Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1972 Jun;71(2):255–286. doi: 10.1093/genetics/71.2.255

Genetic Analysis of Sex Chromosomal Meiotic Mutants in DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER

Bruce S Baker 1, Adelaide T C Carpenter 1
PMCID: PMC1212782  PMID: 4625747

Abstract

A total of 209 ethyl methanesulfonate-treated X chromosomes were screened for meiotic mutants that either (1) increased sex or fourth chromosome nondisjunction at either meiotic division in males; (2) allowed recombination in such males; (3) increased nondisjunction of the X chromosome at either meiotic division in females; or (4) caused such females, when mated to males heterozygous for Segregation-Distorter (SD) and a sensitive homolog to alter the strength of meiotic drive in males.—Twenty male-specific meiotic mutants were found. Though the rates of nondisjunction differed, all twenty mutants were qualitatively similar in that (1) they alter the disjunction of the X chromosome from the Y chromosome; (2) among the recovered sex-chromosome exceptional progeny, there is a large excess of those derived from nullo-XY as compared to XY gametes; (3) there is a negative correlation between the frequency of sex-chromosome exceptional progeny and the frequency of males among the regular progeny. In their effects on meiosis these mutants are similar to In(1)sc4Lsc8R, which is deleted for the basal heterochromatin. These mutants, however, have normal phenotypes and viabilities when examined as X/0 males, and furthermore, a mapping of two of the mutants places them in the euchromatin of the X chromosome. It is suggested that these mutants are in genes whose products are involved in insuring the proper functioning of the basal pairing sites which are deleted in In(1)sc4Lsc8R, and in addition that there is a close connection, perhaps causal, between the disruption of normal X-Y pairing (and, therefore, disjunction) and the occurrence of meiotic drive in the male.—Eleven mutants were found which increased nondisjunction in females. These mutants were characterized as to (1) the division at which they acted; (2) their effect on recombination; (3) their dominance; (4) their effects on disjunction of all four chromosome pairs. Five female mutants caused a nonuniform decrease in recombination, being most pronounced in distal regions, and an increase in first division nondisjunction of all chromosome pairs. Their behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that these mutants are defective in a process which is a precondition for exchange. Two female mutants were allelic and caused a uniform reduction in recombination for all intervals (though to different extents for the two alleles) and an increase in first-division nondisjunction of all chromosomes. Limited recombination data suggest that these mutants do not alter coincidence, and thus, following the arguments of Sandler et al. (1968), are defective in exchange rather than a precondiiton for exchange. A single female mutant behaves in a manner that is consistent with it being a defect in a gene whose functioning is essential for distributive pairing. Three of the female meiotic mutants cause abnormal chromosome behavior at a number of times in meiosis. Thus, nondisjunction at both meiotic divisions is increased, recombinant chromosomes nondisjoin, and there is a polarized alteration in recombination.—The striking differences between the types of control of meiosis in the two sexes is discussed and attention is drawn to the possible similarities between (1) the disjunction functions of exchange and the process specified by the chromosome-specific male mutants; and (2) the prevention of functional aneuploid gamete formation by distributive disjunction and meiotic drive.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.2 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baker W. K. Evidence for position-effect suppression of the ribosomal RNA cistrons in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Oct;68(10):2472–2476. doi: 10.1073/pnas.68.10.2472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NOVITSKI E., HANKS G. D. Analysis of irradiated Drosophila populations for meiotic drive. Nature. 1961 Jun 10;190:989–990. doi: 10.1038/190989a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Robbins L. G. Nonexchange alignment: a meiotic process revealed by a synthetic meiotic mutant of Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Gen Genet. 1971;110(2):144–166. doi: 10.1007/BF00332645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Sandler L, Braver G. The Meiotic Loss of Unpaired Chromosomes in Drosophila Melanogaster. Genetics. 1954 May;39(3):365–377. doi: 10.1093/genetics/39.3.365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Sandler L, Hiraizumi Y, Sandler I. Meiotic Drive in Natural Populations of Drosophila Melanogaster. I. the Cytogenetic Basis of Segregation-Distortion. Genetics. 1959 Mar;44(2):233–250. doi: 10.1093/genetics/44.2.233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES