- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text
- 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 Stahl, F. W.
- Articles by Copenhaver, G. P.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Stahl, F. W.
- Articles by Copenhaver, G. P.
Genetics, Vol. 168, 35-48, September 2004, Copyright © 2004
doi:10.1534/genetics.104.027789
Does Crossover Interference Count in Saccharomyces cerevisiae?
Franklin W. Stahl*,1,
Henriette M. Foss*,
Lisa S. Young*,
Rhona H. Borts
,
M. F. F. Abdullah
and
Gregory P. Copenhaver
* Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1229
Department of Genetics, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
Department of Microbiology, Mara University of Technology, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia
Department of Biology and The Carolina Center for Genome Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
1 Corresponding author: Institute of Molecular Biology, 1370 Franklin Blvd., 1229 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1229.
E-mail: fstahl{at}molbio.uoregon.edu
We previously proposed a "counting model" for meiotic crossover interference, in which double-strand breaks occur independently and a fixed number of noncrossovers occur between neighboring crossovers. Whereas in some organisms (group I) this simple model alone describes the crossover distribution, in other organisms (group II) an additional assumption—that some crossovers lack interference—improves the fit. Other differences exist between the groups: Group II needs double-strand breaks and some repair functions to achieve synapsis, while repair in group I generally occurs after synapsis is achieved; group II, but not group I, has recombination proteins Dmc1, Mnd1, and Hop2. Here we report experiments in msh4 mutants that are designed to test predictions of the revised model in a group II organism. Further, we interpret these experiments, the above-mentioned differences between group I and II meiosis, and other data to yield the following proposal: Group II organisms use the repair of leptotene breaks to promote synapsis by generating double-Holliday-junction intermediates that lock homologs together (pairing pathway). The possible crossover or noncrossover resolution products of these structures lack interference. In contrast, for both group I and group II, repair during pachytene (disjunction pathway) is associated with interference and generates only two resolution types, whose structures suggest that the Holliday junctions of the repair intermediates are unligated. A crossover arises when such an intermediate is stabilized by a protein that prevents its default resolution to a noncrossover. The protein-binding pattern required for interference depends on clustering of sites that have received, or are normally about to receive, meiotic double-strand breaks.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  F. W. Stahl and H. M. Foss But See KITANI (1978) Genetics, March 1, 2008; 178(3): 1141 - 1145. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Getz, S. A. Banse, L. S. Young, A. V. Banse, J. Swanson, G. M. Wang, B. L. Browne, H. M. Foss, and F. W. Stahl Reduced Mismatch Repair of Heteroduplexes Reveals "Non"-interfering Crossing Over in Wild-Type Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genetics, March 1, 2008; 178(3): 1251 - 1269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Falque, R. Mercier, C. Mezard, D. de Vienne, and O. C. Martin Patterns of Recombination and MLH1 Foci Density Along Mouse Chromosomes: Modeling Effects of Interference and Obligate Chiasma Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1453 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. D. McCulloch and M. D. Baker Analysis of one-sided marker segregation patterns resulting from Mammalian gene targeting. Genetics, March 1, 2006; 172(3): 1767 - 1781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Drouaud, C. Camilleri, P.-Y. Bourguignon, A. Canaguier, A. Berard, D. Vezon, S. Giancola, D. Brunel, V. Colot, B. Prum, et al. Variation in crossing-over rates across chromosome 4 of Arabidopsis thaliana reveals the presence of meiotic recombination "hot spots" Genome Res., January 1, 2006; 16(1): 106 - 114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Page and R. S. Hawley The Drosophila Meiotic Mutant mei-352 Is an Allele of klp3A and Reveals a Role for a Kinesin-like Protein in Crossover Distribution Genetics, August 1, 2005; 170(4): 1797 - 1807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Y. Lam, S. R. Horn, S. J. Radford, E. A. Housworth, F. W. Stahl, and G. P. Copenhaver Crossover Interference on Nucleolus Organizing Region-Bearing Chromosomes in Arabidopsis Genetics, June 1, 2005; 170(2): 807 - 812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. L. Peoples-Holst and S. M. Burgess Multiple branches of the meiotic recombination pathway contribute independently to homolog pairing and stable juxtaposition during meiosis in budding yeast Genes & Dev., April 1, 2005; 19(7): 863 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Pineda-Krch and R. J. Redfield Persistence and Loss of Meiotic Recombination Hotspots Genetics, April 1, 2005; 169(4): 2319 - 2333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G.-F. Richard, A. Kerrest, I. Lafontaine, and B. Dujon Comparative Genomics of Hemiascomycete Yeasts: Genes Involved in DNA Replication, Repair, and Recombination Mol. Biol. Evol., April 1, 2005; 22(4): 1011 - 1023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Malkova, J. Swanson, M. German, J. H. McCusker, E. A. Housworth, F. W. Stahl, and J. E. Haber Gene Conversion and Crossing Over Along the 405-kb Left Arm of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Chromosome VII Genetics, September 1, 2004; 168(1): 49 - 63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|