Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:07:31.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of chromosome pairing and breakage in pearl millet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Prasad R. K. Koduru ,
T. G. K. Murthy ,
K. V. Lakshmi  and
M. Krishna Rao
Prasad R. K. Koduru
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Andhra University, Waltair 530 003, India
T. G. K. Murthy
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Andhra University, Waltair 530 003, India
K. V. Lakshmi
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Andhra University, Waltair 530 003, India
M. Krishna Rao
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Andhra University, Waltair 530 003, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

The relationship between chromosome pairing and chromosome fragmentation has been studied in a gene controlled mutant of pearl millet (2n = 14). Premeiotic mitosis, premeiotic cell development and early prophase I are normal without any fragments, which first appear at pachytene. The extent of fragmentation varies from zero to very extreme with two discrete classes of plants, namely those with partial fragmentation and those with multiple fragmentation. A quantitative analysis of bivalent distribution and the distribution of AI bridges in desynaptic and fragmented cells show all of them to be nonrandom events. We suggest that in cells showing partial fragmentation the bridges and fragments result from U-type exchanges at pachytene. The reduced frequency of AII bridges indicates relatively low sister chromatid reunion at pachytene. In multiple fragmented plants numerous minute fragments were seen from pachytene. Despite these anomalies most PMCs complete meiosis but subsequently abort at the pollen grain stage. The mutant gene also causes disturbances in the sequence of meiotic development in the ear and in the synchronous development of PMCs within an anther. It has no effect on the tapetum or on the physiological development of the anther.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 165 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

References

REFERENCES

Baker, S. B., Carpenter, A. T. C., Esposito, M. S., Esposito, R. E. & Sandler, L. (1976). The genetic control of meiosis. Annual Review of Genetics 10, 53–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraldez, R. & Lacadena, J. R. (1978). Relationship between frequency, localisation and errors in chiasma formation in desynaptic rye. Chromosoma (Berl.) 66, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, W. & Kaul, M. L. H. (1974). The genetic control of microsporogenesis in higher plants. Nucleus 17, 133–166.Google Scholar
Gowen, M. S. & Gowen, J. W. (1922). Complete linkage in Drosophila melanogastor. American Naturalist 56, 286–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. H. (1968). Meiotic errors in rye related to chiasma formation. Mutation Research 5, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, G. H. (1969). Further correlation between chiasma and U-type exchanges in rye meiosis. Chromosoma (Berl.) 26, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. H. & Brumpton, R. J. (1971). Sister and non-sister chromatid U-type exchanges in rye meiosis. Chromosoma (Berl.) 33, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, H. D. & Baquar, S. R. (1972). Genetically controlled chromosome breakage and reunions in the meiosis. Chromosoma (Berl.) 37, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koduru, P. R. K. & Rao, M. K. (1981). Cytogenetics of synaptic mutants in higher plants. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 59, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koduru, P. R. K., Murthy, T. G. K., Lakshmi, K. V. & Krishna Rao, M. (1981). Chromosome behaviour in the trisomic types of pearl millet, Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke, gramineae. Beiträge Biologie der Pflanzen 55, 289–297.Google Scholar
Krishna Rao, M. & Koduru, P. R. K. (1978). Asynapsis and spontaneous centromeric breakage in an inbred line of Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences B 87, 29–35.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. R. & John, B. (1966). The meiotic consequence of spontaneous chromosome breakage. Chromosoma (Berl.) 18, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, P. H. M., Bootyma, D. & Bridges, B. A. (1977). DNA repair mechanisms in mammalian cells. Abstracts of papers presented at the Second International Workshop, May 2–6, 1976, Noordwijkerhout (the Netherlands). Summary - Mutation Research 46, 99–104.Google Scholar
McClintock, B. (1931). Cytological observations of deficiencies involving known genes, translocations and inversions in Zea mays. University of Missouri, College Agricultural Experimental Station Research Bulletin 163, 1–30.Google Scholar
Rees, H. & Thompson, J. B. (1955). Localisation of chromosome breakage at meiosis. Heredity 9, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. & Hotta, Y. (1978). Regulatory mechanisms in meiotic crossing over. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 29, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar