The DOI matches its Crossref record.
GENETIC ANALYSIS OF SEX CHROMOSOMAL MEIOTIC MUTANTS IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER
Abstract
A total of 209 ethyl methanesulfonate-treated X chromosomes were screened for meiotic mutants that either (1) increased sex or fourth chromosome nondisjunction at either meiotic division in males; (2) allowed recombination in such males; (3) increased nondisjunction of the X chromosome at either meiotic division in females; or (4) caused such females, when mated to males heterozygous for Segregation-Distorter (SD) and a sensitive homolog to alter the strength of meiotic drive in males.—Twenty male-specific meiotic mutants were found. Though the rates of nondisjunction differed, all twenty mutants were qualitatively similar in that (1) they alter the disjunction of the X chromosome from the Y chromosome; (2) among the recovered sex-chromosome exceptional progeny, there is a large excess of those derived from nullo-XY as compared to XY gametes; (3) there is a negative correlation between the frequency of sex-chromosome exceptional progeny and the frequency of males among the regular progeny. In their effects on meiosis these mutants are similar to In(1)sc4Lsc8R, which is deleted for the basal heterochromatin. These mutants, however, have normal phenotypes and viabilities when examined as X/0 males, and furthermore, a mapping of two of the mutants places them in the euchromatin of the X chromosome. It is suggested that these mutants are in genes whose products are involved in insuring the proper functioning of the basal pairing sites which are deleted in In(1)sc4Lsc8R, and in addition that there is a close connection, perhaps causal, between the disruption of normal X-Y pairing (and, therefore, disjunction) and the occurrence of meiotic drive in the male.—Eleven mutants were found which increased nondisjunction in females. These mutants were characterized as to (1) the division at which they acted; (2) their effect on recombination; (3) their dominance; (4) their effects on disjunction of all four chromosome pairs. Five female mutants caused a nonuniform decrease in recombination, being most pronounced in distal regions, and an increase in first division nondisjunction of all chromosome pairs. Their behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that these mutants are defective in a process which is a precondition for exchange. Two female mutants were allelic and caused a uniform reduction in recombination for all intervals (though to different extents for the two alleles) and an increase in first-division nondisjunction of all chromosomes. Limited recombination data suggest that these mutants do not alter coincidence, and thus, following the arguments of Sandler et al. (1968), are defective in exchange rather than a precondiiton for exchange. A single female mutant behaves in a manner that is consistent with it being a defect in a gene whose functioning is essential for distributive pairing. Three of the female meiotic mutants cause abnormal chromosome behavior at a number of times in meiosis. Thus, nondisjunction at both meiotic divisions is increased, recombinant chromosomes nondisjoin, and there is a polarized alteration in recombination.—The striking differences between the types of control of meiosis in the two sexes is discussed and attention is drawn to the possible similarities between (1) the disjunction functions of exchange and the process specified by the chromosome-specific male mutants; and (2) the prevention of functional aneuploid gamete formation by distributive disjunction and meiotic drive.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
ATR Homolog Mec1 Promotes Fork Progression, Thus Averting Breaks in Replication Slow Zones
Cha, R. S., & Kleckner, N. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071398 · Cited by 434
c(3)G encodes a Drosophila synaptonemal complex protein
Page, S. L., & Hawley, R. S. (2001) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.935001 · Cited by 305
Hari, K. L., Santerre, A., Sekelsky, J. J., McKim, K. S., Boyd, J. B., & Scott Hawley, R. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90478-6 · Cited by 277
Atm deficiency results in severe meiotic disruption as early as leptonema of prophase I
Barlow, C., Liyanage, M., Moens, P. B., Tarsounas, M., Nagashima, K., Brown, K., Rottinghaus, S., Jackson, S. P., Tagle, D., Ried, T., et al. (1998) · Development · doi:10.1242/dev.125.20.4007 · Cited by 263
THE ROLE OF RADIATION (rad) GENES IN MEIOTIC RECOMBINATION IN YEAST
Game, J. C., Zamb, T. J., Braun, R. J., Resnick, M., & Roth, R. M. (1980) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/94.1.51 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker, B. S., & Carpenter, A. T. C.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1972-06-01
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-286
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2140360876
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: GENETIC ANALYSIS OF SEX CHROMOSOMAL MEIOTIC MUTANTS IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/71.2.255
- The paper
- Baker, B. S., & Carpenter, A. T. C. (1972). GENETIC ANALYSIS OF SEX CHROMOSOMAL MEIOTIC MUTANTS IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/71.2.255
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.