Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T21:40:02.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increased intragenic recombination and non-disjunction in the Rec-1 strain of Caenorhabditis elegans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

B. Rattray  and
A. M. Rose
B. Rattray
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5
A. M. Rose
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5

Summary

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.

The Rec-1 strain of Caenorhabditis elegans increases recombination frequency three-fold. In this paper, we have investigated the effect of Rec-1 on the intragenic recombination phenomena of crossing-over and gene conversion. These events were increased two- to three-fold as was X-chromosome non-disjunction. All of the recovered recombinants were independent events, indicating that Rec-1 does not act pre-meiotically. The pattern of recombination in the Rec-1 strain resembles a meiotic pattern more than a radiation expansion. We conclude from this result that the Rec-1 enhancement of recombination is not the result of an increased number of DNA lesions randomly distributed along the chromosome. The increased recombination frequency of Rec-1 was not accompanied by any detrimental effects on growth, progeny number or spontaneous mutation rate. In this regard, the results may have implications for models which propose either selective advantage or disadvantage accompanying increased recombination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 89 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Brenner, S. (1974). The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 11, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A. T. C. (1982). Mismatch repair, gene conversion, and crossing over in two recombination defective mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 79, 5961–5965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, A. T. C. (1984). Meiotic roles of crossing-over and of gene conversion. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 49, 23–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chovnick, A. (1973). Gene conversion and transfer of genetic information within the inverted region of inversion heterozygotes. Genetics 75, 123–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glickman, B. W. & Radman, M. (1980). Escherichia coli mutator mutants deficient in methylation instructed DNA mismatch correction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 11, 1063–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilliker, A. J. & Chovnick, A. (1981). Further observations on intragenic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 38, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilliker, A. J., Clark, S. H. & Chovnick, A. (1987). Genetic analysis of intragenic recombination in Drosophila. In: Recombination of Genetic Material (ed. Low, K. B.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, P. S. & Herman, R. K. (1982). Radiation-sensitive mutants of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 102, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holliday, R., Halliwell, R. E., Evans, M. W. & Rowell, V. (1976). Genetic characterization of rec-1, a mutant of Ustilago maydis defective in repair and recombination. Genetical Research 27, 413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. S. & Rose, A. M. (1987). The effect of gamma radiation on recombination frequency in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genome 29, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malone, R. E. & Hoekstra, M. F. (1984). Relationship between a hyper-rec mutation (rem-1) and other recombination and repair genes in yeast. Genetics 107, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Smith, J. (1978). The.Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moerman, D. G. & Baillie, D. L. (1979). Genetic organization in Caenorhabditis elegans: fine structure analysis of the unc-22 gene. Genetics 91, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, A. M. & Baillie, D. L. (1979 a). A mutation in Caenorhabditis elegans that increases recombination frequency more than three-fold. Nature 281, 599–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A. M. & Baillie, D. L. (1979 b). Effect of temperature and parental age on recombination and non-disjunction in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 92, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A. M. & Baillie, D. L. (1980). Genetic organization of the region around unc-15(I), a gene affecting paramyosin in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 96, 639–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbluth, R. E. & Baillie, D. L. (1981). The genetic analysis of a reciprocal translocation, eT1 (III, V), in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 99, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbluth, R. E., Cuddeford, C. & Baillie, D. L. (1983). Mutagenesis in Caenorhobditis elegans. I. A rapid eukaryotic mutagen test system using the reciprocal translocation eT1 (III, V). Mutation Research 110, 39–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, J. & Redfield, H. (1951). Interchromosomal effects on crossing over in Drosophila. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 16, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, W. L. (1942). Accuracy of mutation rates. Journal of Genetics 43, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar