Molecular and General Genetics MGG

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 203–218 | Cite as

The influence of heterochromatin, inversion-heterozygosity and somatic pairing on X-ray induced mitotic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster

  • Hans Joachim Becker
Article
Received:

Summary

Mitotic recombination has been induced with X-rays in Drosophila melanogaster larvae and assayed later as twin mosaic spots in the adult eyes. When the X-chromosomes are marked with zeste and white and the third chromosomes with roughoid and sepia, the frequency of twin spots was about 20 times higher for the X-chromosome than for the third chromosome. The greater amount of heterochromatin in the X-chromosome was considered responsible for the difference.

Experiments with different inversion heterozygotes support this interpretation. Euchromatic inversions of different lengths have, when heterozygous, little or no influence on the twin spot frequency. The shorter the heterochromatic segment between the kinetochore and the proxomal break point of the inversion the stronger is the reduction of the twin spot frequency.

The heterozygotes for the long sc8 and scS1 inversions gave exceptionally low twin spot frequencies. It seems possible that potential twin spot daughter cells die after recombination because of genetic imbalance and/or lack of proper cell separation resulting from the persistence of the dikinetic chromosome elements.

To test whether inaccurate somatic pairing in inversion heterozygotes could help explain the low twin spot frequencies in those of sc8 and scS1, neuroblast chromosomes were investigated. They show that chromosomal arrangement during metaphase is determined exclusively by the location of the kinetochore, which always points, irrespective of earlier somatic pairing, toward the center of the metaphase plate. It is possible that there is a lack of proper chromosome alignment at the X-ray sensitive stage for mitotic recombination.

Keywords

Recombination Daughter Cell Break Point Cell Separation Metaphase Plate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beccari, E., Modigliani, P., Morpurgo, G.: Induction of inter- and intragenic mitotic recombination by fluorodeoxyuridine and fluorouracil in Aspergillus nidulans. Genetics 56, 7–12 (1967).Google Scholar
  2. Becker, H. J.: On X-ray induced somatic crossing over. Dros. Inf. Serv. 30, 101–102 (1956).Google Scholar
  3. —: Über Röntgenmosaikflecken und Defekmutationen am Auge von Drosophila und die Entwicklungsphysiologie des Auges. Z. indukt. Abstamm.-u. Vererb.-L. 88, 333–373 (1957).Google Scholar
  4. —: Variegation in the zeste eye color alleles and its bearing on gene action during the development of the eye of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 45, 519–534 (1960).Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, K. W.: Cytogenetic analysis of major heterochromatic elements (especially Xh and Y) in Drosophila melanogaster, and the theory of heterochromatin. Chromosoma (Berl.) 10, 535–588 (1959).Google Scholar
  6. Esposito, R. E., Holliday, R.: The effect of 5-fluorodeoxyuridine on genetic replication and mitotic crossing over in synchronized cultures of Ustilago maydis. Genetics 50, 1009–1017 (1964).Google Scholar
  7. Esser, K., Kuenen, R.: Genetik der Pilze. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1965.Google Scholar
  8. Friesen, H.: Untersuchungen über künstliche Auslösung von Crossing-over in der Meiosis und Mitosis. Biol. Ž. (Mos.) 6, 1055–1136 (1937).Google Scholar
  9. German, J.: Cytological evidence for crossing-over in vitro in human lymphoid cells. Science 144, 298–301 (1964).Google Scholar
  10. Hirono, Y., Rédei, G. P.: Induced premeiotic exchange of linked markers in the angiosperm Arabidopsis. Genetics 51, 519–526 (1965).Google Scholar
  11. Lefevre, G. J.: Mutation in germinal and somatic tissue. Dros. Inf. Serv. 23, 91–92 (1949).Google Scholar
  12. Lindsley, D. L., Grell, E. H.: Genetic variations of Drosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 627 (1968).Google Scholar
  13. Pittenger, T. H., Coyle, M. B.: Somatic recombination in pseudowild-type cultures of Neurospora crassa. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 49, 445–451 (1963).Google Scholar
  14. Rao, R. N., Natarajan, A. T.: Somatic association in relation to chemically induced chromosome aberrations in Vicia faba. Genetics 57, 821–835 (1967).Google Scholar
  15. Shaw, M. W., Cohen, M. M.: Chromosome exchanges in human leucocytes induced by mitomycin C. Genetics 51, 181–190 (1965).Google Scholar
  16. Stern, C.: Somatic crossing over and segregation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 21, 625–730 (1936).Google Scholar
  17. Ulrich, H.: A convenient method of collecting large numbers of Drosophila eggs homogeneous in age. Dros. Inf. Serv. 27, 124–125 (1953).Google Scholar
  18. Whittinghill, M.: Some effects of λ-rays on recombination and on crossing over in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 36, 332–355 (1951).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Joachim Becker
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoologisches Institut der Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations