Cited by 20RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsRNA Research and SplicingNuclear Structure and Function

Oogenesis in the suppressor2of Hairy‐wing mutant of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Nucleolar morphology and in vitro studies of RNA protein synthesis

Klug, William S., King, Robert C., Wattiaux, Jean M.·1970·Journal of Experimental Zoology

Abstract

Cytological studies of ovaries from Drosophila melanogaster homozygous for the third chromosomal, female sterile gene, suppressor2 of Hairy‐wing (su2‐Hw), demonstrate that the nurse cell components of the egg chambers are primarily affected. Both chromosomes and nucleoli show qualitative and quantitative differencies from wild type. The in vitro culturing of mutant and wild type ovaries in the presence of labeled RNA and protein precursors were examined using liquid scintillation counting and autoradiography. The results of the scintillation experiments showed the mutant ovary to be nearly equivalent to wild type in the synthesis of RNA, but only half as active in protein synthesis. The autoradiographic analysis revealed that during very short incubation periods, the mutant ovary was more active than wild type in the production of RNA but that the mutant RNA was unstable. The lowered protein synthesis by mutant ovaries was also apparent using autoradiography. Morphometric measurements of mutant and wild type nurse nucleoli indicate a severe reduction in su2‐Hw compared to wild type. These findings suggest that the instability of mutant RNA may be due to some deficiency of the ribosomes produced in the absence of the su2‐Hw+ allele. On the other hand, the autoradiographic studies using H3‐uridine revealed the presence of an extranuclear label in the mutant nucleus not apparent in wild type. The possibility exists, therefore, that the unstable mutant RNA is of extranucleolar or…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jez.1401740203

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klug, W. S., King, R. C., & Wattiaux, J. M.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Zoology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1970-06
Volume
174
Issue
2
Pages
125-140
ISSN
  • 0022-104X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-010X
OpenAlex
W2095049226
Cited by
20
References
1
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Zoology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
Keywords
Drosophila melanogaster, oogenesis, nucleolar morphology, nurse cells, egg chamber, female sterility, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis, ribosome, translation fidelity
MeSH terms
Autoradiography, Cell Nucleolus, Chromosomes, Dactinomycin, Drosophila, Female, Heterozygote, Homozygote, Leucine, Molecular Biology, Mutation, Ovary, Ovum, Radiometry, Ribonucleases, Ribosomes, RNA, Suppression, Genetic, Protein Biosynthesis, Tritium, Trypsin, Uridine, Culture Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review