4.1 Article

Similarities in the chromosomal distribution of AG and AC repeats within and between Drosophila, human and barley chromosomes

期刊

CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH
卷 119, 期 1-2, 页码 91-99

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000109624

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two simple sequence repeats (SSRs), AG and AC, were mapped directly in the metaphase chromosomes of man and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and in the metaphase and polytene chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster. To this end, synthetic oligonucleotides corresponding to (AG)(12) and (AC)(8) were labelled by the random primer technique and used as probes in fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) under high stringency and strict washing conditions. The distribution and intensity of the signals for the repeat sequences were found to be characteristic of the chromosomes and genomes of the three species analysed. The AC repeat sites were uniformly dispersed along the euchromatic segments of all three genomes; in fact, they were largely excluded from the heterochromatin. The Drosophila genome showed a high density of AC sequences on the X chromosome in both mitotic and polytene nuclei. In contrast, the AG repeats were associated with the euchromatic regions of the polytene chromosomes (and in high density on the X chromosome), but were only seen in specific heterochromatic regions in the mitotic chromosomes of all three species. In Drosophila, the AG repeats were exclusively distributed on the tips of the Y chromosome and near the centromere on both arms of chromosome 2. In barley and man, AG repeats were associated with the centromeres (of all chromosomes) and nucleolar organizer regions, respectively. The conserved chromosome distribution of AC within and between these three phylogenetically distant species, and the association of AG in specific chromosome regions with structural or functional properties, suggests that long clusters of these repeats may have some, as yet unknown, role. Copyright (C) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据