon Desborough
Affiliation:
Biological Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
Carl C. Lindegren
Affiliation:
Biological Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
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.

In tetrad data obtained from the Carbondale yeast stock, instances of greater than 50% recombination occur far more frequently than would be expected by chance. In the main, genes exhibiting this effect are located in the vicinity of the centromeres. Difficulties in assigning linear order also persist throughout the total data for certain gene combinations. The affinity hypothesis suffices to account for these two effects; the former resulting from ‘divergent’ combinations of affinity sites in the zygote, the latter, representing nonlinear quasi-linkages resulting from ‘convergent’ combinations.

Chromosome V (ur3-centromere-ch–hi1–is1–an) exhibits quasi-linkage with the gene th and reverse-linkage with the gene cu2, in Family 108. In each case ‘linkage’ is strongest with ch and becomes progressively weaker with the genes hi1, is1 and an, respectively, indicating that the preferentially segregating sites involved lie close to ch. It was impossible to determine whether the two sites were identical, as would be expected on an hypothesis of ‘polar’ rather than ‘mutual’ affinity.

Intra-ascal matings within tetrads NPD for cu2–ch, yielded quasi-linkage for these genes in F2, showing that the attraction is retained by the sites being segregated.

A second case of reverse linkage for cu1 and ar4 in Family 217, gave a similar effect—i.e. reverse linkage in F1, becoming quasi-linkage in the NPD—intra-ascal F2.

An intra-ascal mating between members of the single PD tetrad for cu1 and ar4 in Family 217 indicated that this tetrad did not result from ‘chance’ failure of otherwise active sites to preferentially segregate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 1962 , pp. 196 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

REFERENCES

Catcheside, D. G. (1944). Polarized segregation in an ascomycete. Ann. Bot. 8, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desborough, S. & Lindegren, G. (1959). Chromosome mapping of linkage data from Saccharomyces by tetrad analysis. Genetica, 30, 346–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawthorne, D. (1955). The use of linear asci for chromosome mapping in Saccharomyces. Genetics, 40, 511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawthorne, D. C. & Mortimer, R. K. (1960). Chromosome mapping in Saccharomyces: Centromere-linked genes. Genetics, 45, 1085–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindegren, C. C. (1949). The Yeast Cell, Its Genetics and Cytology. St. Louis, Mo.: Educational Publishers, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindegren, C. C., Lindegren, G., Shult, E. E. & Desborough, S. (1959). Chromosome maps Saccharomyces. Nature, Lond., 183, 800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longley, A. E. (1945). Abnormal segregations during megasporogenesis in maize. Genetics, 30, 110–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michie, D. (1953). Affinity: A new genetic phenomenon in the house mouse. Nature, Lond., 171, 26–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michie, D. (1955). ‘Affinity.’ Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 144, 241–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Ostergren, G. & Prakken, R. (1946). Behaviour on the spindle of the actively mobile chromosome ends of rye. Hereditas, Lund, 32, 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, R. & Muntzing, A. (1942). A meiotic peculiarity in rye, simulating a terminal centromere. Hereditas, Lund, 28, 441–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, M. M. (1952). Preferential segregation in maize. In Heterosis. Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Rick, C. M. & Bahton, D. W. (1954). Cytological and genetical identification of the primary trisomics of the tomato. Genetics, 39, 640–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shult, E. & Desborough, S. (1960). The application to tetrad-analysis-data from Saccharomyces of principles for establishing the linear order of genetic factors. Genetica, 31, 147–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shult, E. E. & Lindegren, C. C. (1955). The determination of the arrangement of genes from tetrad data. Cytologia, Tokyo, 20, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shult, E. E. & Lindegren, C. C. (1957). Orthoorientation: A new tool for genetical analysis. Genetica, 29, 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, M. E. (1953). Affinity: A new genetic phenomenon in the house mouse. Nature, Lond., 171, 27–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, M. E. (1958). Experimental evidence for a new genetic phenomenon. Phil. Trans. B, No. 681, 241, 211–254.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H. K. (1956). Mapping chromosome centromeres from tetratype frequencies. J. Genet. 55, 348–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. E. (Wallace) (1947). Two sex-linkages in the house mouse with unusual recombination values. Heredity, 1, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar