Leicester Research Archive >
College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology >
Genetics, Department of >
Published Articles, Dept. of Genetics >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Does Crossover Interference Count in Saccharomyces cerevisiae?|
|Authors: ||Stahl, Franklin W.|
Foss, Henriette M.
Young, Lisa S.
Borts, Rhona H.
Abdullah, Mohammed F.F.
Copenhaver, Gregory P.
|Issue Date: ||2004|
|Publisher: ||Genetics Society of America|
|Citation: ||Genetics, 2004, 168(1), pp.35-48.|
|Abstract: ||We previously proposed a “counting model” for meiotic crossover interference, in which double-strand
breaks occur independently and a fixed number of noncrossovers occur between neighboring crossovers.
Whereas in some organisms (group I) this simple model alone describes the crossover distribution, in
other organisms (group II) an additional assumption—that some crossovers lack interference—improves
the fit. Other differences exist between the groups: Group II needs double-strand breaks and some repair
functions to achieve synapsis, while repair in group I generally occurs after synapsis is achieved; group II,
but not group I, has recombination proteins Dmc1, Mnd1, and Hop2. Here we report experiments in
msh4 mutants that are designed to test predictions of the revised model in a group II organism. Further,
we interpret these experiments, the above-mentioned differences between group I and II meiosis, and
other data to yield the following proposal: Group II organisms use the repair of leptotene breaks to promote
synapsis by generating double-Holliday-junction intermediates that lock homologs together (pairing
pathway). The possible crossover or noncrossover resolution products of these structures lack interference.
In contrast, for both group I and group II, repair during pachytene (disjunction pathway) is associated
with interference and generates only two resolution types, whose structures suggest that the Holliday
junctions of the repair intermediates are unligated. A crossover arises when such an intermediate is
stabilized by a protein that prevents its default resolution to a noncrossover. The protein-binding pattern
required for interference depends on clustering of sites that have received, or are normally about to
receive, meiotic double-strand breaks.|
|ISSN: ||0016-6731 (Print)|
|Description: ||The full-text of this item is currently not available on the LRA. The original published version can be found on the publisher's website at: http://www.genetics.org/
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Genetics|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.