Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:38:46.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Induced mitotic crossing-over in Ustilago maydis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Robin Holliday
Robin Holliday
Affiliation:
John Innes Institute, Bayfordbury, Hertford, Herts.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. Two different methods of selection were used to obtain stable prototrophic solopathogenic strains of Ustilago maydis from haploids with different biochemical requirements. The strains were shown to be heterozygous diploids.

2. Two diploids which were examined in detail had four markers in common, but they were in different coupling and repulsion phases. Rare spontaneous segregation was detected in one of the diploids, but a high frequency of segregation was obtained in both after treatment with ultra-violet light. The proportion of segregants amongst the survivors increased with the dose. These auxotrophic segregants were detected by means of the replica plating technique.

3. The types of segregant which were obtained from both diploids were consistent with the view that they arose as a result of mitotic crossing-over. After low doses of radiation the reciprocal products of crossing-over were often detected. There was no evidence from the phenotypes of the segregants that haploidization was occurring. The diploidy of a sample of the segregants was confirmed by mating-type tests, and by the fact that they showed further segregation after another dose of radiation.

4. A slow-growing unstable segregant recovered after a high dose of radiation proved to be a monosomic strain which consistently reverted to a stable diploid homozygous for one chromosome. It was possible to use this auxotrophic diploid together with a haploid with different biochemical requirements, to synthesize a prototrophic triploid strain. The triploid was much less stable than the diploid strains.

5. By means of pathogenicity tests with certain segregants it was possible to distinguish the function of the two loci which control the mating system. The a locus is responsible for the fusion of haploid sporidia and has no effect on the pathogenicity of the heterokaryon which is under the control of the b locus.

6. The effects of ultra-violet light on mitotic crossing-over do not seem to be easily compatible with a copy choice or similar mechanism of recombination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 1961 , pp. 231 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Christensen, J. J. (1931). Studies on the genetics of Ustilago zeae. Phytopath. Z. 4, 129–188.Google Scholar
Christensen, J. J. & Rodenhiser, H. A. (1940). Physiologic specialisation and genetics of the smut fungi. Bot. Rev. 6, 389–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, C. D. (1932). Recent Advances in Cytology. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
DeLamater, E. D. (1948). Basic fuchsin as a nuclear stain for fungi. Mycologia, 40, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fratello, B., Morpurgo, G. & Sermonti, G. (1960). Induced somatic segregation in Aspergillus nidulans. Genetics, 45, 785–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanna, W. F. (1929). Studies on the physiology and cytology of Ustilago zeae and Sorosporium reilianum. Phytopathology, 19, 415–442.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1961). The genetics of Ustilago maydis. Genet. Res. 2, 204–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, C. S. (1953). Physiologic specialisation and genetics of the smut fungi. II. Bot. Rev. 19, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, Y., Ishitani, C. & Nakamura, K. (1957). A high frequency of heterozygous diploids and somatic recombination induced in imperfect fungi by ultra-violet light. J. gen. appl. Microbiol., Japan, 3, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, F. & Wollman, E. L. (1955). Etude génétique d'un bactériophage tempéré d'Escherichia coli. III. Effet du rayonnement ultraviolet sur la recombinaison génétique. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 88, 724–749.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. & Wollman, E. L. (1957). Genetic and physical determinations of chromosomal segments in Escherichia coli. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 12, 75–92.Google Scholar
James, A. P. (1955). A genetic analysis of sectoring in ultraviolet-induced variant colonies of yeast. Genetics, 40, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, A. P. & Lee-Whiting, B. (1955). Radiation-induced genetic segregations in vegetative cells of diploid yeast. Genetics, 40, 826–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kafer, E. (1960). A high frequency of spontaneous and induced somatic segregation in Aspergillus nidulans. Nature, Lond., 186, 619–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazir, D. & Errera, M. (1956). Alterations of intracellular deoxyribonucleic acid and their biological consequence. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 21, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelner, A. (1953). Growth respiration and nucleic acid synthesis in ultraviolet-irradiated and in photoreactivated Escherichia coli. J. Bact. 65, 252–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Cour, L. F. In The Microtomists Vade Mecum, 12th ed., edited by Lacey, D. & Palay, S. L.. London: Churchill (in the press).Google Scholar
Lederberg, J. (1955). Recombination mechanisms in bacteria. J. cell. comp. Physiol., 45 (suppl. 2), 75–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lederberg, J. & Lederberg, E. M. (1952). Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. J. Bact. 63, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, R. P. & Ebersold, W. T. (1958). Gene recombination in Chlamydomonas reinhardi. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 23, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morpurgo, G. & Sermonti, G. (1959). Chemically-induced instabilities in a heterozygous diploid of Penicillium chrysogenum. Genetics, 44, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomper, S. & Atwood, K. C. (1955). Radiation studies on fungi. Radiation Biology, vol. II, eHollaender, D. A.. New York: McGraw Hill. Pp. 431–453.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1952). Genetical analysis of cell organization. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 6, 218–229.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1956). The parasexual cycle in fungi. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pontecorvo, G. (1959). Trends in Genetic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. & Kafer, E. (1958). Genetic analysis by means of mitotic recombination. Advanc. Genet. 9, 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, G., Tarr-Gloor, E. & Forbes, E. (1954). Analysis of mitotic recombination in Aspergillus nidulans. J. Genet. 52, 226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, H. & Jacob, F. (1958). A comparison of spontaneous and ultraviolet-induced allelic recombination with reference to the recombination of outside markers. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 23, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, J. B. (1955 a). Functional role of compatibility factors and an in vitro test for sexual compatibility with haploid lines of Ustilago zeae. Phytopathology, 45, 370–374.Google Scholar
Rowell, J. B. (1955 b). Segregation of sex factors in a diploid line of Ustilago zeae induced by alpha radiation. Science, 121, 304–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, J. B. & De Vay, J. E. (1953). Factors affecting the partial vacuum inoculation of seedling corn with Ustilago zeae. Phytopathology, 43, 654–658.Google Scholar
Rowell, J. B. & De Vay, J. E. (1954). Genetics of Ustilago zeae in relation to basic problems of its pathogenicity. Phytopathology, 44, 356–362.Google Scholar
Sermonti, G. & Morpurgo, G. (1959). Action of manganous chloride on induced somatic segregation in Penicillium chrysogenum diploids. Genetics, 44, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, C. (1936). Somatic crossing-over and segregation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 21, 625–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunderland, N. & McLeish, J. (1961). Nucleic acid content and concentration in root cells of higher plants. Exp. Cell Res. (in the press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehouse, H. L. K. (1951). A survey of heterothallism in the Ustilaginales. Trans. Brit. mycol. Soc. 34, 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittinghill, M. (1951). Some effects of gamma rays on recombination and on crossing-over in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 36, 332–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witkin, E. M. (1958). Post-irradiation metabolism and the timing of ultra-violet induced mutations in bacteria. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Genetics, Montreal, 1, 280–299.Google Scholar