Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T08:32:33.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A modifier gene involved in the expression of the dominant mating type allele in Paramecium caudatum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Koichi Hiwatashi  and
Koji Myohara
Koichi Hiwatashi
Affiliation:
Biological Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
Koji Myohara
Affiliation:
Biological Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

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.

Mating type in Paramecium caudatum, syngen 3 is determined by a pair of alleles with simple dominance; the recessive allele restricts homozygotes to mating type V and the dominant allele permits expression of mating type VI. Clones of mating type V never show natural selfing, but most clones of mating type VI self naturally. A mutant clone of mating type VI which never selfed over a period of more than 3 years was obtained by treatment with N-methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine. When this mutant clone was crossed to a wild-type stock of mating type V, all F1 clones of mating type VI gave rise to selfers. From selfing of these F1 of mating type VI, clones of F2 were obtained. Nearly 3:1 segregation of selfer to non-selfer clones was observed among the F2 clones of mating type VI. The results were consistent with the interpretation that a dominant modifier gene, Su(+mtV), controls the instability in the expression of mating type VI.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

References

REFERENCES

Bleyman, L. K. (1967). Selfing in Paramecium aurelia, syngen 5: persistent instability of mating type expression. Journal of Experimental Zoology 165, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butzel, H. M. (1955). Mating type mutation in variety 1 of Paramecium aurelia, and their bearing upon the problem of mating type determination. Genetics 40, 321–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryl, S. (1959). Antigenic transformation in Paramecium aurelia after homologous antiserum treatment during autogamy and conjugation. Journal of Protozoology 6, s 25.Google Scholar
Heckmann, K. (1967). Age-dependent intraclonal conjugation in Euplotes crassus. Journal of Experimental Zoology 165, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiwatashi, K. (1949). Studies on the conjugation of Paramecium caudatum. II. Induction of pseudoselfing pairs by formalin killed animals. Science Reports of the Tohoku University, 4th Ser. (Biology) 18, 141–143.Google Scholar
Hiwatashi, K. (1960). Analyses of the change of mating type during vegetative reproduction in Paramecium caudatum. Japanese Journal of Genetics 35, 213–221.Google Scholar
Hiwatashi, K. (1968). Determination and inheritance of mating type in Paramecium caudatum. Genetics 58, 373–386.Google Scholar
Hiwatashi, K. (1969). Genetic and epigenetic control of mating type in Paramecium caudatum. Japanese Journal of Genetics 44 (suppl. 1), 383–387.Google Scholar
Mikami, K. & Hiwatashi, K. (1975). Macronuclear regeneration and cell division in Paramecium caudatum. Journal of Protozoology 22, 536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonneborn, T. M. (1970). Methods in Paramecium, research. In Methods in Cell Physiology, vol. 4 (ed. Prescott, D. M.), pp. 247–339. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, M. & Hiwatashi, K. (1970). Disappearance of mating reactivity in Paramecium caudatum upon repeated washing. Journal of Protozoology 17, 667–670.Google Scholar
Taub, S. R. (1966 a). Regular changes in mating type composition in selfing cultures and in mating type potentiality in selfing caryonides of Paramecium aurelia. Genetics 54, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taub, S. R. (1966 b). Unidirectional mating type changes in individual cells from selfing cultures of Paramecium aurelia. Journal of Experimental Zoology 163, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed