4.7 Article

Gene mapping methodology powered by induced genome rearrangements

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20999-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AMED [JP20wm0325003]
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) [CREST JPMJCR18S3]
  3. JST SPRING-GX [JPMJSP2108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phenotypic variation is caused by genome rearrangements and mutations, but systematic gene identification methods based on genome rearrangements are not fully established. This study used the TAQing system and compared it with a conventional mutagenesis method to explore the loci responsible for a specific phenotype. The results showed that TAQed mutants accurately identified key genes compared to the conventional mutagenesis approach.
Phenotypic variation occurs through genome rearrangements and mutations in certain responsible genes; however, systematic gene identification methodologies based on genome rearrangements have not been fully established. Here, we explored the loci responsible for the given phenotype using the TAQing system and compared it with a conventional mutagenesis-based method. Two yeast strains with different genetic backgrounds and flocculation phenotypes were fused and genomic rearrangements were induced by transient DNA breaks. Then, selection pressure was applied and multiple mutants were generated, showing different flocculation abilities. We also raised mutants with altered cohesiveness due to spontaneous mutations during long-term recursive passages of haploid strains without TAQing treatment. Comparative genomic analysis of the TAQed mutants revealed three chromosomal regions harboring pivotal flocculation genes, whereas conventional mutagenesis generated a more diverse list of candidate loci after prolonged selection. The combined use of these approaches will accelerate the identification of genes involved in complex phenotypes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available