* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Guide to 2nd Drosophila discussion
Medical genetics wikipedia , lookup
Genomic library wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Dominance (genetics) wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Frameshift mutation wikipedia , lookup
Saethre–Chotzen syndrome wikipedia , lookup
No-SCAR (Scarless Cas9 Assisted Recombineering) Genome Editing wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Skewed X-inactivation wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genome editing wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Y chromosome wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
X-inactivation wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Guide to 2nd Drosophila discussion Pat O’Farrell Paper for discussion: Hartl TA, Smith HF, Bosco G. (2008) Chromosome alignment and transvection are antagonized by condensin II. Science 322(5906):1384-7 Although this paper is not heavy on genetic techniques, it will expose you to some interesting aspects of biology with very strong Drosophila genetics connections — polytene chromosomes and transvection. We discussed polytene chromosomes in class and the mysterious interactions that align the many copies of the genome. This analysis, while not solving the mystery, succeeds in disrupting the interactions in a way that suggests connections to fundamental interactions in chromatin in the normal cell cycle and in other aspects of biology. It also uncovers a relationship to an interaction that allows communication between homologous chromosomes via a pairing interaction. This communication between chromosomes (without diffusible intermediate) was discovered and characterized by E.B. Lewis. It was defined by the ability of chromosomal rearrangements to alter the phenotype of a heteroallelic combination, even when the rearrangement breakpoints do not influence the function of the alleles. For decades, the observations stood as an enigma that defied normal views of how genes functioned. It is now commonly thought that close alignment of the homologous chromosomes in interphase allows the “cis” acting regulatory sequences to act in trans on the promoter of the homolog. Thus, mutations in “cis” acting regulatory regions are thought to complemented by an allele with normal “cis” acting sequences but a defective coding sequence. While this interpretation is well supported in some cases, a generalization that all transvection (pairing dependent interactions between homologous alleles) is due to this one phenomenon is not justified at this time. The following abstract gives a synopisis of transvection (see the complete review for and authoritative summary). Duncan IW. (2002) Transvection effects in Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet. 236:521-56 Abstract An unusual feature of the Diptera is that homologous chromosomes are intimately synapsed in somatic cells. At a number of loci in Drosophila, this pairing can significantly influence gene expression. Such influences were first detected within the bithorax complex (BX-C) by E.B. Lewis, who coined the term transvection to describe them. Most cases of transvection involve the action of enhancers in trans. At several loci deletion of the promoter greatly increases this action in trans, suggesting that enhancers are normally tethered in cis by the promoter region. Transvection can also occur by the action of silencers in trans or by the spreading of position effect variegation from rearrangements having heterochromatic breakpoints to paired unrearranged chromosomes. Although not demonstrated, other cases of transvection may involve the production of joint RNAs by trans-splicing. Several cases of transvection require Zeste, a DNA-binding protein that is thought to facilitate homolog interactions by self-aggregation. Genes showing transvection can differ greatly in their response to pairing disruption. In several cases, transvection appears to require intimate synapsis of homologs. However, in at least one case (transvection of the iab-5,6,7 region of the BX-C), transvection is independent of synapsis within and surrounding the interacting gene. The latter example suggests that transvection could well occur in organisms that lack somatic pairing. In support of this, transvection-like phenomena have been described in a number of different organisms, including plants, fungi, and mammals. A couple of background things will help for technical or conceptual context. — Where did the mutations come from? See supplement, which refers to a paper (abs below) that describes a collection of lines with mutagenized chromosomes. This collection was screened to identify the founding mutation and then other alleles where pulled out of the gene knock out collection or other curated stock collections as detailed in the supplement. Note that this collection is unusual mostly in that is kept and screened by many people, whereas fly geneticists usually make a transient collection of mutagenized chromosomes every time they screen – they just throw away the ones they don’t want. Koundakjian EJ, Cowan DM, Hardy RW, Becker AH. (2004) The Zuker collection: a resource for the analysis of autosomal gene function in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2004 May;167(1):203-6. Abstract The majority of genes of multicellular organisms encode proteins with functions that are not required for viability but contribute to important physiological functions such as behavior and reproduction. It is estimated that 75% of the genes of Drosophila melanogaster are nonessential. Here we report on a strategy used to establish a large collection of stocks that is suitable for the recovery of mutations in such genes. From approximately 72,000 F(3) cultures segregating for autosomes heavily treated with ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), approximately 12,000 lines in which the treated second or third chromosome survived in homozygous condition were selected. The dose of EMS induced an estimated rate of 1.2-1.5 x 10(-3) mutations/gene and predicts five to six nonessential gene mutations per chromosome and seven to nine alleles per locus in the samples of 6000 second chromosomes and 6000 third chromosomes. Due to mosaic mutations induced in the initial exposure to the mutagen, many of the lines are segregating or are now fixed for lethal mutations on the mutagenized chromosome. The features of this collection, known as the Zuker collection, make it a valuable resource for forward and reverse genetic screens for mutations affecting a wide array of biological functions. — The biological context of the findings in the discusison paper are likely to be a bit murky to you (or actually anyone at this point), but there are some interesting connections. Here is a bit of background discussing roles of cohesin and condensin in chromatid pairing and chromatid resolution. Chromosome duplication and segregation are among the most fundamental events that must be regulated faithfully to maintain genome integrity in eukaryotic cells. Errors in these processes during mitosis or meiosis increase the probability of genome instability, potentially leading to cancer, developmental disorders, or birth defects. Extensive studies during the past decade have revealed that two structurally related protein complexes, cohesin and condensin, play central roles in controlling a series of events that makes duplicated chromosomes proficient for faithful segregation (Losada and Hirano 2005; Nasmyth and Haering 2005). Cohesin participates in holding newly duplicated chromatids together during S phase, a process known as sister chromatid cohesion (Lee and Orr-Weaver 2001; Onn et al. 2008). Condensin, on the other hand, associates with chromatin to initiate chromosome condensation during the early stage of mitosis (i.e., prophase). At the same time, the bulk of cohesin dissociates from chromosome arms, leading to the formation of metaphase chromosomes in which sister chromatids become microscopically discernible as two rod-shaped structures apposed along their lengths. Although the physiological significance of this process, often referred to as sister chromatid resolution, is not fully understood, one possibility frequently discussed is that the resolution process is a prerequisite for rapid and synchronous separation of sister chromatids in anaphase (Losada et al. 2002). Despite its fundamental importance, we are still largely ignorant of the molecular mechanisms behind this process. (paragraph taken from Shintomi and Hirano, 2009 – for more details see review by the same authors 2010 Chromosoma. 119(5):459-67) Just one note about reading this paper: at least in my opinion the effort to produce simple summaries of the transvection data in Fig 3 fail. The figure is really useful to learn what was scored in terms of phenotype, but I found the diagrams not very helpful and pictures deceptive because they don’t give the range of the phenotype. I found the tables of the data in supplement more clear and I recommend that you look at these (at least tables S1 and S2).