Transvection at the vestigial locus of Drosophila melanogaster.

Coulthard AB ¹,

Nolan N ,

Bell JB ,

Hilliker AJ

Affiliations

1. Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada.
Authors
Coulthard AB¹
(1 author)

Genetics, 08 Jun 2005, 170(4):1711-1721
https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.041400 PMID: 15944352 PMCID: PMC1449749

Free full text in Europe PMC

Abstract

Transvection is a phenomenon wherein gene expression is effected by the interaction of alleles in trans and often results in partial complementation between mutant alleles. Transvection is dependent upon somatic pairing between homologous chromosome regions and is a form of interallelic complementation that does not occur at the polypeptide level. In this study we demonstrated that transvection could occur at the vestigial (vg) locus by revealing that partial complementation between two vg mutant alleles could be disrupted by changing the genomic location of the alleles through chromosome rearrangement. If chromosome rearrangements affect transvection by disrupting somatic pairing, then combining chromosome rearrangements that restore somatic pairing should restore transvection. We were able to restore partial complementation in numerous rearrangement trans-heterozygotes, thus providing substantial evidence that the observed complementation at vg results from a transvection effect. Cytological analyses revealed this transvection effect to have a large proximal critical region, a feature common to other transvection effects. In the Drosophila interphase nucleus, paired chromosome arms are separated into distinct, nonoverlapping domains. We propose that if the relative position of each arm in the nucleus is determined by the centromere as a relic of chromosome positions after the last mitotic division, then a locus will be displaced to a different territory of the interphase nucleus relative to its nonrearranged homolog by any rearrangement that links that locus to a different centromere. This physical displacement in the nucleus hinders transvection by disrupting the somatic pairing of homologous chromosomes and gives rise to proximal critical regions.

Free full text

Genetics. 2005 Aug; 170(4): 1711–1721.

https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.041400

PMCID: PMC1449749

PMID: 15944352

Transvection at the vestigial Locus of Drosophila melanogaster

Alistair B. Coulthard,^* Nadia Nolan,^* John B. Bell,^† and Arthur J. Hilliker^*,¹

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Transvection is a phenomenon wherein gene expression is effected by the interaction of alleles in trans and often results in partial complementation between mutant alleles. Transvection is dependent upon somatic pairing between homologous chromosome regions and is a form of interallelic complementation that does not occur at the polypeptide level. In this study we demonstrated that transvection could occur at the vestigial (vg) locus by revealing that partial complementation between two vg mutant alleles could be disrupted by changing the genomic location of the alleles through chromosome rearrangement. If chromosome rearrangements affect transvection by disrupting somatic pairing, then combining chromosome rearrangements that restore somatic pairing should restore transvection. We were able to restore partial complementation in numerous rearrangement trans-heterozygotes, thus providing substantial evidence that the observed complementation at vg results from a transvection effect. Cytological analyses revealed this transvection effect to have a large proximal critical region, a feature common to other transvection effects. In the Drosophila interphase nucleus, paired chromosome arms are separated into distinct, nonoverlapping domains. We propose that if the relative position of each arm in the nucleus is determined by the centromere as a relic of chromosome positions after the last mitotic division, then a locus will be displaced to a different territory of the interphase nucleus relative to its nonrearranged homolog by any rearrangement that links that locus to a different centromere. This physical displacement in the nucleus hinders transvection by disrupting the somatic pairing of homologous chromosomes and gives rise to proximal critical regions.

THE term transvection was first introduced by Lewis (1954) to describe his observations of the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) gene in Drosophila melanogaster, wherein complementation between certain mutant Ubx alleles could be disrupted by chromosome rearrangement. Since Lewis' time, transvection has been shown to occur at more than a dozen loci in D. melanogaster. There are a wide variety of transvection effects each with their own distinct properties and mechanisms of action, but for the purpose of this study the term transvection refers to transvection effects involving interallelic complementation between mutant alleles, such as those observed at Abdominal-B (Abd-B), decapentaplegic (dpp), eyes absent (eya), Salivary glue secretion-4 (Sgs-4), Ubx, yellow (y), white^speckled (w^sp), and wings-up A (wup A) (Korge 1981; Gelbart 1982; Davison et al. 1985; Martinez-Laborda et al. 1992; Leiserson et al. 1994; Morris et al. 1998, 1999a; Sipos et al. 1998; Zimmerman et al. 2000; Marin et al. 2004).

For every transvection effect, complementation occurs only with specific pairs of mutant alleles. In many cases one mutant allele contains a structural mutation, while the other allele has a mutation in a cis-regulatory element. The cis-regulatory element is often an enhancer (for examples, see Davison et al. 1985; Morris et al. 1998; Zimmerman et al. 2000). One transvection model proposes that the functional enhancer element on the chromosome with the structural mutation acts in trans on its target promoter located on the homologous chromosome containing the cis-regulatory element (Geyer et al. 1990).

In this study we examined a potential transvection effect at the vestigial (vg) locus. Mutations in the vg gene give rise to a range of phenotypes that variably include improperly developed wings and halteres, low viability, female sterility, developmental delay, and erect postscutellar bristles (see Williams and Bell 1988 and references therein). In this study we focused on vg^83b27, a mutant with a deletion limited to the second intron of vg (Williams et al. 1990). During development, vestigial protein levels in the wing imaginal discs of vg^83b27 homozygotes are normal until the third larval instar at which time they become very low relative to those in wild-type controls (Williams et al. 1991). These results suggested the presence of a stage-specific enhancer in the second intron of vg and, indeed, Williams et al. (1991) discovered a 750-base EcoRI fragment within the second intron of vg that is significantly conserved between D. melanogaster and D. virilis. This sequence contains a 360-bp minimal element that can drive β-gal expression in the wing and haltere imaginal discs during the third larval instar (Williams et al. 1994). This minimal element acted like a true enhancer in that it drove expression in an orientation-independent manner whether it was upstream or downstream of the target promoter.

The vg^83b27 allele genetically complements many vg mutants possessing alterations in the transcription unit (Williams et al. 1990) but classical interallelic complementation at the polypeptide level is not sufficient in explaining the complementation behavior because of insufficient protein production from the vg^83b27 allele during a critical stage of wing and haltere development (Williams et al. 1991). If transvection is responsible for the observed complementation behavior then complementation should be disrupted by chromosome rearrangements that affect the ability of complementing alleles to somatically pair and interact. Transvection should be restored in rearrangement trans-heterozygotes if the rearrangements are similar enough to sufficiently restore somatic pairing and interaction between vg alleles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Drosophila stocks:

Drosophila stocks were raised in an incubator on standard yeast and sugar medium. The incubator was kept at 25° and set on a 12-hr light/dark cycle. The vg alleles used in this study include vg^83b27 and vg¹ (also known as vg^BG or vg^BG1). The vg^83b27 allele is a mutant that deletes a stage-specific enhancer within the second intron of vg (Williams et al. 1991). The deletion is limited to the second intron and does not alter exons in the vg transcription unit (Williams et al. 1990). The homozygous vg^83b27 stock used in this study also contains the X-linked white (w) eye color marker. The vg¹ allele contains a viable insertion in intron 3 (Williams et al. 1990). The vg¹ strain also contains the cinnibar (cn) and w eye color markers, and the black (b) body color marker. A derivative of vg¹ (vg^1-7b) was also used in this study and differs from vg¹ as described in results. The vg^1-7b chromosome has the cn marker but does not contain the w marker. Homozygous vg^1-7b stocks are difficult to maintain so the stock has a Curly Oster (CyO) second chromosome balancer segregating in the population to increase the overall health of the stock. The CyO balancer contains the following genetic markers: Curly (Cy), Star (S), cn, and brown (bw). Full descriptions of all stocks and genetic markers can be found in Lindsley and Zimm (1992) and online at http://flybase.org (FlyBase Consortium 2002).

Scoring the wings and halteres of vestigial mutants:

The wings and halteres were examined for each fly and these individual results were combined to produce a phenotype score for the whole group. An ordinal scoring system for individual flies was developed that would allow a wing score to be calculated. A fly was given an overall wing rank of 1–6 on the basis of the phenotype of its wings (Table 1) with 1 representing the most extreme mutant phenotype and 6 being indistinguishable from wild type. For flies whose wings differed in phenotype, such that the individual wings fit the descriptions of different ordinal rankings, an average of the two individual wing scores was made to create a score for the fly. For consistency, in cases where the average produced a decimal of 0.5, scores were always rounded down to the nearest whole number. A mean wing score (W_m) for a group of flies was calculated by taking the mean of all individual wing pair ranks. A standardized Wilcoxon rank sum statistic with continuity correction was used to statistically compare wing scores from different crosses. This statistical test is equivalent to a Mann-Whitney test and is used as a nonparametric alternative to the two-sample t-test to compare two independent populations with ranked data (Zar 1999). Halteres were scored as being present or absent in a given individual, so for a group of flies the haltere distribution score (H) was simply the proportion of individuals that had at least one haltere. Haltere scores from different crosses were compared using chi-square analysis.

TABLE 1

Scoring system forvestigial wing phenotypes

Wing score	Wing phenotype
1	No wings
2	Small, stumpy, and do not extend beyond the scutellum
3	Extend beyond scutellum; lack features; often crumpled or blistered
4	Extend beyond scutellum; visible wing features; often narrow and straight
5	Fully developed except for small narrowing at the base or notch in the margin
6	Wild type

Creating noncomplementing derivatives of vg mutants:

Figure 1 shows the mutagenesis screens used to create noncomplementing derivatives of vg mutants. Three- to 4-day-old males, homozygous for vg^83b27, vg¹, or vg^1-7b, were exposed to 2000 Rads of X-ray radiation and mated en masse to virgin females homozygous for the complementing allele (cross 1). Male progeny with no wings and no halteres were considered potential carriers of noncomplementing derivative chromosomes. These males were individually mated to virgin females with the vg^1-7b chromosome balanced over the CyO second chromosome balancer (cross 2). It was possible to recover irradiated chromosomes because the vg¹ and vg^1-7b chromosomes contained the recessive cn eye color marker while the complementing vg^83b27 chromosome did not contain the cn marker. Male and female progeny containing the CyO balancer chromosome and an irradiated second chromosome were selected, on the basis of the presence or absence of the cn phenotype, and mated to create independent derivative lines (cross 3).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 1400f1.jpg

Figure 1.—

Mutagenesis screens used to create complementation-disrupting derivatives. (A) The screen to recover noncomplementing derivatives of vg^83b27. (B) The screen to recover noncomplementing derivatives of vg¹. The screen to recover derivatives of vg^1-7b is identical to the one used for vg¹ except vg^1-7b males were irradiated in cross 1. In both screens * indicates an irradiated chromosome.

Cytology:

Every noncomplementing derivative line was examined cytologically to determine if it contained a visible chromosome aberration. Third instar larval polytene chromosomes were examined when heterozygous with standard wild-type chromosomes. For derivative lines containing a second chromosome heterochromatic break, mitotic chromosomes were examined. The location of the prominent secondary constriction at the heterochromatic/euchromatic junction in 2L (Kaufmann 1934) was used as a marker in mitotic preparations to determine if heterochromatic breaks were in 2Lh or 2Rh. Mitotic chromosomes were prepared as in Moore (1971), with modification from Hilliker (1975), and are briefly described here. The brain of an active third-instar larva was dissected into Drosophila Ringer's and then placed in 1% sodium citrate for 30–90 sec. The brain was then transferred to a drop of 2% aceto-lacto-orcein on a siliconized microscope slide and allowed to fix for 5 min. The tissue was then squashed and observed 24–48 hr later.

Detecting a T(2;3) containing only heterochromatic breakpoints:

To detect any translocations with two heterochromatic breakpoints (not detectable in polytene chromosomes) the crossing scheme in Ashburner (1989) was used. Transvection-disrupting derivatives without visible rearrangements were tested for the presence of a T(2;3) with heterochromatic breaks using a bw ; scarlet (st) marker strain. The bw and st markers produce brown eyes and bright red eyes, respectively. In combination the two markers produce white eyes.

zeste effects:

The zeste (z)^a null allele was tested to see if it effected complementation between vg^83b27 and vg^1-7b. The allele was tested by crossing z^a; vg^1-7b virgin females to z⁺; vg^83b27 males and scoring the wings of z^a; vg^1-7b/vg^83b27 male progeny.

RESULTS

Complementation between vg^83b27 and vg¹:

Investigating the possibility of transvection at the vestigial locus began with confirming the complementation ability of vg^83b27 with vg¹ as reported by Williams et al. (1990). Table 2 provides progeny counts, haltere scores, and wing scores for vg^83b27/vg¹ and the two homozygous controls. The trans-heterozygotes were shown to have higher wing and haltere scores than both of the homozygous controls. This increase in scores was both visually obvious (Figure 2) and statistically significant [vg^83b27/vg¹ flies were compared to vg¹ homozygotes using a standardized Wilcoxon rank sum test; the calculated standardized Wilcoxon statistic, with continuity correction, was 12.25 (P < 0.001)].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 1400f2.jpg

Figure 2.—

Partial complementation between vg^83b27 and vg¹. (A) A homozygous vg^83b27 female lacking wings and halteres (a wing score of 1). (B) A homozygous vg¹ female lacking halteres but having small, stumpy wings (a wing score of 2). (C) A typical vg^83b27/vg¹ trans-heterozygous female having halteres and long, blistered wings (a wing score of 3). The arrow points to a haltere.

TABLE 2

Testing for complementation betweenvg^83b27 andvg¹

		Wing score
1^{^a}	1	2	2	3	3	4	4	5	5	6	6
Cross	Halteres?:	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Total	H^{^b}	W_m^{^c}
vg¹ × vg¹	2	87	89	0.00	1.98
vg^83b27 × vg^83b27	64	1	65	0.00	1.02
vg^83b27 × vg¹				7	33	5	209		28					282	0.96	2.96

N, no haltere; Y, haltere present.

^aScoring is as described in Table 1.

^bHaltere score.

^cWing mean.

Transvection at vg is not effected by the z^a null allele:

Table 3 provides wing scores comparing z^a; vg^1-7b/vg^83b27 males with z⁺; vg^1-7b/vg^83b27 males. The z^a allele had no effect on complementation [the calculated standardized Wilcoxon statistic, with continuity correction, was 1.026 (P = 0.305)].

TABLE 3

Testing the effects ofz^a on complementation betweenvg^83b27 andvg¹

	Wing score
Genotype	1^{^a}	2	3	4	5	6	Total	W_m
z⁺; vg^83b27/vg¹	1	20	41	62	2.65
z^{^a}; vg^83b27/vg¹		11	30	2			43	2.79

^aScoring scale is as in Table 1.

Rearrangements of the vg^83b27 chromosome disrupt complementation:

An X-ray mutagenesis screen was performed as described in materials and methods, in an attempt to obtain complementation-disrupting chromosome rearrangements of the vg^83b27 chromosome. A total of 19,019 males were scored in five separate mutagenesis screens, and 60 individual males carrying potential complementation-disrupting mutations were recovered. Thirty-nine of these males were successfully mated, leading to the creation of independent putative mutant lines. The thirty-nine independent derivative lines were crossed to vg¹ virgin females to determine if they carried complementation-disrupting mutations. Eighteen lines showed a significant reduction in wing score compared to that in the control cross (Table 4). One line, PIIB, showed no significant reduction in wing score but showed a significant reduction in haltere score (Table 4). Twenty of the lines complemented to a degree similar to the vg^83b27 × vg¹ control cross and were considered false positives.

TABLE 4

Analysis of 19vg^83b27 derivative lines

		Wing score
1	1	2	2	3	3	4	4
Cross	Halteres?:	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Total	H	P	W_m	W	P
vg^83b27 × vg¹	7	33	5	209	28	282	0.96	Control	2.96	Control	Control
789 × vg¹	18	32	3	28	2	83	0.06	<0.001	2.14	7.80	<0.001
1297 × vg¹	5	44	7	33	28	117	0.30	<0.001	2.48	6.21	<0.001
1038 × vg¹	1	56	17	24	14	112	0.28	<0.001	2.33	8.58	<0.001
550 × vg¹	29	11	2	42	0.00	<0.001	1.36	10.00	<0.001
2335 × vg¹	42	49	91	0.00	<0.001	1.54	13.25	<0.001
805 × vg¹	23	60	2	6	91	0.02	<0.001	1.81	11.97	<0.001
327c × vg¹	42	12	54	0.00	<0.001	1.22	11.28	<0.001
1577 × vg¹	3	50	1	3	57	0.02	<0.001	2.00	9.74	<0.001
835 × vg¹	13	48	1	10	72	0.01	<0.001	1.96	9.94	<0.001
836 × vg¹	16	54	1	27	7	105	0.08	<0.001	2.17	8.90	<0.001
B9c × vg¹	37	5	42	0.00	<0.001	1.12	10.29	<0.001
H6a × vg¹	51	2	53	0.00	<0.001	1.04	11.49	<0.001
PIIA × vg¹	14	62	10	86	0.00	<0.001	1.95	10.90	<0.001
PIIB × vg¹	7	1	21	25	54	0.48	<0.001	2.85	1.06	0.290
No. 3 × vg¹	15	56	3	74	0.00	<0.001	1.84	11.26	<0.001
No. 5 × vg¹	16	64	11	91	0.00	<0.001	1.95	11.11	<0.001
No. 6 × vg¹	10	63	20	1	94	0.01	<0.001	2.12	9.76	<0.001
P1C × vg¹	46	30	3	79	0.00	<0.001	1.46	12.32	<0.001
P10 × vg¹		59		30						89	0.00	<0.001	1.34	13.55	<0.001

Wings and halteres are scored as in Table 2.

Polytene chromosomes were examined from heterozygotes for each complementation-disrupting derivative (see materials and methods). Of the 19 noncomplementing derivative lines of vg^83b27, 14 were found to have visible chromosome rearrangements (Table 5). Twelve of these derivatives had one rearrangement breakpoint proximal to vg. Analysis of the two remaining derivatives showed line H6a to be a deletion that included the vestigial locus (thereby attributing the disruption of complementation to the deletion), while line 327c, a three-break rearrangement, had one breakpoint very near vg^83b27, making it unclear whether the rearrangement was disrupting complementation or if the breakpoint was within the vg^83b27 coding region.

TABLE 5

Cytological analysis of noncomplementing derivatives with visible aberrations

vg^83b27 derivatives	Cytology	vg¹ and vg^1-7b derivatives	Cytology
327c	Tp(2;3) 49F; 2Rh; 100B	B9b^{^b}	T(2;3) 41DE; 77CD; 94AB
789	In(2LR) 32DE;46E/47A	75^{^c}	T(2;3) 2Rh; 68CD
805	T(2;3) 48AB; 97F	81^{^c}	In(2LR) 27E; 2Rh
550	T(2;3) 44DE; 97E	84^{^c}	T(2;3) 47DE; 98F/99A
835	T(2;3) 42AB; 68DE	88^{^c}	T(2;3) 2Rh; 95EF
B9c	T(2;3) 41AB; 94A	89^{^c}	T(2;3) 47F; 62F
H6a	Df(2R) 49BC; 50BC
PIIA	T(2;3) 2Rh; 66DE
PIIB^{^a}	T(2;3) 46CD; 82D; 70DE
No. 3	T(2;3) 2Rh; 66AB
No. 5	T(2;3) 2Rh; 93F
No. 6	T(2;3) 44E; 64B
P1C	T(2;3) 2Rh; 97EF
P10	Tp(2;3) 49DE; 2h; 98F

^avg¹ derivative. New order: 61–70DE/46CD–41; 60–46CD/82D–72DE/82D–100.

^bNew order: 60–41DE/94AB–77CD/94AB–100; 61–77CD/41DE–41A.

^cvg^1-7b derivatives. All vg^1-7b derivatives contain an additional In(2R) 48EF; 50B that was present in the vg^1-7b chromosome before mutagenesis.

The five lines lacking visible rearrangements were tested for the presence of a translocation between the second and third chromosomes that contained only heterochromatic breakpoints. All five lines lacked such a translocation. Several possibilities remained as to why complementation was disrupted in these lines, including a mutation in a vg modifier, a mutation in the coding region of vg^83b27, or a T(X:2) or T(2;4) with heterochromatic breaks. Further analysis of these lines was not performed since 14 independent rearrangement lines were already obtained and were considered sufficient for our analysis of transvection.

Rearrangements of the vg¹ and the vg^1-7b chromosomes disrupt complementation:

An attempt was also made to create noncomplementing derivatives of the vg¹ chromosome, but due to viability effects there was difficulty in obtaining these derivatives. Only one noncomplementing derivative of vg¹ (line B9b) was successfully recovered out of 8400 males screened. Therefore, an attempt was made to create additional derivatives starting from the vg^1-7b chromosome. The vg^1-7b line contains a small inversion that includes vg (breakpoints 49EF–50B) but this inversion has no effect on its ability to complement vg^83b27 for wing phenotype (Table 6) and would not interfere with our ability to recover noncomplementing derivatives.

TABLE 6

Analysis of complementation-disruptingvg¹ andvg^1-7b derivative lines

		Wing score
1	1	2	2	3	3	4	4
Cross	Halteres?:	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Total	H	P	W_m	W	P
vg^1-7b × vg^83b27	27	6	61	34	128	0.31	Control	2.74	Control	Control
vg¹ × vg^83b27	5	24	13	81	3	126	0.86	Control	2.79	Control	Control
B9b^{^a} × vg^83b27	55	1	56	0.02	<0.001	1.00	10.71	<0.001
75^{^b} × vg^83b27	1	20	20	19	23	83	0.52	<0.001	2.49	2.93	0.003
81^{^b} × vg^83b27	2	41	7	45	24	119	0.26	0.31	2.56	2.26	0.024
84^{^b} × vg^83b27	1	13	42	1	12	2	71	0.23	0.189	2.00	6.96	<0.001
88^{^b} × vg^83b27	22	50	3	12	1	88	0.05	<0.001	1.90	8.22	<0.001
89^{^b} × vg^83b27		1		24	16	15	22		2	80	0.50	0.003	2.50	3.26	0.001

Wings and halteres are scored as in Table 2.

^avg¹ derivative.

^bvg^1-7b derivative.

A total of 2844 males were scored in a mutagenesis screen for noncomplementing vg^1-7b derivatives. Seventeen individual males carrying potential complementation-disrupting mutations were recovered. Ten of these males were successfully mated, leading to the creation of independent derivative lines. The 10 independent vg^1-7b derivative lines were crossed to vg^83b27 females to determine if they carried complementation-disrupting mutations. Six of the lines showed a significant reduction in wing score compared to the control cross of vg^1-7b × vg^83b27 (Table 6) while 4 of the lines were false positives.

Polytene chromosomes from the complementation-disrupting derivatives of vg¹ and vg^1-7b were examined over standard wild-type chromosomes for visible chromosome rearrangements. Five noncomplementing derivative lines were found to have visible chromosome rearrangements with at least one rearrangement breakpoint proximal to vg (Table 6). The sixth line was lost before polytene analysis.

The seemingly large number of false positives in all screens (see Table 7 for a summary of all screens) was an unavoidable attribute of the mutagenesis screens and the alleles used in this study. On rare occasions the progeny of vg^83b27 × vg¹ control crosses have been observed to contain flies with no wings or halteres; these flies would be recovered as false positives. On the basis of all screens in this study, a false positive was recovered in ~1 out of 1000 flies (0.1%), approximately the same rate as the recovery of transvection-disrupting mutations.

TABLE 7

Summary of mutagenesis screens

Line irradiated	No. scored	Derivative lines successfully created	False positives	Lines that disrupt transvection	Lines with visible rearrangements
vg^83b27	19019	39	20	19	14/19
vg¹	8400	1	0	1	1/1
vg^1-7b	2844	10	4	6	5/5^{^a}

^aThe sixth line died before polytene analysis was complete.

Complementation can be rescued in rearrangement trans-heterozygotes:

If chromosome rearrangements disrupt partial complementation between vg^1-7b and vg^83b27, and if the complementation is due to a transvection effect, then complementation should be rescued if somatic pairing between the two alleles can be restored. In an attempt to rescue complementation, five vg^83b27 derivatives (550, 835, 805, 327c, and 789) and five vg^1-7b derivatives (75, 81, 84, 88, and 89) were tested for their ability to complement one another. These lines were chosen in hopes of obtaining a wide variety of complementation results ranging from full restoration between lines with similar rearrangements to a lack of restoration between dissimilar rearrangements. Complementation was considered to be restored for any trans-heterozygous combination that rescued wing and/or haltere scores at, or above, the level of complementation observed in the control cross (vg^1-7b × vg^83b27). Complementation should be restored in rearrangement trans-heterozygotes if the rearrangements are similar enough to allow sufficient restoration of pairing and interaction between the specific vg^1-7b and vg^83b27 derivatives.

Out of the 25 possible combinations, 11 trans-heterozygotes, involving eight independent rearrangement lines, showed significant restoration of complementation (Table 8). Lines 805 and 84 were lethal in combination and the remaining combinations did not show significant restoration (data not shown).

TABLE 8

Restoring complementation in rearrangementtrans-heterozygotes

		Wing score											Wilcoxon test for wing mean		χ² test for halteres
Cross	Halteres?:	1 N	1 Y	2 N	2 Y	3 N	3 Y	4 N	4 Y	Total	H	W_m	W	P	χ²	P
vg^1-7b × vg^83b27	24	35	26	2	87	0.32	2.75	Control	Control	Control	Control
75 × 550	9	27	13	49	0.27	2.82	0.71	0.477	0.72	0.397
81 × 550	4	28	6	51	44	133	0.38	2.68	0.43	0.664	1.78	0.182
84 × 550	1	8	5	30	41	85	0.54	2.82	1.00	0.316	18.74	<0.001
88 × 550	6	19	5	40	23	93	0.30	2.61	0.93	0.354	0.18	0.668
89 × 550	1	16	30	6	53	0.11	2.66	0.65	0.512	10.57	<0.001
75 × 835	1	12	89	102	0.88	2.99	2.89	0.004	146.83	<0.001
89 × 835	2	3	22	58	1	86	0.72	2.95	2.32	0.020	62.76	<0.001
75 × 805	10	2	19	15	46	0.37	2.74	0.02	0.987	0.48	0.488
81 × 805	3	37	4	56	8	1	109	0.12	2.58	1.71	0.087	20.49	<0.001
88 × 805	6	2	19	47	1	75	0.67	2.91	1.73	0.083	40.86	<0.001
89 × 805				21	6	36	38		3	104	0.45	2.77	0.24	0.812	8.06	0.005

Wings and halteres are scored as in Table 2.

Figure 3 provides a diagrammatic representation of the eight complementation-disrupting rearrangement chromosomes that made up the 11 trans-heterozygous combinations in Table 8. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the proposed somatic pairing in rearrangement trans-heterozygotes in which complementation was rescued. The trans-heterozygotes in Figure 4 can be divided into four groups. In the first group, wing and haltere scores were fully restored to a level higher than that in the vg^83b27/vg^1-7b control and approached levels expected for a completely nonrearranged combination of vg^83b27/vg¹. The second group produced full restoration for either the wing or the haltere score and partial restoration for the other score. The third group showed partial restoration for both wing and haltere scores to a level expected for vg^83b27/vg^1-7b trans-heterozygotes. In the last group, complementation was the weakest and showed only partial restoration for either the wing or the haltere score and no rescue for the other score.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 1400f3.jpg

Figure 3.—

Diagrams of haploid chromosome arrangements of wild-type chromosomes (top arrangement) and eight complementation-disrupting chromosome rearrangements. Chromosomes are labeled on the left. Ellipses represent centromeres, and hatched boxes represent centromeric heterochromatin. Hatches ascend to the right for second chromosome heterochromatin and ascend to the left for third chromosome heterochromatin. Chromosome arms are labeled on the wild-type chromosomes but they can also be distinguished as follows: 2L, thickly striped blue; 2R, solid blue; 3L, open with no color; 3R, thinly striped red. Chromosomes are drawn to scale. There is some uncertainty about the exact location of heterochromatic breakpoints.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 1400f4.jpg

Figure 4.—

Proposed somatic pairing for trans-heterozygote combinations of vg^83b27 derivatives and vg^1-7b derivatives that restore complementation. Chromosomes are labeled on the left. Solid horizontal lines separate the complementing pairs on the basis of the level of complementation restoration. Chromosomes are drawn in the Rabl orientation in instances where vg alleles are located on different chromosome arms. Chromosome arms can be distinguished by the description in the Figure 3 legend.

The basic trend in Figure 4 is that complementation is best restored in trans-heterozygote combinations where the breakpoints are on the same chromosome arm, they produce arms of similar length, and little pairing competition is expected between rearrangement products. The next best pairings are similar to the first but involve opposite arms of the third chromosome (in Figure 4 these trans-heterozygote combinations are drawn in the Rabl orientation to show how in three dimensions, close proximity between vg alleles is possible in the interphase nucleus even when the alleles reside on opposite arms of the same chromosome).

The critical region for this transvection effect can be deduced from the breakpoints in the derivative lines that make up complementing trans-heterozygote combinations in Table 5. Those breakpoints range from 2Rh to 48AB, demonstrating that the critical region is any point proximal to vg.

DISCUSSION

Williams et al. (1990) investigated the possibility of transvection at vg when they were first studying the vg^83b27 allele. At that time several lines of evidence argued against transvection: two deficiencies, Df(2R)vg⁵⁶ and Su(z)2⁵, showed partial complementation with vg^83b27 and these deficiencies were expected to disrupt pairing in the region; all transvection effects known at that time were dependent on the allelic state of the z gene and Williams et al. (1990) found that z^v77h3, a strong zeste allele, did not disrupt the complementation ability of vg^83b27. These facts no longer argue against transvection at vg. First, the two deficiencies both have one breakpoint in the last exon of vg (at the distal end of the coding region). Since these two deletions do not compromise the second intron enhancer (and the breakpoints are not in the proximal critical region), these coding region mutations are expected to partially complement with vg^83b27. Second, zeste-independent transvection effects have been discovered at Scr, Abd-B, and Ubx (Pattatucci and Kaufman 1991; Martinez-Laborda et al. 1992; Hopmann et al. 1995; Southworth and Kennison 2002).

In this study we tested the z^a null allele and found that it did not affect transvection at vg. The z^a allele does affect transvection effects at numerous other loci, all of which involve enhancers. These loci include dpp, eya, Ubx, and y (Lewis 1954; Wu and Gelbart 1982; Geyer et al. 1990; Leiserson et al. 1994; Chen et al. 2002). Our results with z^a, in combination with the z^v77h3 results from Williams et al. (1990), do suggest that the transvection effect involving vg^83b27 is zeste independent or at least a unique zeste dependence. However, a more exhaustive analysis of the gain-of-function alleles of zeste needs to be conducted to establish the true relationship between the allelic state of zeste and transvection at vg.

Lewis (1954) established a set of rules to predict when, and how severely, a simple two-break rearrangement would disrupt transvection. The term “critical region” was coined to describe the chromosomal region in which a rearrangement breakpoint would need to occur to disrupt transvection. In the transvection effect studied here, the critical region encompasses the region proximal to vg. This is consistent with the proximal critical regions characterized for Ubx, dpp, and eya (Lewis 1954; Gelbart 1982; Leiserson et al. 1994). A determining factor for the size of critical regions is linked to the presence or absence of genetic elements termed cis-factors that suppress the ability of control elements to act in trans. Cis-factors include promoter integrity, the strength of the control element acting in trans, pairing sensitive DNA sequences, and other gene-specific factors. For example, studies have shown that cis-promoter integrity supports cis-preference for enhancer-promoter interactions whereas mutations in the cis-promoter can enhance transvection (Martinez-Laborda et al. 1992; Casares et al. 1997; Sipos et al. 1998; Gibson et al. 1999; Morris et al. 1999b, 2004).

There is a relationship between the strength of a trans-acting control element and the size of critical regions. In terms of enhancers, strong, long-range enhancers are less sensitive to rearrangements and give rise to smaller critical regions than do transvection effects involving weak, short-range enhancers. There are examples of both rearrangement-insensitive and -sensitive transvection effects at Abd-B (see Duncan 2002), revealing how the specific combinations of cis-factors and trans-acting regulatory elements contribute to the specific properties of a given transvection effect. Complementation involving vg^83b27 and vg¹ involves a short-range intronic enhancer that we show to be very sensitive to chromosome rearrangement. It also has a large critical region. Critical regions for transvection effects that do not involve the trans-action of a cis-regulatory element will likely reflect the specific mechanisms behind the effect. For example, the critical region for transvection involving the brown^variegated alleles will be determined by the properties of heterochromatin and position-effect variegation (Henikoff and Dressen 1989; Henikoff et al. 1995).

The combination of cis-factors with cis-regulatory elements acting in trans provides insight as to why a given critical region is small or large, but it does not explain why the large critical regions for Ubx, dpp, eya, and vg encompass only the region proximal to, and not distal to, each locus. Lewis (1954) attempted to explain the proximal nature of critical regions at Ubx by proposing a zippering model of somatic pairing. He proposed that homologous chromosomes pair in the interphase nucleus in a directional manner, beginning at the centromere and proceeding toward the telomere. Hence, only the regions proximal to a rearrangement breakpoint would be paired. However, advances in the study of homologous pairing suggest that proximal loci are not the first loci to pair when compared to distal euchromatic loci (Csink and Henikoff 1998; Fung et al. 1998; Gemkow et al. 1998; Vazquez et al. 2001). In fact, these studies suggest that somatic pairing in the Drosophila interphase nuclei proceeds through a nondirectional random-walk model. We propose that if homologous pairing does not proceed in a directional manner, then the organization of chromosomes in the interphase nucleus must play an important role in proximal critical regions.

There is a nonrandom architecture to the Drosophila interphase nucleus. In both diploid and polytene nuclei, chromosome arms occupy distinct, nonoverlapping domains, or territories, in the nucleus (Hilliker 1985; Hochstrasser et al. 1986; Hilliker and Appels 1989). Additionally, Drosophila interphase chromosomes are initially found in the Rabl orientation (Rabl 1885) with centromeres clustered at one end of the nucleus and the chromosome arms extending out toward the other end (Hilliker and Appels 1989). Transvection-disrupting rearrangements that move one allele of a complementing pair to a different chromosome arm might disrupt transvection by isolating that allele in an improper chromosome territory, making it less likely that it will “find” and pair with its complementing allele (Figure 5).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 1400f5.jpg

Figure 5.—

Representation of a reciprocal translocation (right) and wild-type chromosomes (left) showing how chromosome organization in the Drosophila interphase nucleus might contribute to proximal critical regions. If the relative position of each chromosome arm in the nucleus is determined by the centromere as a relic of chromosome positions after the last mitotic division, then locus A on the rearranged chromosome will be displaced to a different territory of the interphase nucleus relative to locus A on the nonrearranged homolog. This will affect the ability of the alleles of locus A to interact. Locus B will be unaffected by the rearrangement because the breakpoint occurred distal to the locus.

The notion that transvection-disrupting rearrangements can isolate an allele in an improper chromosome territory is supported by two observations: there is a correlation between the relative positions of chromosomes before mitosis and their relative positions after mitosis, and the arrangement of chromosome arms in eukaryotic interphase nuclei tends to be defined by their positions at the end of the last mitotic division (Hilliker and Appels 1989). Since homologous chromosomes in Drosophila are still associated during metaphase, homologous chromosomes begin anaphase in close proximity to one another relative to other chromosomes and likely end anaphase in relative proximity. This would make somatic pairing through random walking an efficient mechanism, except in cases where chromosomal regions are physically separated from one another by chromosome rearrangement. The position of each chromosome in the nucleus after mitosis would be determined by the final resting place of the centromere. A chromosome rearrangement with breakpoints proximal to an allele would link that allele to a new centromere, or to the other arm of the same chromosome, and would change the relative position of that allele in the nucleus as it relates to chromosome territories established by nonrearranged chromosomes. This would lead to a large proximal critical region in cases of transvection effects involving weak cis-regulatory elements acting in trans.

Several lines of evidence suggest that the somatic pairing in the Drosophila interphase nucleus is not essential, implying that transvection is not essential. First, Hilliker and Trusis-Coulter (1987) created numerous translocations between the second and third chromosomes and tested trans-heterozygotes for lethality. Breakpoints were randomly distributed throughout the genome, and out of ~1000 trans-heterozygous combinations tested, only 2 were lethal. If somatic pairing is essential then more trans-heterozygotes should have been lethal or at least have shown some visible defects. Second, the polytene nuclei of the hindgut and midgut of third instar larvae lack the same level of nuclear organization found in salivary gland nuclei. These nuclei frequently have overlapping chromosome territories with telomeres and centromeres found throughout the nuclei, sometimes without a clear Rabl orientation (Hochstrasser and Sedat 1987). Despite the disorderly organization observed in hindgut and midgut nuclei, the gut cells are capable of functioning without the level of nuclear organization found in other nuclei. Last, somatic pairing does not appear to be essential on the basis of the large number of deletion lines and transposon insertion lines that have been successfully created and maintained in Drosophila. Most deletion heterozygotes can survive, and, with the exception of position effects (such as those occurring when heterochromatic/euchromatic boundaries are crossed), single, unpaired transgenic insertions tend to function adequately (as do the phenotypic markers embedded in the transposon).

Transvection might not be an essential process in the interphase nucleus, but its study has provided valuable insights into various areas including enhancer and promoter function, somatic pairing, nuclear architecture, the structure of genes, and others. Here we have shown that transvection is likely the mechanism underlying the interallelic complementation observed with the vg^83b27 allele. This transvection effect it is not altered in z^a mutant background.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge research support from discovery grants from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada to A.J.H. and J.B.B.

References

Ashburner, M., 1989 Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook, pp. 550–554. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
Casares, F., W. Bender, J. Meriam and E. Sanchez-Herrero, 1997. Interactions of Drosophila Ultrabithorax regulatory regions with native and foreign promoters. Genetics 145: 123–137. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Chen, J.-L., K. L. Huisinga, M. M. Vierling, S. A. Ou, C.-T. Wu et al., 2002. Enhancer action in trans is permitted throughout the Drosophila genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(6): 3723–3728. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Csink, A. K., and S. Henikoff, 1998. Large-scale chromosomal movements during interphase progression in Drosophila. J. Cell Biol. 143(1): 13–22. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Davison, D., C. H. Chapman, C. Wedeen and P. M. Bingham, 1985. Genetic and physical studies of a portion of the white locus participating in transcriptional regulation and in synapsis-dependent interactions in Drosophila adult tissues. Genetics 110: 479–494. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Duncan, I. W., 2002. Transvection effects in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Genet. 36: 521–556. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
FlyBase Consortium, 2002. The FlyBase database of the Drosophila genome projects and community literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 30: 106–108. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Fung, J. C., W. F. Marshall, A. Dernberg, D. A. Agard and J. W. Sedat, 1998. Homologous chromosome pairing in Drosophila melanogaster proceeds through multiple independent initiation sites. J. Cell Biol. 141(1): 5–20. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Gelbart, W. M., 1982. Synapsis-dependent allelic complementation at the decapentaplegic gene complex in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79: 2636–2640. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Gemkow, M. J., P. J. Verveer and D. J. Arndt-Jovin, 1998. Homologous association of the Bithorax-complex during embryogenesis: consequences for transvection. Development 125: 4541–4552. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Geyer, P. K., M. M. Green and V. G. Corces, 1990. Tissue-specific transcriptional enhancers may act in trans on the gene located in the homologous chromosome: the molecular basis of transvection in Drosophila. EMBO J. 9(7): 2247–2256. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Gibson, J. B., D. S. Reed, S. Bartoszewski and A. V. Wilks, 1999. Structural changes in the promoter region mediate transvection at the sn-glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Biochem. Genet. 37(9–10): 301–315. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Henikoff, S., and T. D. Dressen, 1989. Trans-inactivation of the Drosophila brown gene: evidence for transcriptional repression and somatic pairing dependence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 6704–6708. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Henikoff, S., J. M. Jackson and P. B. Talbert, 1995. Distance and pairing effects on the brown^Dominant heterochromatic element in Drosophila. Genetics 140: 1007–1017. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Hilliker, A. J., 1975 Genetic analysis of the proximal heterochromatin of chromosome-2 of Drosophila melanogaster. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Hilliker, A. J., 1985. Assaying chromosome arrangement in embryonic interphase nuclei of Drosophila melanogaster by radiation induced interchanges. Genet Res. 47: 13–18. [Google Scholar]
Hilliker, A. J., and R. Appels, 1989. The arrangement of interphase chromosomes: structural and functional aspects. Exp. Cell Res. 185: 297–318. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Hilliker, A. J., and S. N. Trusis-Coulter, 1987. Analysis of the functional significance of linkage group conservation in Drosophila. Genetics 117: 233–244. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Hochstrasser, M., and J. W. Sedat, 1987. Three-dimensional organization of Drosophila melanogaster interphase nuclei. II. Chromosome spatial organization and gene regulation. J. Cell Biol. 104: 1471–1483. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Hochstrasser, M., D. Mathog, Y. Gruenbaum, H. Saumweber and J. W. Sedat, 1986. Spatial organization of chromosomes in the salivary gland nuclei of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Biol. 102: 112–123. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Hopmann, R., D. Duncan and I. Duncan, 1995. Transvection in the iab-5,6,7 region of the Bithorax complex of Drosophila: homology independent interactions in trans. Genetics 139: 815–833. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Kaufmann, B. P., 1934. Somatic mitoses of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Morphol. 56: 125–155. [Google Scholar]
Korge, G., 1981. Genetic analysis of the larval secretion gene Sgs-4 and its regulatory chromosome sites in Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma 84(3): 373–390. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Leiserson, W. M., N. M. Bonini and S. Benzer, 1994. Transvection at the eyes absent gene in Drosophila. Genetics 138: 1171–1179. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Lewis, E. B., 1954. The theory and application of a new method of detecting chromosomal rearrangements in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 88: 222–239. [Google Scholar]
Lindsley, D. L., and G. G. Zimm, 1992 The Genome of Drosophila melanogaster. Academic Press, San Diego.
Marin, M. C., J. R. Rodriguez and A. Ferrus, 2004. Transcription of Drosophila troponin I gene is regulated by two conserved functionally identical, synergistic elements. Mol. Biol. Cell 15(3): 1185–1196. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Martinez-Laborda, A., A. Gonzalez-Rayes and G. Morata, 1992. Trans regulation in the Ultrabithorax genes of Drosophila: alterations in the promoter enhance transvection. EMBO J. 11(10): 3645–3652. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Moore, C. M., 1971. Nonhomologous pairing in oogonia and ganglia of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 42: 445–456. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Morris, J. R., P. K. Chen, P. K. Geyer and C.-T. Wu, 1998. Two models of transvection: enhancer action in trans and bypass of a chromatin insulator in cis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 10740–10745. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Morris, J. R., J. Chen, S. T. Flandrinos, R. C. Dunn, R. Fisk et al., 1999. a An analysis of transvection at the yellow locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 151: 633–651. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Morris, J. R., P. K. Geyer and C.-T. Wu, 1999. b Core promoter elements can regulate transcription on a separate chromosome in trans. Genes Dev. 13: 253–258. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Morris, J. R., D. A. Petrov, A. M. Lee and C. T. Wu, 2004. Enhancer choice in cis and in trans in Drosophila melanogaster: role of the promoter. Genetics 167: 1739–1747. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Pattatucci, A. M., and T. C. Kaufman, 1991. The homeotic gene Sex combs reduced of Drosophila melanogaster is differentially regulated in the embryonic and imaginal stages of development. Genetics 129: 443–461. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Rabl, C., 1885. Uber zellteilung. Morphol. Jahrb. 10: 214–330. [Google Scholar]
Sipos, L., J. Mihaly, F. Karch, P. Schedl, J. Gausz et al., 1998. Transvection in the Drosophila Abd-B domain: upstream sequences are involved in anchoring distant cis-regulatory regions to the promoter. Genetics 149: 1031–1050. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Southworth, J. W., and J. A. Kennison, 2002. Transvection and silencing of the Scr homeotic gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 161: 733–746. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Vazquez, J., A. S. Belmont and J. W. Sedat, 2001. Multiple regimes of constrained chromosome motion are regulated in the interphase Drosophila nucleus. Curr. Biol. 11(16): 1227–1239. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Williams, J. A., and J. B. Bell, 1988. Molecular organization of the vestigial region in Drosophila melanogaster. EMBO J. 7: 1355–1363. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Williams, J. A., A. L. Atkin and J. B. Bell, 1990. The functional organization of the vestigial locus in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Gen. Genet. 221(1): 8–16. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Williams, J. A., J. B. Bell and S. B. Carroll, 1991. Control of Drosophila wing and haltere development by the nuclear vestigial gene product. Genes Dev. 5: 2481–2495. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Williams, J. A., S. W. Paddock, K. Vorwerk and S. B. Carroll, 1994. Organization of wing formation and induction of a wing-patterning gene at the dorsal/ventral compartment boundary. Nature 368: 299–305. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Wu, C.-T., and W. M. Gelbart, 1982. Interactions of zeste mutations with loci exhibiting transvection effects in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 102: 179–189. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Zar, J. H., 1999 Biostatistical Analysis, pp. 146–155. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zimmerman, J. E., Q. T. Bui, H. Liu and N. M. Bonini, 2000. Molecular genetic analysis of Drosophila eyes absent mutants reveals an eye enhancer element. Genetics 154: 237–246. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

Full text links

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.041400

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc1449749?pdf=render

Citations & impact

Impact metrics

Citations

Jump to Citations

Data citations

Jump to Data

Citations of article over time

Smart citations by scite.ai
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1534/genetics.105.041400

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Article citations

Activating and repressing gene expression between chromosomes during stochastic fate specification.
Urban EA, Chernoff C, Layng KV, Han J, Anderson C, Konzman D, Johnston RJ
Cell Rep, 42(1):111910, 29 Dec 2022
Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 36640351 | PMCID: PMC9976292
Free full text in Europe PMC
How well do you know your mutation? Complex effects of genetic background on expressivity, complementation, and ordering of allelic effects.
Chandler CH, Chari S, Kowalski A, Choi L, Tack D, DeNieu M, Pitchers W, Sonnenschein A, Marvin L, Hummel K, Marier C, Victory A, Porter C, Mammel A, Holms J, Sivaratnam G, Dworkin I
PLoS Genet, 13(11):e1007075, 22 Nov 2017
Cited by: 32 articles | PMID: 29166655 | PMCID: PMC5718557
This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC
The Capacity to Act in Trans Varies Among Drosophila Enhancers.
Blick AJ, Mayer-Hirshfeld I, Malibiran BR, Cooper MA, Martino PA, Johnson JE, Bateman JR
Genetics, 203(1):203-218, 16 Mar 2016
Cited by: 17 articles | PMID: 26984057 | PMCID: PMC4858774
Free full text in Europe PMC
The Drosophila melanogaster Mutants apblot and apXasta Affect an Essential apterous Wing Enhancer.
Bieli D, Kanca O, Gohl D, Denes A, Schedl P, Affolter M, Müller M
G3 (Bethesda), 5(6):1129-1143, 02 Apr 2015
Cited by: 10 articles | PMID: 25840432 | PMCID: PMC4478543
This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC
Germline progenitors escape the widespread phenomenon of homolog pairing during Drosophila development.
Joyce EF, Apostolopoulos N, Beliveau BJ, Wu CT
PLoS Genet, 9(12):e1004013, 19 Dec 2013
Cited by: 50 articles | PMID: 24385920 | PMCID: PMC3868550
This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC

Go to all (13) article citations

Data

Data that cites the article

This data has been provided by curated databases and other sources that have cited the article.

FlyBase

http://flybase.org/cgi-bin/uniq.html?db=fbrf&field=pubmed_id&context=15944352

Proteins in UniProt (5)

Regulatory protein zeste(UniProt - P09956)
Protein vestigial(UniProt - Q26366)
Regulatory protein zeste(UniProt - Q7YU84)
Regulatory protein zeste(UniProt - M9PIU6)
RE02247p(UniProt - Q8SZF8)

Search life-sciences literature (45,103,589 articles, preprints and more)

Transvection at the vestigial locus of Drosophila melanogaster.

Author information

Affiliations

Abstract

Free full text

Transvection at the vestigial Locus of Drosophila melanogaster

Alistair B. Coulthard

Nadia Nolan

John B. Bell

Arthur J. Hilliker

Abstract

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Drosophila stocks:

Scoring the wings and halteres of vestigial mutants:

TABLE 1

Creating noncomplementing derivatives of vg mutants:

Cytology:

Detecting a T(2;3) containing only heterochromatic breakpoints:

zeste effects:

RESULTS

Complementation between vg83b27 and vg1:

TABLE 2

Transvection at vg is not effected by the za null allele:

TABLE 3

Rearrangements of the vg83b27 chromosome disrupt complementation:

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

Rearrangements of the vg1 and the vg1-7b chromosomes disrupt complementation:

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

Complementation can be rescued in rearrangement trans-heterozygotes:

TABLE 8

DISCUSSION

Acknowledgments

References

Full text links

Citations & impact

Impact metrics

Citations of article over time

Article citations

Data

Data that cites the article

FlyBase

Proteins in UniProt (5)

Similar Articles

Partnerships & funding

Complementation between vg^83b27 and vg¹:

Transvection at vg is not effected by the z^a null allele:

Rearrangements of the vg^83b27 chromosome disrupt complementation:

Rearrangements of the vg¹ and the vg^1-7b chromosomes disrupt complementation: