TABLE 2.
LOH increase in the mec1 null mutant and in response to physical and chemical stresses
| Genotype, lab ID, and growth conditions | LOH quantification on Ch 4 (BFP loss) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean frequency of LOH ± SEM (×10−4)a | Fold change | P valued | |
| WT, CEC3194, YPD, 30°C | 2.6 ± 0.2 | ||
| mec1Δ, CEC3206, YPD, 30°C | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 1b | ≤0.005 |
| mec1ΔΔ, CEC3216, YPD, 30°C | 31.0 ± 1.0 | 12b | ≤0.005 |
| WT, CEC3989 | |||
| YPD, 30°C | 0.8 ± 0.1 | ||
| YPD, 37°C | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.4c | ≤0.05 |
| YPD, 39°C | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.5c | ≤0.01 |
| YPD + 0.01% MMS, 30°C | 19.4 ± 2.6 | 12c | ≤0.005 |
| YPD + 0.02% MMS, 30°C | 45.3 ± 1.8 | 28c | ≤0.005 |
| YPD + 0.03% MMS, 30°C | 59.0 ± 1.8 | 37c | ≤0.005 |
a
Six independent cultures were tested per mec1 mutant and per physical and/or chemical stress condition. Standard errors of the means were determined with GraphPad Prism software.
b
Ratio of the LOH frequency of a given mutant to that of the parental strain.
c
Ratio of the LOH frequency in the presence of the stress to that in the absence of the stress.
d
A Mann-Whitney test was performed to determine if the BFP loss frequency in the different mutants was statistically significantly different from the rate observed in the control strains or under the control conditions.