Centric heterochromatin and the efficiency of achiasmate disjunction in Drosophila female meiosis

Science

Volumn 273, Issue 5271, 1996, Pages 118-122

  Karpen, Gary H ^a   Le, Mong Huong ^a   Le, Hiep ^a  

^a SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME CHIASM; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; HETEROCHROMATIN; MEIOSIS; MITOSIS SPINDLE; NONDISJUNCTION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0030016870     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5271.118     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. T. Hassold, P. A. Hunt, S. Snerman, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 3, 398 (1993).
2. R. S. Hawley, K. S. McKim, T. Arbel, Annu. Rev. Genet. 27, 281 (1993).
3. K. W. Wolf, Bioessays 16, 107 (1994).
4. R. F. Grell, in The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, M. Ashburner and E, Novitski, Eds. (Academic Press, London, 1976), vol. 1a. pp. 435-486.
5. J. Loidl, H. Scherthan, D. B. Kaback, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 331 (1994).
6. L. O. Ross, S. Rankin, M. F. Shuster, D. S. Dawson, Genetics 142, 79 (1996).
7. R. S. Hawley et al., Dev. Genet. 13, 440 (1993).
8. G. H. Karpen and A. C. Spradling, Cell 63,97 (1990).
9. _, Genetics 132, 737 (1992).
10. M. H. Le, D. Duricka, G. H. Karpen, ibid. 141, 283 (1995).
11. T. D. Murphy and G. H. Karpen, Cell 82, 599 (1995).
12. G. H. Karpen, data not shown.
13. Random disjunction of these minichromosomes in males iS most likely explained by the fact that Dp1187, which is derived from the X chromosome (8), does not contain the normal X-Y pairing site (ribosomal DNA) (46, 47).
14. Drosophilla females use an achiasmate disjunction system to disjoin Dp1187 homologs. First, the minichromosome is derived from two regions that normally exhibit very few reciprocal exchanges (the X tip and the X centric heterochromatin) (31), and as expected there is no observed recombination between Dp1187 homologs (48). Second, Dp1187 transmission and segregation are altered (18, 49) in animals that contain mutations that predominantly affect achiasmate chromosomes [for example. nod and ncd (50, 51)]. Third, Dp1187 homologs are positioned between the metaphase plate and the poles (52), a cytological characteristic of achiasmate chromosomes (53).
15. Note that the greater disjunction of γ238/γ238 and γ158/γ158 (1 and 2% ND, respectively; Fig. 1B) in comparison to that for γ158 /Dp1187 and γ238/Dp1187 (5 and 6% ND, respectively; Fig. 1A) makes the lack of improvement seen for 10B/10B and γ1230/γ1230 even more significant.
16. The +150 to +580 disjunction element is defined by the difference between the γ840 (normal disjunction) and γ1230 (abnormal disjunction) break-points. The +580 to +1000 region must contain significant disjunction function, because the observed 11% nondisjunction of γ1230 from Dpi1187 is substantially less than the 50% expected for random disjunction.
17. A. F. Pluta, A. M. Mackay, A. M. Ainsztein, I. G. Goldberg, W. C. Earnshaw, Science 270, 1591 (1995).
18. K. Afshar, N. R. Barton, R. S. Hawley, L. S. B. Goldstein, Cell 81, 129 (1995).
19. T. D. Murphy and G. H. Karpen, ibid., p. 139.
20. K. Afshar, J. Scholey, R. S. Hawley, J. Cell. Biol. 131, 833 (1995).
21. For example, 30A/31E females (Fig. 2A) produced 8.7% y- ry+ progeny (0 Dp nondisjunction class) and 8.2% y+ ry+ progeny (2 Dp nondisjunction class); these values are not statistically different (two-tailedt test assuming unequal variances, t = 0.73). Similar results were obtained with other combinations of stably transmitted but aberrantly disjoining chromosomes.
22. A. T. Carpenter, Chromosoma 51, 157 (1975).
23. _, Genetics 92, 511 (1979).
24. A. F. Dernburg, J. W. Sedat, R. S. Hawley, Cell, in press.
25. K. S. Weiler and B. T. Wakimoto, Annu. Rev. Genet. 29, 577 (1995).
26. G. H. Karpen, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 4, 281 (1994).
27. X. Sun, J. Wahlstrom, G. H. Karpen, unpublished results.
28. N. Kleckner and B. M. Weiner, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 58, 553 (1993).
29. B. M. Weiner and N. Kleckner, Cell 77, 977 (1994).
30. P. B. Moens, Bioessays 16, 101 (1994).
31. G. Wurglics and H. J. Becker, Naturwissenschaften 80, 174 (1993).
32. M. Ashburner, Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook (Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1990)
33. E. L. Cabot, P. Doshi, M. L. Wu, C. I. Wu, Genetics 135, 477 (1993).
34. A. R. Lohe, A. J. Hilliker, P. A. Roberts, ibid. 134, 1149 (1993).
35. S. Pimpinelli et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 3804 (1995).
36. V. Orlando and R. Paro, Curr. Opin. Genet Dev. 5, 174 (1995).
37. R. Benfante, N. Landsberger, D. Maiorano, G. Badaracco, Gene 94, 217 (1990).
38. R. K. Niederthal, G. M. Sen, A. Wilmen, J. H. Hegemann, Nucleic Acids Res. 21, 4726 (1993).
39. A. K. Csink and S. Henikoff Nature 381, 529 (1996); A. F. Dernburg et al., Cell 85, 745 (1996).
40. A. K. Csink and S. Henikoff Nature 381, 529 (1996); A. F. Dernburg et al., Cell 85, 745 (1996).
41. Y. Hiraoka et al., J. Cell Biol. 120, 591 (1993).
42. C. Rabl, Morphologisches Jarbuch 10, 214 (1885).
43. M. Hochstrasser, D. Mathog, Y. Gruenbaum, H. Saumweber, J. Sedat, J. Cell Biol. 102, 112 (1986).
44. W. Miyazaki and T. Orr-Weaver, Annu. Rev. Genet. 28, 167 (1994).
45. A. W. Kerrebrock, D. P. Moore, J. S. Wu, T. L. Orr-Weaver, Cell 83, 247 (1995).
46. T. Grigliatti, Methods Cell Biol. 35, 587 (1991).
47. G. Reuter and P. Spierer, Bioessays 14, 605 (1992).
48. B. D. McKee and G. H. Karpen, Cell 61, 61 (1990).
49. B. D. McKee, L. Habera, J. A. Vrana, Genetics 132, 529 (1992).
50. G. H. Karpen, unpublished data.
51. K. Cook, T. D. Murphy, T. Nguyen, G. H. Karpen, unpublished results.
52. S. A. Endow, S. Henikoff, L. Soler-Niedziela, Nature 345, 81 (1990).
53. P. Zhang, B. A. Knowles, L. S. Goldstein, R. S. Hawley, Cell 62, 1053 (1990).
54. K. Yook, G. H. Karpen, W. Sullivan, unpublished results.
55. W. E. Theurkauf and R. S. Hawley, J. Cell Biol. 118, 759 (1992).
56. D. L. Lindsley and G. G. Zimm, The Genome of Drosophila melanogaster (Academic Press, New York, 1992).
57. J. Tower, G. H. Karpen, N. Craig, A. C. Spradling, Genetics 133, 347 (1993).
58. + genes observed in some Dpi 187 derivatives (10, 11, 18). This cross produces both X/X∧Y and X/O progeny, but X/O males were not scored, because of their enhanced variegation.
59. The true nondisjunction rate (TND) corrected for chromosome loss was calculated for each female with the formula 50% X [frequency y+ ry+/(frequency y+ X frequency ry+)], as described previously (18). The numerator in the TND calculation is the observed frequency of progeny receiving both minichromosomes (unequivocal nondisjunction events, 2 Dp class; Fig. 1B); the denominator is the frequency of both minichromosomes segregating independently. This ratio will equal 1 if disjunction occurs at random; it is multiplied by 50% to specify random disjunction as 50%. It is important to note that the TND is identical to the standard ND frequency [100% X (exceptions/total)] for all cases except disjunction tests involving the partially unstable chromosomes J21A, 25A, and 1B; all data are presented as TND merely for consistency. The overall frequencies of y+ or ry+ progeny reflect the transmission rates of each minichromosome. All transmission and nondisjunction frequencies were measured in at least two independent experiments and reproduced to within 5% in all cases. Between 11 and 46 individual females were crossed in each experiment, and an average of 92 progeny per female were scored. Statistical tests (t tests) were performed as described (11, 18); only differences associated with P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
60. +) P element insertions at -246 and -185 (9, 55). 31E, 20A, 3B, 30A, 10B, 1B, 25A, and J21A are terminal deletion derivatives of the γ238 inversion (11).
61. K. D. Donaldson and G. H. Karpen, unpublished results.
62. 1 parents and the appropriateness of using the 0 Dp class to estimate nondisjunction.
63. +)/Sp ; ry males. All test females were crossed and the results analyzed as described (56, 57).
64. + -15), J. Simon for the artwork in Fig. 4, and A. Dernburg, J. Sedat, and S. Hawley for communicating results before publication. This research was supported by a grant from the American Cancer Society (DB-1200), which we gratefully acknowledge.