Skip to main content
Log in

Meiosis V: Matric and path coefficient solutions of tri- and quadrivalents

  • Published:
Genetica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Possible classes of spatial ordering between chromosomal components of multivalents and their motion with respect to each other are deduced on the basis of the propositions: (A) that the proximity of centromeres, or similar reference centers, to each other determines which chromosomes are to migrate to opposite poles, irrespective of homology and (B) that segregation from multivalents proceeds as a Markov process consisting of at least three steps taking place during or prior to metaphase I. Segregation matrices constructed from data on the (relative) poles to which chromosomes in a quadrivalent may proceed, taken together with proposition (A), permit deducing possible classes of spatial ordering between elements within multivalents early in meiotic prophase. Transient and ergodic states of centromere ordering are compared to resonance interaction between electrons within single molecules.

Outcomes deduced by the method here correspond with many of those proposed in the literature, but some do not. Some of the conclusions are as follows. For trivalents, any one of the three centromeres, or similar reference points, may locate geometrically between the other two early in meiotic prophase and coorient with them both. In some types of quadrivalents the four reference points (centromeres, for example) first separate into cooriented pairs (= presegregation) each of which then segregates independently, or not, of the other pair. In some segregation modes of other quadrivalent types, three of the four centromeres evidently behave as a trivalent, coorienting and segregating independently of the fourth element.

It is argued that structures known to be present during later states of meiosis (e.g. chiasmata) cannot, alone, account for observed segregation ratios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bauer, H., R. Diete & C. Röbbelen (1961). Die Spermatocytenteilungen der Tipuliden. III Mitteilung. Das Bewegungsverhalten der Chromosomen in Translokationsheterozygoten vonTipula oleracea.Chromosoma 12: 116–189.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, A. D., S. Satina & A. F. Blakeslee. (1933). Prime types inDatura.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Wash. 19: 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, C. R. (1932). An interchange in maize giving low sterility and chain configurations.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Wash. 18: 434–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, C. R. (1934). Cytogenetic studies of an interchange between chromosomes 8 and 9 in maize.Genetics 19: 430–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, C. R. (1950). Chromosome segregation in maize translocations involving chromosome 6 in maize.Genetics 35: 446–481.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burham, C. R. (1956). Chromosomal interchanges in plants.Bot. Rev. 22: 419–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, C. R. (1962). Discussions in Cytogenetics. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, C. R., F. White & R. Livers (1954). Chromosome interchanges in barley.Cytologia 19: 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, C. D. (1937). Recent Advances in Cytology. P. Blakiston's son and Co., Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. T. (1966). Meiosis, I: Association of non-homologous bivalents during spermatogenesis in white mice.Genetica 37: 466–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. T. (1968a). Meiosis, III: The elastica and Markov segregation as basis for distributive pairing inDrosophila.Genetica 39: 280–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. T. (1968b). Meiosis. IV: Segregation from interchange multivalents as a Markov process.Genetica 30: 429–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. T. (1968c). Meiosis, VI: Meiotic sequence of the first two waves of spermatogenesis in young male mice (manuscript).

  • Douglas, L. T. (1968d). Solution ofHaplopappus hexavalents by superpositions of presegregation canonics (manuscript).

  • Douglas, L. T. (1968e). Neo-two-plane permutations at presegregation and centromere affinity as basis for meiotic drive (manuscript).

  • Eberle, P. (1966). Die Chromosomenstruktur des Menschen in Mitosis und Meiosis. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, J. (1965). Meiotic drive inDrosophila involving chromosome breakage.Genetics 51: 555–571.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, H. B. (1935). A study of factors influencing chromosomal segregation in translocations ofDrosophila melanogaster.Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 231: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grell, R. F. (1964a). Chromosome size at distributive pairing inDrosophila melanogaster females.Genetics 50: 151–166.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grell, R. F. (1964b). Distributive pairing; the size-dependent mechanism responsible for regular segregation of the fourth chromosomes inDrosophila melanogaster.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Wash. 52: 226–232.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grell, R. F., E. Muñoz & W. Kirschbaum (1966). Radiation — induced nondisjunction and loss of chromosomes inDrosophila melanogaster females. I The effect of chromosome size.Mutation Res. 3: 494–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haga, T. (1943). A reciprocal translocation inLillium hansonii Leicht.Cytologia 13: 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamerton, J. L., V. Cowie, F. Giannelli & S. Briggs (1961). Differential transmission of Down's syndrome (mongolism) through male and female translocation carriers.Lancet 2: 956–968.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamerton, J. L. (1965). Chromosome segregation in three human interchanges. In: Chromosomes Today, C. D. Darlington & K. R. Lewis (Ed.), Oliver & Boyd, London. (pp. 257–252).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hustinx, Th. W. J. (1966). Cytogenetisch onderzoek bij enige families. Thesis Univ. Nijmegen; Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

  • John, B & K. R. Lewis (1965). The meiotic system. Protoplasmatologia6: F1, 1–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasha, K. J. & C. R. Burnham (1965). The location of interchange breakpoints in barley. II. Chromosome pairing and the intercross method.Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 7: 620–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, R. L., A. Rubinson & R. Smith (1956). Oogenesis in adultDrosophila melanogaster.Growth 20: 121–157.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lachance, L. E., J. G. Riemann & D. E. Hopkins (1964). A reciprocal translocation inCochlyomyia hominivorax (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Genetic and cytological evidence for preferential segregation in males.Genetics 40: 959–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorbeer, G. (1934). Die Zytologie der Lebermoose mit besonderer Berück-sichtigung allgemeiner Chromosomenfragen.Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. 80: 567–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M. P. (1964). Crossing over and anaphase I distribution of the chromosomes of a maize interchange trivalent.Genetics 40: 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M. P. (1965). The relationship of crossover frequency to synaptic exient at pachytene in maize.Genetics 51: 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, P. (1964). A new interpretation of meiotic prophase inLycopersicon esculentum (tomato).Chromosoma 15: 231–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicklas, R. B. (1966). A note on orientation in mitosis and meiosis.J. Theovet. Biol. 12: 147–150.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Novitski, E. (1964). An alternative to the distributive pairing hypothesis inDrosophila.Genetics 50: 1449–1451.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ohno, S., L. Christian & C. Stenius. (1963). Significance in mammalian oögenesis of the non-homologous association of bivalents.Exp. Cell. Res. 32: 590–621.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, W. J. (1965). Nonrandom segregation of chromosomes inDrosophila males.Genetics 51: 573–583.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rickards, G. K. (1964). Some theoretical aspects of selective segregation in interchange complexes.Chromosoma 15: 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, M. M. (1936). A cytogenetic study of a chromosome fragment in maize.Genetics 21: 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertis, E., W. Nowinski & F. Saez. (1960). General cytology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, L. & E. Novitski (1957). Meiotic drive as an evolutionary force.Am. Nat. 91: 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, H. (1938). The association of non-homologous chromosomes in theCorixidae (Hemiptera-Heteroptera).Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 58: 192–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, C. P., T. Merz & W. J. Young (1967). Cytogenetics. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sybenga, J. (1966). The quantitative analysis of chromosome pairing and chiasma formation based on the relative frequencies of MI configulations. V. Interchange trisomics.Genetica 37: 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrkin, Y. & M. Dyatkina (1964). Structure of molecules and the chemical bond. Dover Pub., Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerganian, G. (1963). Chromosome cytology of medical anomalies in radiation induced chromosomal aberrations (S. Wolff, Ed.) Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Douglas, L.T. Meiosis V: Matric and path coefficient solutions of tri- and quadrivalents. Genetica 39, 456–496 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02324481

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02324481

Keywords

Navigation