TABLE 3.
Crossover formation in the different genetic backgroundsa
Strain | Total no. of GCs | Crossovers
|
SE | |
---|---|---|---|---|
No. | % | |||
WT (Th805) | 104 | 13 | 12.5 | 3.2 |
rhp51Δ | 38 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
rhp57Δ | 51 | 15 | 29.4 | 6.4 |
swi5Δ | 158 | 6 | 3.8 | 1.5 |
rhp57Δ swi5Δ | 32 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
eme1Δ | 70 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
eme1Δ rhp57Δ | 44 | 2 | 4.5 | 3.1 |
eme1Δ swi5Δ | 88 | 3 | 3.4 | 1.9 |
rqh1Δ | 79 | 32 | 40.5 | 5.5 |
rqh1Δ rhp51Δ | 16 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
rqh1Δ rhp57Δ | 30 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
rqh1Δ swi5Δ | 113 | 37 | 32.7 | 4.4 |
swi5Δ eme1Δ rqh1Δ | 92 | 33 | 35.9 | 5.0 |
rqh1 K547I | 68 | 25 | 36.8 | 5.8 |
rqh1 K547I rhp57Δ | 114 | 6 | 5.3 | 2.1 |
top3-15 | 71 | 17 | 23.9 | 5.1 |
eme1Δ top3-15 | 110 | 17 | 15.5 | 3.4 |
PFGE was used to determine whether colonies that had repaired the DSB by GC had experienced a crossover. These data represent the results of a minimum of three independent experiments. The standard error for each strain was calculated assuming crossover percentage as a binomial variable. For comparisons discussed in the text a Pearson χ2 test was performed.