- 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 Heinemann, J. A.
- Articles by Williams, M.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Heinemann, J. A.
- Articles by Williams, M.
Genetics, Vol 143, 1425-1435, Copyright © 1996
INVESTIGATIONS |
Doing the Conjugative Two-Step: Evidence of Recipient Autonomy in Retrotransfer
J. A. Heinemann, H. E. Scott and M. Williams
Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand and Laboratory of Microbial Structure and Function, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, Montana 59840
Bidirectional exchange of genetic information, called retrotransfer, during bouts of bacterial conjugation has drawn the interest of those concerned with the risk of releasing genetically engineered microbes, the fluidity of genes among species, and the mechanism of DNA transport between cells. The phenomenon has generated two models in explanation, both of which yield highly testable predictions. The first model, called the one-step, predicts that the flow of genes from recipient bacteria to donor bacteria is mechanistically distinct from, but dependent on, conjugation between donors and recipients. The second model, called the two-step, predicts that the same genetic requirements and mechanistic constraints apply to the process of gene flow from recipients to donors as for gene flow from donors to recipients. The requirement for expression of at least 10 plasmid-encoded genes in recipients, sensitivity of the reverse flow (recipient to donor) to restriction of DNA transferring from the donor, and the requirement of an additional 30-90 min for DNA to flow from recipients back to donors are predictions of the two-step model and directly refute the one-step model. Retrotransfer of genes to donors during conjugation remains genetically and physically indistinguishable from two successive rounds of conjugation between neighbors.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. M. Bennett, C. T. Livesey, D. Nathwani, D. S. Reeves, J. R. Saunders, and R. Wise An assessment of the risks associated with the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2004; 53(3): 418 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. C. Ferguson, J. A. Heinemann, and M. A. Kennedy Gene Transfer between Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium inside Epithelial Cells J. Bacteriol., April 15, 2002; 184(8): 2235 - 2242. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. F. Cooper and J. A. Heinemann Postsegregational killing does not increase plasmid stability but acts to mediate the exclusion of competing plasmids PNAS, October 26, 2000; (2000) 220077897. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Milkman, E. A. Raleigh, M. McKane, D. Cryderman, P. Bilodeau, and K. McWeeny Molecular Evolution of the Escherichia coli Chromosome. V. Recombination Patterns Among Strains of Diverse Origin Genetics, October 1, 1999; 153(2): 539 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. F. Cooper and J. A. Heinemann Postsegregational killing does not increase plasmid stability but acts to mediate the exclusion of competing plasmids PNAS, November 7, 2000; 97(23): 12643 - 12648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|