Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T18:18:27.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distortion of Mendelian recovery ratio for a mouse HSR is caused by maternal and zygotic effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Dieter Weichenhan ,
Walther Traut ,
Bärbel Kunze  and
Heinz Winking
Dieter Weichenhan
Affiliation:
Institut für Biologie, Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany
Walther Traut
Affiliation:
Institut für Biologie, Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany
Bärbel Kunze
Affiliation:
Institut für Biologie, Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany
Heinz Winking*
Affiliation:
Institut für Biologie, Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Telephone: +49 451 5004117. Fax: +49 451 5004034.

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.

An HSR in chromosome 1 which is found in many feral populations of Mus musculus domesticus was shown in previous studies to consist of a high-copy long-range repeat cluster. One such cluster, MUT, showed distorted transmission ratios when introduced by female parents. MUT/ + offspring were preferentially recovered at the expense of + / + embryos in the progeny of ♀ MUT/+ x♂ +/+ but were found at the expected 1:1 ratio in reciprocal crosses. Preferential recovery of maternal MUT was due to lethality of postimplantation + /+ embryos. There was no distortion of the recovery ratio in MUT/+ x MUT/MUT progeny: maternal MUT and + clusters were present among live implants at a 1:1 ratio. Maternal and zygotic effects therefore contribute to the phenomenon. The mechanism of their interaction is unknown.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 125 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

Agulnik, S. I., Agulnik, A. I. & Ruvinsky, A. O., (1990). Meiotic drive in female mice heterozygous for the HSR inserts on chromosome 1. Genetical Research 55, 97–100.Google Scholar
Agulnik, S. I., Sabantsev, I. D., & Ruvinsky, A. O., (1993). Effect of sperm genotype on chromatid segregation in female mice heterozygous for aberrant chromosome 1. Genetical Research 61, 97–100.Google Scholar
Beechey, C. V., & Cattanach, B. M., (1995). Genetic imprinting map. Mouse Genome 93, 89–92.Google Scholar
Cattanach, G. M., & Beechey, C. V., (1989). Chromosome imprinting phenomena in mice and indications in man. In Chromosomes Today, Vol. 10 (ed. Fredga, K., Kihlman, B. A. & Bennett, M. D.), Proceedings of the 10th International Chromosome Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 135–148. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Gropp, A., & Winking, H., (1981). Robertsonian translocations: cytology, meiosis, segregation patterns and biological consequences of heterozygosity. In Biology of the House Mouse (ed. Berry, R. J.), Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 47, pp. 141–181. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kunze, B., Weichenhan, D., Virks, P., Traut, W., & Winking, H., (1996). Copy number of a clustered long-range repeat determines C-band staining. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 73, 86–91.Google Scholar
Lyon, M. F., (1991). The genetic basis of transmission-ratio distortion and male sterility due to the l complex. American Naturalist 137, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyttle, T. W., (1993). Cheaters sometimes prosper: distortion of Mendelian segregation by meiotic drive. Trends in Genetics 9, 205–210.Google Scholar
Purmann, L., Plass, C., Griineberg, M., Winking, H., & Traut, W., (1992). A long-range repeat cluster in chromosome 1 of the house mouse, Mus musculus, and its relation to a germline homogeneously staining region. Genomics 12, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renard, J.-P., Baldacci, P., Richoux-Duranthon, V., Pournin, S., & Babinet, C., (1994). A maternal factor affecting mouse blastocyst formation. Development 120, 797–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruvinsky, A., (1995). Meiotic drive in female mice: an essay. Mammalian Genome 6, 315–320.Google Scholar
Silver, L. M., (1993). The peculiar journey of a selfish chromosome: mouse t haplotypes and meiotic drive. Trends in Genetics 9, 250–254.Google Scholar
Solter, D., (1988). Differential imprinting and expression of maternal and paternal genomes. Annual Review of Genetics 22, 127–146.Google Scholar
Johnston, D. St, & Niisslein-Volhard, C., (1992). The origin of pattern and polarity in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 68, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, A. T., (1972). A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Experimental Cell Research 75, 304–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traut, W., Seldin, M. F., & Winking, H., (1992). Genetic mapping and assignment of a long-range repeat cluster to band D of chromosome 1 in Mus musculus and Mus spretus. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 60, 128–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traut, W., Winking, H., & Adolph, S., (1984). An extra segment in chromosome 1 of wild Mus musculus: a C-band positive homogeneously staining region. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 38, 290–297.Google Scholar
Weichenhan, D., Kunze, B., Plass, C, Hellwig, T., Winking, H., & Traut, W., (1995). A transcript family from a longrange repeat cluster of the house mouse. Genome 38, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winking, H., Weith, A., Boldyreff, B., Moriwaki, K., Fredga, K., & Traut, W., (1991). Polymorphic HSRs in chromosome 1 of the two semispecies Mus musculus musculus and M. m. domesticus have a common origin in an ancestral population. Chromosoma 100, 147–151.Google Scholar