Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:07:36.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance to amino acid analogues in Coprinus: Dominance modifier genes and dominance reversal in dikaryons and diploids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

S. Senathirajah  and
D. Lewis
S. Senathirajah
Affiliation:
Department of Botany & Microbiology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
D. Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Botany & Microbiology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT

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.

Wild-type strains of Coprinus lagopus are sensitive to para-fluoro-phenylalanine and ethionine. Resistant mutants to these two analogues are known but all these mutants are recessive in a heterozygous dikaryon except for F7 (pfpr-3) which is semi-dominant. Resistance to two other analogues, however – canavanine sulphate and azetidine-2-carboxylic acid – were found to be wild-type features. One strain of C. lagopus sensitive to canavanine was identified. Selection for canavanine resistance in monokaryons always yielded only dominant resistance, while selection for para-fluorophenylalanine resistance in monokaryons gave only recessive resistance. Canavanine-resistant mutants were due to a single gene mutation which, like the wild-type resistance, were dominant in heterozygous dikaryons. The wild-type resistance was also dominant in a diploid but the mutant resistance was recessive. Selection for resistance to para-fluorophenylalanine in auxotrophically balanced dikaryons resulted in the identification of two new loci (pfpr-10 and pfpr-ll), and two specific dominance modifiers (mod+-10 and mod+-ll). In the absence of the specific modifier, pfpr-10 and pfpr-ll were recessive while, in the presence of even one dose of the specific modifier, resistance was dominant in the dikaryon. The pfpr-10 and pfpr-ll even in the presence of two doses of modifier were fully recessive in the diploid. The action of the modifier genes and the reversal of dominance in dikaryon and diploid is discussed in terms of negative complementation in an oligomeric product of the pfpr gene and localized translation of the relevant mRNA in the cell with the modifier acting as a reinforcer of localization.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 95 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Ayling, P. D. (1969). Methionine suppressor in Aspergillus nidulans: their genetics and behaviour in heterokaryons and diploids. Genetical Research 14, 275–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, C. E. & Lewis, D. (1974). Impaired regulation of aromatic amino acid synthesis in a mutant resistant to p-fluorophenylalanine. Journal of General Microbiology 82, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casselton, L. A. (1965). The production and behaviour of diploids of Coprinus lagopus. Genetical Research 6, 190–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casselton, L. A. & Lewis, D. (1966). Compatibility and stability of diploids in Coprinus lagopus. Genetical Research 8, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casselton, L. A. & Lewis, D. (1967). Dilution of gene products in the cytoplasm of heterokaryons in Coprinus lagopus. Genetical Research 8, 62–71.Google Scholar
Clarke, C. A. & Sheppard, P. M. (1960). The evolution of mimicry in the butterfly Papilio dardanus. Heredity 14, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, P. R. & Roberts, C. F. (1969). Complementation in dikaryons and diploids of Coprinus lagopus. Genetics 62, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunnill, P. M. & Fowden, L. (1965). Azetidine-2-carboxylic acid breakdown by soil microorganisms. Phytochemistry 4, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englesberg, E., Sheppard, D., Squires, C. & Meronk, J. R. (1969). An analysis of ‘Revertants’ of a deletion mutant in the C gene of the L-arabinose gene complex in Escherichia coli B/r: Isolation of initiator constitutive mutants (Ic). Journal of Molecular Biology 43, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincham, J. R. S. (1966). Genetic Complementation. New York: W. A. Benjamin Inc.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1931). The evolution of dominance. Biological Reviews 6, 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowden, L., Lewis, D. & Tristram, H. (1967). Toxic amino acids: their action as anti-metabolites. Advances in Enzymology 29, 89–163.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R. (1938). Physiological Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1930). A note on Fisher's theory of the origin of dominance, and on a correlation between dominance and linkage. American Naturalist 64, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, F. & Monod, J. (1961). On the regulation of gene activity. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 26, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1961). Genetical analysis of methionine suppressors in Coprinus. Genetical Research 2, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. & North, J. C. (1974). Linkage maps of Coprinus lagopus. Handbook of Microbiology, vol. iv. Cleveland: CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. M., Buchanan, C. E. & Markovitz, A. (1970). Derepression of GDP-D-mannose and UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylases by a regulator gene mutation; episomal dominance in partial diploids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 65, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luig, N. H. (1962). Recessive suppressors in Aspergillus nidulans closely linked to an auxotrophic mutant which they suppress. Genetical Research 3, 331–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller Hill, B., Craps, L. & Gilbert, W. (1968). Mutants that make more lac repressor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 59, 1259–1264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, P. J. & Fowden, L. (1963). Different specificities of proline activating enzymes from some plant species. Nature 200, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1952). Genetical analysis of cell organization. Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology 8, 218–229.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1963). Microbial genetics: retrospect and prospect. The Leuwenhoek Lecture. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 158, 1–23.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. F. (1964). Complementation in balanced heterokaryons and heterozygous diploids of Aspergillus nidulans. Genetical Research 5, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, H. (1972). The Mechanism of Protein Synthesis and Its Regulation (ed. Bosch, L.). North-Holland Research Monographs. Frontiers of Biology, vol. 27.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, F. K. & Gundelach, E. (1969). Intragenic complementation, hybrid enzyme formation and dominance in diploid cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Molecular and General Genetics 103, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed