Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dosage-dependent modifiers of position effect variegation in Drosophila and a mass action model that explains their effect.

Open access
Locke, J, Kotarski, M A, Tartof, K D·1988·Genetics

Abstract

Twelve dominant enhancers of position effect variegation, representing four loci on the second and third chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster, have been induced by P-element mutagenesis. Instead of simple transposon insertions, seven of these mutations are cytologically visible duplications and three are deficiencies. The duplications define two distinct regions, each coinciding with a locus that also behaves as a dominant haplo-dependent suppressor of variegation. Conversely, two of the deficiencies overlap with a region that contains a haplo-dependent enhancer of variegation while duplications of this same region act to suppress variegation. The third deficiency defines another haplo-dependent enhancer. These data indicate that loci capable of modifying variegation do so in an antipodal fashion through changes in the wild-type gene copy number and may be divided into two reciprocally acting classes. Class I modifiers enhance variegation when duplicated or suppress variegation when deficient. Class II modifiers enhance when deficient but suppress when duplicated. From our data, and those of others, we propose that in Drosophila there are about 20 to 30 dominant loci that modify variegation. Most appear to be of the class I type whereas only two class II modifiers have been identified so far. From these observations we put forth a model, based on the law of mass action, for understanding how such suppressor-enhancer loci function. We propose that each class I modifier codes for a structural protein component of heterochromatin and their effects on variegation are a consequence of their dosage dependent influence on the extent of the assembly of heterochromatin at the chromosomal site of the position effect. It is further proposed that class II modifiers may inhibit the class I products directly, bind to hypothetical termination sites that define heterochromatin boundaries or promote euchromatin formation. Consistent with our mass action model we find that combining two enhancers together produce additive and not epistatic effects. Also, since different enhancers have different relative strengths on different variegating mutants, we suggest that heterochromatic domains are constructed by a combinatorial association of proteins. The mass action model proposed here is of general significance for any assembly driven reaction and has implications for understanding a wide variety of biological phenomena.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/120.1.181

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Locke, J., Kotarski, M. A., & Tartof, K. D.
Venue
Genetics
Published
1988-09-01
Volume
120
Issue
1
Pages
181-198
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2240376651
Cited by
314
References
1
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dosage-dependent modifiers of position effect variegation in Drosophila and a mass action model that explains their effect. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/120.1.181
The paper
Locke, J., Kotarski, M. A., & Tartof, K. D. (1988). Dosage-dependent modifiers of position effect variegation in Drosophila and a mass action model that explains their effect. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/120.1.181

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.