Current Genetics

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 565–571

A direct study of the relative synthesis of petite and grande mitochondrial DNA in zygotes from crosses involving suppressive petite mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

  • Paul Chambers
  • Elliot Gingold
Original Articles

Summary

Work in recent years has produced indirect evidence to support the view that the phenomenon of suppressiveness in yeast is the result of the ability of the petite mtDNA to out-replicate the wild-type genome. We have developed a method, based on fluorography of gels containing restriction fragments of radioactively labelled zygotic mtDNA, by which it has been possible to follow directly the incorporation of label into the two mtDNA species and hence their relative synthesis. Four petite isolates of 70%, 43%, 23% and 12% suppressiveness were tested by this method in crosses with a grande strain. Only the mtDNA from the 70% suppressive petite showed a replicative advantage over the grande mtDNA. The mtDNA from the 43% and 23% suppressive actually appeared to undergo, if anything, less replication in the zygote than the grande mtDNA. It is concluded that while some petites may exhibit suppressiveness as a result of enhanced replicative efficiency of their mtDNA, this cannot be the explanation for all suppressive petite strains.

Key words

Yeast mitochondria Suppressiveness DNA replication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birky CW Jr (1978) Annu Rev Genet 12:471–512Google Scholar
  2. Birky CW Jr, Demko CA, Perlman PS, Strauberg R (1978) Genetics 89:615–651Google Scholar
  3. Blanc H, Dujon B (1980) Proc NatlAcadSci USA 77:3942–3946Google Scholar
  4. Blanc H, Dujon B (1981) Replicator regions of the yeast mitochondrial DNA active in vivo and in yeast transformants. In: Slonimski PP, Borst P, Attardi G (eds) Mitochondrial genes. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, pp 279–294Google Scholar
  5. Carnevali F, Morpurgo G, Tecce G (1969) Science 163:1331–1333Google Scholar
  6. de Zamaroczy M, Baldacci G, Bernardi G (1979) FEBS Lett 108:429–432Google Scholar
  7. Dujon B, Slonimski PP, Weill L (1974) Genetics 78:415–437Google Scholar
  8. Ephrussi B, Grandchamp S (1965) Heredity 20:1–7Google Scholar
  9. Ephrussi B, Hottinguer H (1950) Nature (London) 166:956Google Scholar
  10. Ephrussi B, Margerie-Hottinguer H, Roman H (1955) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 41:1065–1071Google Scholar
  11. Fangman WL, Dujon B (1984) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:7156–7160Google Scholar
  12. Gingold EB (1981) Curr Genet 3:313–320Google Scholar
  13. Goursot R, de Zamaroczy M, Baldacci G, Bernardi G (1980) Curr Genet 1:173–176Google Scholar
  14. Goursot R, Mangin M, Bernardi G (1982) EMBO J 1:705–711Google Scholar
  15. Hotta Y, Bassel A (1965) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 53:356–362Google Scholar
  16. Hyman BC, Cramer JH, Rownd RH (1983) Gene 26:223–230Google Scholar
  17. Laskey RA (1980) Intensifying screens and fluorography. Methods Enzymol 65:363–371Google Scholar
  18. Lazowska J, Slonimski PP (1976) Mol Gen Genet 146:61–78Google Scholar
  19. Perlman PS, Birky CW Jr (1974) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:4612–4616Google Scholar
  20. Rank GH (1970) Can J Genet Cytol 12:340–346Google Scholar
  21. Sena EP, Gresko DD (1982) The molecular basis of mitochondrial suppressiveness. 11th International Conference on Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology, Montpellier 1982, p 159 (abstr)Google Scholar
  22. Sena E, Welch J, Fogel S (1976) Science 194:433–435Google Scholar
  23. Waxman MF, Birky CW Jr (1982) Curr Genet 5:171–180Google Scholar
  24. Wickerham LJ (1946) J Bacteriol 52:293–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Chambers
    • 1
  • Elliot Gingold
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Hatfield PolytechnicUK

Personalised recommendations