help button home button Genetics JPET
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Originally published as Genetics Published Articles Ahead of Print on May 15, 2006.

Genetics, Vol. 173, 2033-2038, August 2006, Copyright © 2006
doi:10.1534/genetics.106.059436

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
genetics.106.059436v1
173/4/2033    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson-Schlitz, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Engels, W. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnson-Schlitz, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Engels, W. R.

The Effect of Gap Length on Double-Strand Break Repair in Drosophila

Dena M. Johnson-Schlitz and William R. Engels1

Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

1 Corresponding author: Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, 425G Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706.
E-mail: wrengels{at}facstaff.wisc.edu

When a double-strand break has a gap between the broken ends, the missing information can be restored through synthesis from a homologous template. Here we address the question of how long such a gap can be before this process fails. We measured the frequency of homologous repair in the Drosophila germ line following the creation of gaps of specific sizes ranging from 3.8 to 210 kb. We found that gaps of ≤11 kb can be repaired with approximately the same efficiency as breaks with no gap at all. However, a gap of 44 kb was repaired only rarely, and one of 210 kb was not repaired at a measurable frequency. We conclude that DNA gap repair is a length-limited process, but that this limitation is critical only for gaps >>11 kb.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
M. McVey, S. L. Andersen, Y. Broze, and J. Sekelsky
Multiple Functions of Drosophila BLM Helicase in Maintenance of Genome Stability
Genetics, August 1, 2007; 176(4): 1979 - 1992.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
H. Takeuchi, O. Georgiev, M. Fetchko, M. Kappeler, W. Schaffner, and D. Egli
In Vivo Construction of Transgenes in Drosophila
Genetics, April 1, 2007; 175(4): 2019 - 2028.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
D. Johnson-Schlitz and W. R. Engels
Template disruptions and failure of double Holliday junction dissolution during double-strand break repair in Drosophila BLM mutants
PNAS, November 7, 2006; 103(45): 16840 - 16845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Genetics Society of America.