Further evidence for the theory that crossover interference in Drosophila melanogaster is dependent on genetic rather than physical distance between adjacent crossover points
The effect of heat shock on certain meiotic parameters
in Drosophila melanogaster was
studied in the cv– v – f region of the X chromosome of females homozygous for the mus309mutation, deficient in DNA double-strand
break repair, or those of wild type. The heat shock in the wild females caused
the frequencies of the single crossovers and double crossovers and all the map
lengths to decrease while crossover interference remained unchanged. In the mus309mutants all
parameters, crossover interference included, remained unchanged despite the
heat shock treatment. However, the mus309mutation had a significant effect on all meiotic parameters both
in the females not given the heat shock and in the heat shocked females with
the exception that the recombination frequency of the v and f markers was the
same in both genotypes in the females not given the heat shock. It seems that
the heat shock treatment has an effect on crossing over which is independent on
the mus309gene and affecting
the occurrence of crossing over itself. On the other hand, the mus309gene has an effect
on crossing over which is independent of the heat shock treatment and affects
some precondition of crossing over. This precondition is probably the choice
between two routes of the repair of double-strand DNA breaks known to be
controlled by the mus309gene. As explained in the discussion, the results are in accordance with the genetic models of interference in
which interference depends on genetic distance between the crossover points,
but in contradiction with physical models where interference is dependent on
physical distance between the crossover points.
References
[1]
[1] Sturtevant, A.H. (1915) The behavior of the chromosomes as studied through linkage. Zeitschrift für Induktive Abstammungs und Vererbungslehre, 13, 234-287
[2]
Muller, H.J. (1916) The mechanism of crossing over. American Naturalist, 50, 193-221. doi:10.1086/279534
[3]
Hillers, K.J. (2004) Crossover interference. Current Biology, 14, R1036-R1037. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.038
[4]
Foss, E., Lande, R., Stahl, F.W. and Steinberg, C.M. (1993) Chiasma interference as a function of genetic distance. Genetics, 133, 681-691.
[5]
Mortimer, R.K. and Fogel, S. (1974) Genetical interfereence and gene conversion. In: Grell, R.F., Ed., Mechanisms in Recombination, Plenum Press, New York, 263-275. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2133-0_23
[6]
Portin, P. (2011) Effect of temperature on crossing over in the mus309 mutant, deficient in DNA double-strand break repair, of Drosophila melanogaster suggests a mechanism for crossover interference. Open Journal of Genetics, 1, 38-47. doi:10.4236/ojgen.2011.13008
[7]
McKim, K.S. and Hayashi-Hagihara, A. (1998) mei-W68 in Drosophila melanogaster encodes a Spo11 homolog: Evidence that the mechanism for initiating meiotic recombination is conserved. Genes and Development, 12, 2932-2942. doi:10.1101/gad.12.18.2932
[8]
Olsen-Krogh, B. and Symington, L.S. (2004) Recombination proteins in yeast. Annual Reviews of Genetics, 38, 233-271. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.091500
[9]
Lorenz, A. and Whitby, M.C. (2006) Crossover promotion and prevention. Biochemical Society Transactions, 34, 537-541. doi:10.1042/BST0340537
[10]
Heyer W-D., Ehmsen, K.T. and Solinger, J.A. (2003) Holliday junctions in eukaryotic nucleus: resolution in sight? Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 28, 548-557.
doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2003.08.011
[11]
Heyer, W.-D. (2004) Recombination: Holliday junction resolution and crossover formation. Current Biology, 14, R56-R58. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2003.12.043
[12]
Ellis, N.A., Groden, J., Ye, T-Z., Staughen, J., Lennon, D.J., Ciocci, S., Proytcheva, M. and German, J. (1995) The Bloom’s syndrome gene-product is homologous to RecQ helicases. Cell, 83, 655-666.
doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90105-1
[13]
Karow, J.K., Chakraverty, R.K. and Hickson, J.D. (1997) The Bloom’s syndrome gene product is a 3’-5’ DNA helicase. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 272, 30611-30614.
doi:10.1074/jbc.272.49.30611
[14]
Mohaghegh, P., Karow, J.K., Brosh Jr., R.M., Bohr, V.A. and Hickson, I.D. (2001) The Bloom’s and Werner’s syndrome proteins are DNA structure-specific homologues. Nucleic Acids Research, 29, 2843-2849.
doi:10.1093/nar/29.13.2843
[15]
Wu, L., Davies, S.L., Levitt, N.C. and Hickson, I.D. (2001) Potential role for the BLM helicase in recombinetional repair via a conserved interaction with RAD51. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 276, 19375-19381.
doi:10.1074/jbc.M009471200
[16]
Brabant, A.J., van Stan, R. and Ellis, N.A. (2000) DNA helicases, genome instability, and human genetic disease. Annual Reviews of Genomics and Human Genetics, 1, 409-459. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.409
[17]
Adams, M.D., McVey, M. and Sekelsky, J.J. (2003) Drosophila BLM in double-strand break repair by synthesis-dependent strand annealing. Science, 299, 265-267.
doi:10.1126/science.1077198
[18]
Laurencon, A., Orme, C.M., Peters, H.K., Boulton, C.L., Vladar, E.K., Langley, S.A., Bakis, E.P., Harris, D.T., Harris, N.J., Wayson, S.M., Hawley, R.S. and Burtis, K.C. (2004) A large-scale screen for mutagen sensitive loci in Drosophila. Genetics, 167, 217-231.
doi:10.1534/genetics.167.1.217
[19]
Portin, P. (2005) mus309 mutation, defective in DNA double-strand break repair, affects intergenic but not intragenic meiotic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research, 86, 185-191.
doi:10.1017/S0016672305007883
[20]
Rockmill, B., Fung, J.C., Branda, S.S. and Roeder, G.S. (2003) The Sgs1 helicase regulates chromosome synapsis and meiotic crossing over. Current Biology, 13, 1954-1962. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2003.10.059
[21]
Kusano, K., Johnson-Schlitz, D.M. and Engels, W.R. (2001) Sterility of Drosophila with mutations in the Bloom syndrome gene—Complementation by Ku70. Science, 291, 2600-2602.
doi:10.1126/science.291.5513.2600
Beal, E.L. and Rio, D.C. (1996) Drosophila IRBP/Ku p70 corresponds to the mutagen-sensitive mus309 gene and is involved in P-element excision in vivo. Genes and Development, 10, 921-933. doi:10.1101/gad.10.8.921
[24]
Weinstein, A. (1936) The theory of multiple-strand crossing over. Genetics, 21, 155-199.
[25]
Stevens, W.L. (1936) The analysis of interference. Journal of Genetics, 32, 51-64. doi:10.1007/BF02982501
[26]
Grell, R.F. and Chandley, A.C. (1965) Evidence bearing on the coincidence of exchange and DNA replication in the oocyte of Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 53, 1340-1346. doi:10.1073/pnas.53.6.1340
[27]
Grell, R.F. (1972) Recombination and DNA replication in the Drosophila melanogaster oocyte. Genetics, 73, 87-108.
[28]
Portin, P. and Suormala, T. (1973) Timing of meiotic crossing-over in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas, 75, 267-272. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1973.tb01168.x
[29]
Mehrotra, S. and McKim, K.S. (2006) Temporal analysis of meiotic DNA double-strand break formation and repair in Drosophila females. Public Library of Sciences Genetics, 2, 1883-1897.
[30]
Joyce, E.F. and McKim, K.S. (2009) Drosophila PCH2 is required for a pachytene checkpoint that monitors double-strand-break-independent events leading to meiotic crossover formation. Genetics, 181, 39-51.
doi:10.1534/genetics.108.093112
[31]
Baker, B.S. and Hall, J.C. (1976) Meiotic mutants: Genetic control of meiotic recombination and chromosome segregation. In: Ashburner, M. and Novitski, E., Eds., The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Academic Press, London, New York, San Francisco, 351-434.
[32]
Sandler, L., Lindsley, D.L., Nicoletti, B. and Trippa, G. (1968) Mutants affecting meiosis in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 60, 525-558.
[33]
Baker, B.S. and Carpenter, A.T.C. (1972) Genetic analysis of sex chromosomal meiotic mutants in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 71, 255-286.
[34]
Fujitani, Y., Mori, S. and Kobayashi, I. (2002) A reaction-diffusion model for interference in meiotic crossing over. Genetics, 161, 365-372.
