Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1993 Jun;134(2):487–496. doi: 10.1093/genetics/134.2.487

The Fertility Effects of Pericentric Inversions in Drosophila Melanogaster

J A Coyne 1, W Meyers 1, A P Crittenden 1, P Sniegowski 1
PMCID: PMC1205492  PMID: 8325485

Abstract

Heterozygotes for pericentric inversions are expected to be semisterile because recombination in the inverted region produces aneuploid gametes. Newly arising pericentric inversions should therefore be quickly eliminated from populations by natural selection. The occasional polymorphism for such inversions and their fixation among closely related species have supported the idea that genetic drift in very small populations can overcome natural selection in the wild. We studied the effect of 7 second-chromosome and 30 third-chromosome pericentric inversions on the fertility of heterokaryotypic Drosophila melanogaster females. Surprisingly, fertility was not significantly reduced in many cases, even when the inversion was quite large. This lack of underdominance is almost certainly due to suppressed recombination in inversion heterozygotes, a phenomenon previously observed in Drosophila. In the large sample of third-chromosome inversions, the degree of underdominance depends far more on the position of breakpoints than on the inversion's length. Analysis of these positions shows that this chromosome has a pair of ``sensitive sites'' near cytological divisions 68 and 92: these sites appear to reduce recombination in a heterozygous inversion whose breakpoints are nearby. There may also be ``sensitive sites'' near divisions 31 and 49 on the second chromosome. Such sites may be important in initiating synapsis. Because many pericentric inversions do not reduce the fertility of heterozyotes, we conclude that the observed fixation or polymorphism of such rearrangements in nature does not imply genetic drift in very small populations.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.1 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ashley T., Moses M. J., Solari A. J. Fine structure and behaviour of a pericentric inversion in the sand rat, Psammomys obesus. J Cell Sci. 1981 Aug;50:105–119. doi: 10.1242/jcs.50.1.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bojko M. Synaptic adjustment of inversion loops in Neurospora crassa. Genetics. 1990 Mar;124(3):593–598. doi: 10.1093/genetics/124.3.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Coyne J. A., Aulard S., Berry A. Lack of underdominance in a naturally occurring pericentric inversion in Drosophila melanogaster and its implications for chromosome evolution. Genetics. 1991 Nov;129(3):791–802. doi: 10.1093/genetics/129.3.791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gabriel-Robez O., Ratomponirina C., Croquette M., Couturier J., Rumpler Y. Synaptonemal complexes in a subfertile man with a pericentric inversion in chromosome 21. Heterosynapsis without previous homosynapsis. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1988;48(2):84–87. doi: 10.1159/000132595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenbaum I. F., Reed M. J. Evidence for heterosynaptic pairing of the inverted segment in pericentric inversion heterozygotes of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1984;38(2):106–111. doi: 10.1159/000132040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hale D. W. Heterosynapsis and suppression of chiasmata within heterozygous pericentric inversions of the Sitka deer mouse. Chromosoma. 1986;94(6):425–432. doi: 10.1007/BF00292751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hawley R. S. Chromosomal sites necessary for normal levels of meiotic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Evidence for and mapping of the sites. Genetics. 1980 Mar;94(3):625–646. doi: 10.1093/genetics/94.3.625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. King M. A dual level model for speciation by multiple pericentric inversions. Heredity (Edinb) 1992 May;68(Pt 5):437–440. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1992.63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lemeunier F., Ashburner M. A. Relationships within the melanogaster species subgroup of the genus Drosophila (Sophophora). II. Phylogenetic relationships between six species based upon polytene chromosome banding sequences. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1976 May 18;193(1112):275–294. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1976.0046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Martin J. Meiosis in inversion heterozygotes in Chironomidae. Can J Genet Cytol. 1967 Mar;9(1):255–268. doi: 10.1139/g67-021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Novitski E, Braver G. An Analysis of Crossing over within a Heterozygous Inversion in Drosophila Melanogaster. Genetics. 1954 Mar;39(2):197–209. doi: 10.1093/genetics/39.2.197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nur U. Synapsis and crossing over within a paracentric inversion in the grasshopper, Camnula pellucida. Chromosoma. 1968;25(2):198–214. doi: 10.1007/BF00327178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Orr-Weaver T. L., Szostak J. W. Fungal recombination. Microbiol Rev. 1985 Mar;49(1):33–58. doi: 10.1128/mr.49.1.33-58.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Roberts P. A. A positive correlation between crossing over within heterozygous pericentric inversions and reduced egg hatch of Drosophila females. Genetics. 1967 May;56(1):179–187. doi: 10.1093/genetics/56.1.179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Roberts P. A. Differences in synaptic affinity of chromosome arms of Drosophila melanogaster revealed by differential sensitivity to translocation heterozygosity. Genetics. 1972 Jul;71(3):401–415. doi: 10.1093/genetics/71.3.401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Roberts P. A. Screening for x-ray-induced crossover suppressors in Drosophila melanogaster: prevalence and effectiveness of translocations. Genetics. 1970 Jul;65(3):429–448. doi: 10.1093/genetics/65.3.429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. STONE W. S. Genetic and chromosomal variability in Drosophila. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1955;20:256-69; discussion, 269-70. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1955.020.01.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. White M. J. Models of speciation. New concepts suggest that the classical sympatric and allopatric models are not the only alternatives. Science. 1968 Mar 8;159(3819):1065–1070. doi: 10.1126/science.159.3819.1065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES