4.4 Review

A genetic screen for increased loss of heterozygosity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

GENETICS
卷 179, 期 3, 页码 1179-1195

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.108.089250

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P20 CA103728, CA-103728] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-023779, R01 AG023779, R37 AG023779] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) can be a driving a force in the evolution of mitotic/somatic diploid cells, and cellular changes that increase the rate of LOH have been proposed to facilitate this process. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, spontaneous LOH occurs by a number of mechanisms including chromosome loss and reciprocal and nonreciprocal recombination. We performed a screen in diploid yeast to identify mutants with increases rates of LOH using the collection of homozygous deletion alleles of nonessential genes. Increased LOH was quantified at three loci (MET15, SAM2, and MAT) on three different chromosomes, and the LOH events were analyzed as to whether they were reciprocal or nonreciprocal in nature. Nonreciprocal LOH was further characterized as chromosome loss or truncation, a local mutational event (gene conversion or point mutation), or break-induced replication (BIR). The 61 mutants identified could be divided into several groups, including ones that had locus-specific effects. Mutations in genes involved in DNA replication and chromatin assembly led to LOH predominantly via reciprocal recombination. In contrast, nonreciprocal LOH events with increased chromosome loss largely resulted from mutations in genes implicated in kinetochore function, sister chromatid cohesion, or relatively late steps of DNA recombination. Mutants of genes normally involved in early steps of DNA damage repair and signaling produced nonreciprocal LOH without an increased proportion of chromosome loss. Altogether, this Study defines a genetic landscape for the basis of increased LOH and the processes by which it occurs.

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

4.4
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