- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Lamb, B. C.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Lamb, B. C.
GENE CONVERSION DISPARITY: FACTORS INFLUENCING ITS DIRECTION AND EXTENT, WITH TESTS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND PREDICTIONS IN ITS EVOLUTIONARY EFFECTS
Bernard C. Lamb 1
1 Department of Pure and Applied Biology, Imperial College,
London SW7 2BB, England
The evolutionarily important characteristics of gene conversion disparity extent and direction are surveyed in fungi. Temperature and background genotype can have small or large effects, sometimes even changing the direction of disparity. Disparity results from Sordaria and Ascobolus were very similar, with between-strain, between-data set and between-locus differences being larger than those between species or genera. In general, different loci in an organism show similar disparity properties when comparable types of mutation are considered, but may not do so in pooled results containing different proportions of different mutation types. Frameshifts typically have strong disparities, usually with negative signs for single base additions and positive signs for single base deletions. Base substitutions tend to have moderate disparities, favoring wild type more often than mutant in most data sets. Large deletions usually have significant disparity, either positive or negative. For comparable molecular types of mutation, spontaneous and induced mutations had roughly similar disparity properties.Experimental tests and theoretical considerations generally failed to support a number of assumptions and predictions made in previous treatments of gene conversion in evolution. In general, a mutation's conversion properties depend much more on its molecular type in relation to wild type than on any evolved conversion advantages or disadvantages.
Submitted on March 21, 1986Accepted on June 28, 1986
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Webber and C. P. Ponting Hotspots of mutation and breakage in dog and human chromosomes Genome Res., December 1, 2005; 15(12): 1787 - 1797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A. Filatov A Gradient of Silent Substitution Rate in the Human Pseudoautosomal Region Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2004; 21(2): 410 - 417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Saleem, B. C. Lamb, and E. Nevo Inherited Differences in Crossing Over and Gene Conversion Frequencies Between Wild Strains of Sordaria fimicola From ""Evolution Canyon"" Genetics, December 1, 2001; 159(4): 1573 - 1593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


