Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T23:04:26.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meiotic disjunction in mouse translocations and the determination of centromere position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

A. G. Searle ,
C. E. Ford  and
C. V. Beechey
A. G. Searle
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Berkshire, U.K.
C. E. Ford
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Berkshire, U.K.
C. V. Beechey
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Berkshire, U.K.

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.

If heterozygotes for a reciprocal translocation are intercrossed, some of their viable balanced progeny result from the fusion of unbalanced gametes with complementary duplications and deficiencies of the translocated segments. Therefore, if one parent in such an intercross is homozygous for a genetic marker on one of the segments concerned, some homozygous offspring will be produced even if the other parent does not have the marker. The expected frequency of such exceptional offspring among live-born is one-sixth if the marker is on the distal (non-centromeric) side of the point of exchange and single chiasmata normally occur in each interstitial segment. Much lower frequencies are expected if the marker is on the centromeric side, since duplications and deficiencies of proximal segments occur only as a consequence of adjacent-2 disjunction, in which homologous centromeres proceed to the same pole. This is rarer than normal disjunction. Thus, by comparing the frequencies of offspring homozygous for markers on one or other side of the point of exchange, it is possible (i) to determine which marker is in the centromeric segment, (ii) to estimate the frequency of adjacent-2 disjunction, given information on the nature of meiotic configurations in the translocation concerned.

By this method, it is shown that the frequency of adjacent-2 disjunction is similar in heterozygotes for mouse translocations (T5;18)26H, T(13; ?) 70H and T(14;17)264Ca, averaging 13%. Centromeres were located at the Sd end of linkage group V (confirming previous findings), the fz end of XIII and the bg end of XIV.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , October 1971 , pp. 215 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

References

REFERENCES

Batchelor, A. L., Phillips, R. J. S. & Searle, A. G. (1966). A comparison of the mutagenic effectiveness of chronic neutron- and γ-irradiation of mouse spermatogonia. Mutation Research 3, 218–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, C. R. (1950). Chromosome segregation in translocations involving chromosome 6 in maize. Genetics 35, 446–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, T. C., Lyon, M. F. & Phillips, R. J. S. (1955). Gene-tagged chromosome translocations in eleven stocks of mice. Journal of Genetics 53, 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. & Bennett, D. (1967). Sex difference in recombination of linked genes in animals. Genetical Research 9, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, C. D. (1937). Recent Advances in Cytology, 2nd ed.London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1969). Meiosis in mammals. In Comparative Mammalian Cytogenetics (ed. Benirschke, K.), pp. 91–106. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Carter, T. C. & Hamerton, J. L. (1956). Cytogenetics of a mouse translocation. Heredity 10, 284 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Clegg, H. M. (1969). Reciprocal translocations. British Medical Bulletin 25, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, C. E. & Evans, E. P. (1964). A reciprocal translocation in the mouse between the X chromosome and a short autosome. Cytogenetics 3, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Searle, A. G., Evans, E. P. & West, D. J. (1969). Differential transmission of translocations induced in spermatogonia of mice by irradiation. Cytogenetics 8, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, M. C. (1966). Mutant genes and linkages. In Biology of the Laroratory Mouse, 2nd ed. (ed. Green, E. L.), pp. 87–150. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Griffen, A. B. (1960). Mammalian pachytene chromosome mapping and somatic chromosome identification. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 56 (suppl.1), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosambi, D. D. (1944). The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Annals of Eugenics 12, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P. W. (1965). Personal communication. Mouse News Letter 32, 47.Google Scholar
Levan, A., Hsu, T. C. & Stich, H. F. (1962). The idiogram of the mouse. Hereditas 48, 677–687.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. R. & John, B. (1963). Chromosome Marker. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Lyon, M. F., Butler, J. M. & Kemp, R. (1968). The positions of the centromeres in linkage groups II and IX of the mouse. Genetical Research 11, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyon, M. F. & Meredith, R. (1969). Muted, a new mutant affecting coat colour and otoliths of the mouse, and its position in linkage group XIV. Genetical Research 14, 163–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyon, M. F., Phillips, R. J. S. & Searle, A. G. (1964). The overall rates of dominant and recessive lethal and visible mutation induced by spermatogonial X-irradiation of mice. Genetical Research 5, 448–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, B. (1945). Neurospora. I. Preliminary orservations of the chromosome of Neurospora crassa. American Journal of Botany 32, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michie, D. & Wallace, M. E. (1953). Affinity: a new genetic phenomenon in the house mouse. Nature 171, 26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, R. J. S. (1961). Personal communication. Mouse News Letter 24, 34.Google Scholar
Roderick, T. H. (1971). Producing and detecting paracentric chromosome inversions in mice. Mutation Research 11, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, L. B. & Russell, W. L. (1960). Genetic analysis of induced deletions and spontaneous nondisjunction involving chromosome II of the mouse. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 56 (suppl. 1), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, W. L. (1960). The effect of radiation dose rate and fractionation on mutation in mice. In Repair from Genetic Radiation Damage (ed. Sorels, F. H.), pp. 205–217. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Searle, A. G. (1968). The determination of centromere position in the mouse by translocation intercrosses. Heredity 23, 629–630 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Slizynski, B. M. (1949). A preliminary pachytene map of the house mouse. Journal of Genetics 49, 242–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slizynski, B. M. (1952). Pachytene analysis of Snell's T(5:8)a translocation in the mouse. Journal of Genetics 50, 507–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, G. D. (1946). An analysis of translocations in the mouse. Genetics 31, 157–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, M. E. (1961). Affinity: evidence from crossing inbred lines of mice. Heredity 16, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar