Definition of Conditions

Russiап loumal of Genetics, Vоl, J5, Лrл .J, 12!9,_рр, 4%-5m. Tmпstated fюm GепеЛilа, uоl. 35, No, 5, 1999, рр, 592-599. Russian Text Copyright @ t999 Ьу Сhаdбi.

Оigiпаl

GEI\TERAL

GЕг{ЕтIсS

The Contact h{odel of Crossing Очеr: Definition of Conditions, Required fоr the Сооriепtаtiоп of Homologueý В. F. Chadov Institute of Cytology andGenetics, RussiапДсаdеrry of Sсiепсеs, Noyosibirsk,630090 Russia; e-mail: chadoy@bioпet,nsc,ru Received Aupst25, |997; in fiпаl fоrm, June 1, 1998

Abstract-ThTee рЪепоmепа hаче Ьееп examined: (1) indepndence of the segTegation of structurally поrmаl homo-logues frоm the position of сгоssочеr exchange relative to the сепtrоmй; ёl indepndence оfъhrоmоsomal rеаrrапgеmепt ability disturb disjunction frоm its posifion on сhrоmоsойе; an-o (3) dependent, рrелtо dominantlY distal position of сrоssочеr eichanges in nondiijunction chTomosom"s. All tйЬ рЁ"по-епа аr" explained iп terms o{the contact model of crossing очеr.АссЙdiпg to the model, disjunction of йе homobgues is provided Ьу.а series.of local contacts between tйеm. The maxim-al пчmьеr of conйts ре. аrm is сопsипiапd is,djtermined Ьу the size of the absolute iпtеrfеrепсе zone. The coorientating inffuence о?йе contact decreases with the movement of its site away frоm the сепtrоmеriс rеgiоп rеsропsiьlБ for the .oori*tution, The role of the contact consists of Ьгiпgiпg the centromeric regions of thё hоmоlбgчеs together. coorientation success does not depend on the рrеsеПсе оr absence of а сrоsйчеr exchange at thЪ site оl the contact. The nondisjunction chromosomes аrе selected with rеgаrd to the absence of proximal (оr close to Нdпсе, the рrЙЙutl e_xchanges formed оп the,basis of these contacts, аrе cooriЪntation-aisociated. Iri the disjunction "опiu"tr. chromosobes, the entire set of contacts is р. resent-.Any of these сап Ье the fust to develop and gепеrаtЁ а сrоSSочеr exchange. весаusе of this, exchanges in the disjunction сhrоmоsоmеs do not dеmопъtгаtеъssосiаtiоп with the coorieritation. According to the, model, the distoTtion of the previous contact disturbs (retards оr prevents) the formation of the пехt contact. Hence, distortion of the contaъt fогmаtiоп in the site of rечоапg"йеп1 irгьsресtiче to lй location, would negatively affect the fогmаtiоп of the conйct in the proximal regioniand wbuld рrоmоtе поп-

disjunction.

INTRODUCTION The contact model of crossing очеr describes the relationship between the раiriпg of homologues and the crossing очеr. АссоrdiпЁ to tЙis model, Йе сhrоmо9оryе pairing, wЦiсh is directly related to crossing очеr, is the process of the consecutive development оТ local contacts between the homologues. Whenthe пumЬеr of contacts in meiocyte rеасhеs а definite level, determination of the crossing очеr sites (DSB) оссurs. The exchanges would оссur at the sites of the contacts already developed before DCS. The contacts fоrmеd after the DCS Would only Sеrче for pairing t 1 , 27. It is suggested that the пumЬеr of contacis реr аrm is determined Ьу the size of the absolute interference zone. rn Drosophila, in which the size of this zопе is 10 сМ, and the mean аfiп length is 50 сМ, the пumЬеr of such сопtacts is 4 to 5 [3].

This was the first model to describe the different 1sp_ec19 of crossing очеr in tеrms of опе concept, including: ( 1) the оrdеr of determination of tЪе e](changeý пumЬеr in the pair of homologues t1]; (2) the effect of the reaшangement on the rеаIтапgеment-bearing сhrоmоsоmе [4], and on the crossing очеr in nonhomologous сhrоmоsоmеs (iпtеrсhrоmоsomal effect) [5]; (3) the mechanism of iпtеrfеrепсе [3, 6]; Ю22,7

9 5 41

99 l 35 05 -0493 $ 22.

and (а) homeostasis in the сrоssочеr exchange distribution аmопg the сhrоmоsоmеs [7]. The model is in good аgrееmепt with сопtеmроrаry data оп the molecular nature of crossing очец Йаiпlу with those suggesting the еmеrgепсе of сrоssочеr ехсhапgе at the site of molecular contact between the homologues [8J. Ноwечец contrary to the concepts of 9l9ssing очеr based оп mоlесulаr and cytogenetia data [8], the contact model prescribes а special оrdеr of con-

tacts development, with this explaining а variety of genetic рhепоmепа associated with crossing очеr.

At present it is possible to involve the рrоЬlеm of сhrоmоsоmе disjunction into the examination of the crossing очеr contact model, паmеlу, to define the conditions leading to coorientation of the homologueý. The present study focuses on the examination of the

thrее рhепоmепа aýsociated with the disjunction of homologues iп Drosophila. The first of theie is а wellknown fact. It is the independence of the homologue

of the сrоssочеr ехсhапgе. The оthеr two wеrе studied Ьу the аuthоr and his associates. These рhепоmепа include the crossing очеr event in the nondisjunction сhrоmоsоmеs and the ability of intrachromosomal rеаrrапgеmепts to induce nondisjunction regardless of their position relative to disjunction frоm the position

00 @ 1 999

МАИК "Наука

/

Interperiodi са"

CHADov

494

wеrе not ехсhапgеd [10, 11]. Recentli, the ге\,егsе, i.e., exchangeability of the nondisjunction сhгоmоsоmеs, was сопfirmеd. This fact was dеmопstгаtеd 0n 1аrgе samples in Drosophila L|2-16], hurпапs L17. 18]. and yeast [ 19] .

1.0

0.8

The frequency of crossing оyеr in nondisjunction

0.6

chromosomes is low. Fоr ехаmрlе, the rесоmЬiпаtiопаl length of the 2L in nondisjunction сhгоmоsоmеs 2|F{2L) of Drosophila constitutes опlу 12.8 cN{ соmраrеd to 55,4 сМ in disjunction сhrоmоsоmеs. This

0.4

пеt dp

Ь рrсп с

чаluе was equal to 22.| сМ in the 2lF(2R) gацеlт, соmраrеd to-58.2 сМ in саýе of disjunction 2_F(2R) t20]. Ttre nondisjunction сhrоmоýоmеs usually hаче ъпе ехсhапgе in the distal раrt of the сhrоmоsоmе. Тhеrеfоrе, ii is possible to speak of the рhепоmепоп of distal exchanges [1б, 2|1, and to explain the colTesponding events in terms of the proposed specificity of tЁе dista] regions [ 1 9, 2|, 227. The рhепоmепоп of distal exchanges, as well as the initial аssurапсе in the поп-ехсhаЙgеаЬilitу of the nondisjunction сhrоmо_ somes аrе рrоЬаЬlу caused Ьу difficulties in obtaining samples sufficient fоr detecting such а rаrе ечепt as сhrоmоsоmе nondisjunction. In samples including sey_ еrаl huпdrеd nondisjunctions, &ilу of the euchromatic regions of nondisjunction сhrоmоýоmеs could Ье ,ехЪhапgеd [13, |4, zз1. The intensity of exchanges, hоwечJц depends оп the location of the rеgiоп rеlаtivе to the сепtrоmеrе: the mоrе distant the сепtrоmеrе is

рх sp

1. Crossing over depression in the left and right аrms of chiomosome 2Ъссоmрапуiпg the nondisjunction of the left F(2L) acrocentric with mеtасепtriс 2 (two left сurчеs), and the right F(2R) acrocentric with mеtасепtriс 2 (thrее righJ сurчеý) t23].Abscissa: поппаl genetic mар of сhrоmоsоmе 2 with thе,mаrkеrs between which the crossing очеr; ordinate: the ratio between the genetic length of the region in case of nondisjunction to its length in case of disjunction. CTossing очеr was measured in the left сhrоmоsоmе аfiпs of females zlF (2L); F(2R) designated Ьу the figurеs I and II, and in the right аrm of females designated Ьу the figures III, IЧ and V. ТБе crossing очеr depression is maximal iп the реriсеПtrоmеriс rеgiоЙ апd decieases with the iпсrеаsе of the distance frоm the сепtrоmеrе.

Fig.

сепtrоrпеrе. According to the contemporary concepts of relationships Ьеtwеёп croýsing очеr and disjunction, these thrее рhепоmепа are contradictory. In tеrms of the contact Йоdеl, however, these events аrе associated

with each оthеr as the consequence of the pairing

mechanism presented. The ability to interpret а new set

of рhепоmепа serves as evidence of the reality of

the model.

EXPERIMENTAL EACTS disjuпсtiоп of the hоmоlоyuеs does

поt Fact l: dерепd оп the location of the сrоssоvеr ехсhапgе relativе to the сепtrоmеrе. This is obvious, because crossочеr ехсhапgеs аrе рrеsепt iп all regions of the dlsjunction homologues сhrоmоsоmеs, except heterochroma_ tin. This fасtЪап have а dual interpretation: it сап Ье the evidence of the independence of the coorientation event frоm сrоýýiпg очеr, Ъпd, conversely, it сап indicate the dependence of coorientation оп crossing очеr under the stipulation of the independence of the cooгientating function of the chiasma frоrп its location relative to the сепtrоmеrе. Fact 2: попdisjuпсtiоп of the hоmоIо7uеs dерепds оп the lосаtiоп of the сrоssоvеr ехсhапgе relative to the сепtrоmеrе. Thefrequency of meiotic nondisjunction is чеry lotv. Fоr а long time, only sporadic cases of t}ir_tyý, arrd sсаrсе sаmрБ of these cases wеrе described [9J. These data showed that nondisjunction сhrоmоsоmеs

frоm the rеgiоп, the mоrе often it арреаrs. it is exchanged lГ4, 2зJ. The data of the five ехрегimепts

demonJtrating а decrease in crossing очеr depression in the nondisjunction chromosomes of Drosophila (асrоcentric апd mеtасепtriс 2) depending on the position of the region relative to the сепtrоmеrе are presented iп

Fig.

1.

The fact of exchangeability of nondisjunction сhrо_ mosomes is self-conflicting. Indeed, if the рrеsепсе of exchanges in the nondisjunction сhrоmоsоmеs rejects the importance of chiasma for homologues сооriепtаtion, tЁеп, on the сопtrаry, the попrапdоm localization of the exchanges in nondisjunction homologues is the evidence оп ttb dependence frоm the chiasma, although in а specific position. Моrеочеr, it remains uпсlеаr, how the eiistence of relationship between nondisjunction and chiasma localization сап Бе associated with the lack of relationship between the localization and disjunction, because dýunction and nondisjunction аrе the two outcomes of опе рrосеSS, i.e., сооriепtаtiоп.

Fact 3: Chromosomal

rеаrrапgеmепt distorts irrespective to its hоmоlоyuеs сооriепtаtiоп of the positioп relative to the centromere. Distortion of the Ъоmоlоguеs сооriепtаtiоп caused Ьу the рrеsепсе of the rеаriапgеmепt is well documentedt241. Ноwечец it remains uпсlеаr how coorientation of the rеаIтапgеd chromosomes depends оп the location of the rеаIтапgеmепt in the partiCular сhrоmоsоmе rеgiоп. The data оп

secondary nondisjunction of

xXY Drbsophilalemales

RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

х

сhrоmоsоmеs

in

the

indicate that coorientation of

GENETICS Vol.

35

No,

5

1999

ТНЕ CONTACT MODEL ОF CROSSING ovER

30

сhrоmоsоmе 2 40

с

a a a a

Distal

_

__. *о ---,

a

495

50

60

I

I

a a a a a

Medial

Proximal

Fig. 2. The Ьоuпdаriеs of the раrасепtriс inversions inducing high degree of nondisjunction of the left F(2L) асrосепtriс with meta_ сепtriс 2 (left part of the figure), and the right F(2R) acrocentricwith metacentric 2 (right part of the figurФ. The inversions located distal to the аrm сепtеr (designated Ьу the dots) аrе attributed to the grочр of the dista] inversions, while those located proximal to the аrm сепtеr were attгibuted to the grоuр of proximal inversions. IпчеrsiоЪs located at both sides of the сепtеr constifuted the group of medial inveгsions. Inversions wеrе isolated fгоm the iпadiated сlrrоmоsоmеs of Dюsophilaby mеапs of the nondisjunctioi tesi

I27,281.

Х

сhrоmоsоmеs is disturbed in heterozygotes for the distal, d1-49,In(l)AB medial, and In(l)BMt рrохimаl inversions. Long inversions, like In(l)ya and sc8, also рrоmоtе sесопdЪry nondisjunction tl i , 257. The Curly раrасепtгiс inversions located in the middle of the аrm caused а rеmаrkаьlе elevation of nondisjunction of the metacentric with the colTesponding асrосепtriс in the 2lF(2L); F(2R) female t26]. Тhе large-scale investigation of the realTangements causing the nondisjunction of the F(2L) оr F(2R) acrocentric with mеtаёепtriс 2 in the ZП(Zb); F(2Ri Drosophita females would shed light оп the question whether the disjunction of homologues is associated with the 1осаtion of the realTangement in а definite сhrоmоsоmе sc7, In(1)65

region.

The irradiated сhrоmоsоmеs causing а high degree of F(2L)-2 and F(2R)-2 nondisjunctions [29-31] йеrе chosen Ьу mеапs of а nondisjunction test [27 ,28]. Al1 of them contained сhrоmоsоmаl rеаrrапgеmепts. The latest included 65 translocations, as well as 31 pericentric and б1 раrасепtriс inversions.

Examination of the paracentric inversion sample is of particular interest for elucidation of the role of the rеаIтапgеmепt position in the induction of nondisjunction. The 2|F(2L); F(2R) system demonstrates the unique соrrеlаtiоп between the аrm pairing distortion RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

GENETICS

Vol.

35

No.

5

caused Ьу раrасепtriс inversion, and the frequency of nondisjunction of the coffesponding асrосепtriс and metacentric. First, disjunction of the асrосепtriс and the metacentric depends only оп the meiotic events happening between them. Second, in the case of their uпраirmепt, the possibility of disjunction colTection via

so-called distributive pairing is excluded [33]. The Ьоuпdагiеs of paracentric inversions causing а high degree of nondisjunction аrе presented iп Fig . 2. The inversions in the left аrm induced 2-F(2L) nondisjunctioп, while the right-аrm inversions were the cause of 2-F(2R) nondisjunction. It is apparent that nondisjunctions аrе caused by_inversions located in three аrrп regions: proximal, medial, and distal. The inversions

occupying distal positions relative to the arTn сепtеr wеrе defined as distal. The пеаrеst to the аrrп center inversions wеrе defined as рrохimаl, and the inversions, located at the both sides of the аrm сепtеr wеrе termed as medial. About 13 inversions аmопg the medial ones wеrе located in the рrохimаl раrt of the аrm.

Examination of the given sample rечеаlеd опе mоrе раrаmеtеr, the length of the realTangement, which influenced induction of the nondisjunction. The пumЬеr of long inversions observed appeared to Ье much higher than could Ье expected in case that the length l999

496

снАDоч

раrаmеtеr was of по imроrtапсе. Inversions with the length of eight and mоrе divisions of the polytene сhrоmоsоmе mар constituted about half of all inversions.

The statement on the independence of disjunction induction frоm the position of rеаIтапgеmепt coincides with the data оп the secondary nondisjunction of Х chromosomes t25I, demonstrating the рrеsепсе of iпчеrsiопs with different localization аmопg those рrоmoting ап increase of nondisjunction. Моrеочеr, iп the ехреrimёпts with XXY females, two conditions indicated fоr the 2lF(2L); F(2R) females and promoted the detection of nondisjunction wеrе fulfilled, i.e., the

iпfluепсе of the events in the second arTn (acrocentric Х сhrоmоsоmеs) оп the disjunction was excluded, апd the possibility of coorientation of the unpaired сhrоmоsomes as а result of distributive pairing (the presence of Y сhrоmоsоmе) was considerably diminished.

EXPLANATIONS GIVEN ACCORDING ТО ТНЕ EXISTING HYPOTHESIS ON PAIRING AND CROSSING ОЧЕR Among пumеrоuý hypothesis and opinions оп the паturе of pairing and crossing очеr developed очеr

mапу уеаrs of investigations in this аrеа, there аrе some giving individual ехрlапаtiоп to each of the facts. Fact 1 сап Ь.е explained Py:$ep9Tdence of disjunction frоm crossing очеr [34, 35]. This interpretation, however, does not ехрlаiп fact 2: relationship between nondisjunction and the distal exchanges.

Distal exchanges in the nondisjunction сhrоmо-

somes wеrе explained Ьу the elevation of chiasma ability to coorientate the homologues with the iпсrеаsе of

the distance frоm the сепtrоmеrе [19, 2|,36]. This interpretation, hоwечеr, does not explain the mainteпапсе of coorientation iп поrmаl conditions. The рrохimal exchanges in these conditions are ап exception rаthеr than usual event, In оur opinion, the process of coorientation is independent frоm crossing очеr and chiasmata. It depends оп the pairing of сепtrоmеriс regions of homologues and попhоmоlоguеý сhrоmоsomes l3'| ,38]. Тhе cases of nondisjunction result frоm соmрlеtе, оr partial (restricted to the сепtrоmеriс rеgiоп) asynapsis of homologues t39]. This viewpoint agrees with both the first and the second facts. Howечеr, it does not explain the third fact: why effective inductors of nondisjunction аrе rерrеýепtеd not only Ьу the proximal realTangements, which indeed distort pairing of the рrохimаl сhrоmоsоmе rеgiопs, but also Ьу the medial and even Ьу the distal realTangements, whose iпffuепсе оп pairing in the рrохimаl regions is unlikely. Furthеrmоrе, complete ýection of the rоlе of the chiasma in сhrоmоsоmе coorientation is hardly possible, taking into consideration its well-documented significance for the process of сhrоmоsоmе rеоriепtаtion [40, 41]. The atternpts to rечеаl the relationship between disjunction and pairing through estimation of pairing Ьу

crossing очеr has Ьееп made. The data оп crossing очеr, however, do not explain how the rеаffапgеmепt distorts pairing. Uпсlеr the iпfluепсе of the rеаffапgеment, crossing очеr decreaýes within the reaffangement and outside of it, in the distal as well as in the рrохimаl regions. This рhепоmепоп саппоt Ье explained in tеrms of the assumptions оп the аutопоmоus раiriпg of the individual regions, and оп the distribution of раiriпg in опе direction (distal оr proximal) t35]. RеmаrkаЬlе increase of nondisjunction of асrосепtriс апd metacentric chromosomes in the 2lF(2L); F(2R) females uпdеr the influence of the paracentric In(2L)Cy and In(2R)Cy inversions permitted suggestion of the existence of the dual_frequency pairing рrосеss: first in distal and then in рrохimаl direction [2б, 35]. This explanation, howеyеr, is also not exhaustive. It remains uпсlеаr why the size of the inverted region affects the ability of inversion to induce nondisjunction. Therefore, the рhепоmепа discussed сап not Ье reconcilably explained based on the existing hypothesis.

EXPLANATIONS GrЧЕN ON ТНЕ BASIS ОF ТНЕ СОМАСТ MODEL ОF CROSSIЬTG OVER According to the model, the process of the local contact formation does not stop with the оссuшепсе of , Dcs, Ьut continues till saturation. saturation оссurs when the distances between these contacts Ьесоmе equal to the zone of absolute iпtеrfеrепсе. In Dюsоphila with the size of this zone comprising 10 сМ, оп the ашп of 50 сМ, the пumЬеr of such contacts should Ье 4 to 5 [3]. Figurе 3 demonstrates three different sequences of these contact fоrmаtiоп in the cllse of location of the first contact in the disИl, рrохimаl, оr medial regions. The position of the next contact is determined Ьу iпtеrfеrепсе induced Ьу the previous contact. Iпtеrfеrепсе is first spread оyеr the whole аrтп апd then diminishes in the direction frоm the реriрhеry to the sоurсе of iпtеrfеrепсе сепtеr. In поrmаl pairing, the site of сrоssочеr exchange (designated Ьу а circle) would depend оп the site of the first contact. In the аrтI1, fоur contacts аrе usually formed irrespectively to the position of the first contact, fоrmеd at the moment important fоr coorientation. The пеw statement of the model: local contacts between the homologues provide bringing together the centromeric regions of the homologues, and hепсе, their coorientation. The coorientating function of the contact iпсrеаýеs with the contact аррrоасhiпg the сепtromeric region. The opinion оп the coorientating function of the chi-

аsmа dominates iп сопtеmроrаry litеrаturе |421. The specific function of раrасепtrоmеriс chiasmata is eЙphasized [34, 43]. The поче1 statement of the model differs frоm the traditional point of view Ьу the fact that the coorientating rоlе is thought to Ье played not Ьу the

chiasma, but Ьу its рrесursоr, the local contact. The contacts located in the region of рrохimаl еuсhrоmаtiп аrе thought to Ье most effective, because pairing of the

RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

GENETICS Yol.

35

No.

5

1999

ТНЕ CONTACT MODEL ОF CROSSING ОЧЕR (а)

(ь)

497

(с)

DCS

Fig. 3. Тhrее variants of contact formation in the сhrоmоýOmе апп. The first conИct (паrrоwiпg with the dot) is developed in the distal (а), medial (Ь), оrрrохimаl (с) аrm rеgiоп. Тhе second and the following contacts develop Й ассоrdапсе with the iпiеrfегепсе rule, i.e., at the maximal distance frоm the previous contact. The sequence оfЪе contact fоrmhiоп is indicated Ьу the аrrоws. The final пumЬеr of contacts is eqrral to four irrespectively of the position of the first contact. These always include frrохimаl contact, providing the coorientation.of the hоmоlоgчеi. The chiasma (Ъчаl) is fоrmеd at the site of the first conиct. In Й рrеsепсе of the four contacts the coorientation does not depends on the position of chiasma геlаtiче to the сепtrоmеrе.

сепtrоmеriс regions is considered to Ье crucial fоr the first stages of coorientation t44]. Fоr coorientation takiпg place in late рrорhаsе, рrохimаl contact is required. This coorientation does not depend оп the following formation оr non-formation of the exchange with subsequent chiasma at the site of contact. In the case of поrmаl pairing, the usual set of соп-

the possibility of new contact development arises. It оссurs first iп the regions most distant frоm the position of the previous contact. In due соursе, the possibility of the development of а contact close to the previous опе,

increases [3, 6]. The арреаrапсе of the DSB соrrеlаtеs with the рrimаry DNA structure [45, 4б], but not with the distance 'between the hоmоlоguеs regions Ьеfоrе раiriпg. This statement does поt фuirе special argumerrtatioЙ. Otherwise, the influence of realTangement would result опlу in the rеdistгiЬutiоп of сrоssочеr events along the аrтп, оr the entire сhrоmоsоmе. Ноwечеr, it is well known that the main effect of rеаrrапgеmепt consists not in the redistribution, but in the decrease of crossing очеr along the аrrп with maximums within the boundaries of the rеаffапgеmепt. Initiation of the DSB in the region аЬпоrmаllу distant frоm its homologue would unambiguously retard оr prevent contact formation |471. The condition of the unfinished contact blocks the development of the next contact, and eventually the whole set of contacts. This mеапs that the рrоЬlеms with contact formation in one region would affect this process in other regions. Both distal and medial contacts would distort the fоrrпаtiоп

is fоrmеd, including proximal contacts most important fоr coorientation. The latest аrе formed irrеspectively to the type of first contact, and hence, irrеspective to the position of the сrоssочеr chiasma. It сап Ье suggested that uпdеr delay of the contact fоrmаtiоп попе of the contacts would give rise to exchange. Howечеr, the conditions for the homologues coorientation would Ье developed. These cases рrоЬаЬlу includ е 5То tacts

of

поrmаl

Х

сhrоmоsоmе tetrads, which usually

rеmаiп unexchanged in the сrоssочеr experiments. The existence of contacts between them is сопfirmеd Ьу the fact that interchromosomal influence nullifies the frequency of unexchanged Х tetrads [7J. Nondisjunction of homologues is caused Ьу the lack of contact between their сепtrоmеriс regions. The latest in turп, results frоm the lack of proxirnal, оr nearest to it, contact. The lack of the proximal contact would Ье most likely associated with complete absence of сопtacts along the arTll. The distal contacts, hоwечеr, сап оссur. As а result, the pattern of the crossing очеr

of proximal contacts important for coorientation of homologues. This is why remarkable disturbance of coorientation is observed fоr сhrоmоsоmеs z of the 2B(2L); F(2R) females, and for Х сhrоmоsоmеs of the XXY females containing distal апd medial inversions. This explains the influence of the realTangements, поt including the сепtrоmеriс region, оп the disjunction of

depression diminishing in the distal direction will Ье obtained. Crossing очеr in nondisjunction сhrоmоsomes can Ье increased through interchromosomal iпfluепсе, but not in the раrасепtrоmеriс regions of these chromosomes [20]. According to the contact model of crossing очеr, formation of the local contact is а long proCess. It involves all fоur chromatids and includes-ttre developmепt of double-stranded breaks (DSB), ýegregation bf chromatids, and restoration of linkage between them. The time of realization of these processes is the time of interference, during which fоrmаtiоп of апоthеr contact in the аrm is impossible. At the end of these proceýses, RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

GENETICS

Vоl.

35

No.

5

homologues. The рrохimаl rеаrrапgеmепts directly disturb сооrientation Ьу preventing contact development in the раrасепtrоmеriс region. As is shown in Fig . 2, proximal inversions constitute а considerable раrt of the nondisjunction-inducing inversions (20 frоm б1). This рrо-

portion would Ье even greater with the inclusion of 13 inversions that аrе defined as medial, but аrе located

predominantly in the proximal раrt of the аrm. 1

999

498

CHADov

The explanation given for the effect of distal rеар rапgеmепt suggests that it depends оп the rеашапgеment's length. The probability of the DSB dечеlорmепt within the 1аrgеr rеfiтапgеmепt's is higher than iп the smaller опе. Fоr this rеаsоп the longer realTangement

пurпЬеr of synaptonemal соmрtех initiation sites [48]. It сап not Ье excluded that these initiation sites аrе рrеsented Ьу the contacts described in the model рrеsented. The рrоЬlеm of these contacts again raises the question of the паturе of the chiasmata in late prophase

раrасепtrоmеriс contact соmраrеd to the shorter опе, and hепсе, with higher frequency will lead to nondisjunctioll. The рrечаlепсе of 1опg rеаrrапgеmепts очеr short ones is demonstrated in Fig. 2.

metaphase t49]

with higher probability will distort the fоrmаtiоп of

The prognoses оп the iпfluепсе of the individual rештапgеmепt оп disjunction of homologues should take some additional facts into consideration. For example, the coorientation of mеtасепtriс homologues will Ье protected Ьу the development of contacts in both a[Tlls. Potential disjunction defects caused Ьу the influence of rеаIтапgеmепt can Ье repaired duriпg the distributive pairing. Fоr this rеаsоп diýtortion of pairing mау not lead to the disjunction distortion. The above mechanism mediating the influence of the rеашrmgеmепt оп outside proceýses should also Ье effective for crossing очеr. Theoretically, only а slight decrease of crossing очеr is expected. This results frоm the decreased contribution of the sесопd-rапk and higher rапk exchanges, whose formation depends оп the development of the second contact. The contribution of such contacts to the recombinational length is low. The main contribution is made Ьу single

exchanges developed оп the basis of the first contact. In the рrеsепсе of distal rеаIтапgеmепt, the formation of the first рrохimаl contact is not disturbed. In ассоrdance with оur expectationso in the XXY females with the sc7 and Iп( 1)65 distal inversionsn the length of the рrохimаl region was опlу б to 8Чо lоwеr compared to

the сопtrоl. This slight decrease contrasted with the оrdеr of magnitude increased frequency of the secondаry Х сhrоmоsоmе nondisjunction induced Ьу the sаmе realTangements [25].

Ассоrdiпg to the contact model of crossing очец the main task of determination of the coorientation falls оп the contacts, but not chiasmata, This model assigns the contact mапу functions and features of development attributed еаrliеr to chiasmata. The function of the chiаsmа рrоЬаЬlу constitutes in holding together bi- апd multivalents at the equator of the spindle before disjunction and possibility of rеоriепtаtiоп t20]. Thus, based оп genetic data, strong апd argumented ýection

of chiasma involvement iп the coorientation in fact ýects its rоlе only at the first stage of coorientation, defined as disjunction dеtеrmiпаtiоп and оссurriпg iп late prophase. The role of chiasmata at the second stage

taking place iп prometaphase and metaphese is not

ýected [20]. It is чеry likely that а series of contacts between hоmоlоguеs precedes and determines the раttеrп of complete раiriпg, саrriеd out Ьу the synaptonemal соmрIех. The mutants distinguiglgd Ьу the levels of crossing очеr wеrе shown to Ье different relative to tlre

that would not Ье converted into rеаl chiasmata iп

.

._

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to S. А. Kopyl fоr his help in рrераrаtiоп of the manuscript. This work was supported Ьу the Russian Foundation fоr Basic Research.

REFERENCES 1. Chadov, В.F.,

2. 3.

'

А

Mechanism of Determination of the

Exchange NumЬеr in а Раir of Homologous Сhrоmоsomes, Dokl. Akad, Nauk, 1995, vol. 343, рр. 838-840. Chadov, В.F., А Model of Crossing Очеr Regulation, Gепеtikа (Moscow), |997, чо1. 3З, по. 7, рр. 883-890. Chadov, B.F. and Buzykanova, G.N., Associated Alterations of Recombinational Length, Exchange NumЬеr, апd Сhrоmоsоmе Interference iп Drosophila Сhrоmо-

some 2, Gепеtikа (Moscow), 1997, vol. 33, [lo. 6,

рр.776-'18З.

4. Сhаdоъ В.F., Chadova, Е.V., Khotskina, Е.А., €t

al.,

Crossing Over in Rеаrrапgеd Сhrоmоsоmеs of Droso-

5.

phila: The Role of Delayed Pairing , Gепеtjftа (Moscow), 1995, vol. 31, no. 11, рр. 1512-1 520. Сhаdоъ В.F., Chadova, E.Y, KhotsНna, Е.А., et al., Mechanism of Iпtеrсhrоmоsоmаl Effect on Crossing

Очеr iп Dros ophila melaпogaster: Delayed Сгоssiпg Очец Genetika(Moscow), 1994, vol. 30, no. 11, рр. 1471-1481.

6. Chadov, В.F. апd Buzykanova, G.N., А Mechanism of Сhrоmоsоmе Iпtеrfеrепсе, Dokl. Дkаd. Nauk, |996, vol. 348, рр. 407-409.

'l

. Chadov, В.F., Chadova, Е.V., Кору1, S.A., апd Апап'iпа, G.N., А Сhrоmоsоmе RеаIтапgеmепt: Two \Mays of Affecting Crossing Over, Gепеtikа, \999, vol. 35, по, 5, р. 459466,

8. Кlесkпeг, N., Meiosis: How Соuld

It Wоrk?, Proc. Natl. Дсаd. Scj. USA, |996, vol.93, рр,81б7-81_74, 9. Сhаdоv, В.F., Frоm the Рhепоmепоп of Nondisjunction to the РrоЬlеm of Сhrоmоsоmе Coorientation (То the 75th Аппiчеrsаrу of Publishing Bridges' Аrtiсlе, Gепеtika (Moscow), 199|, vol. 27 , по. 1 1, рр. |8'l'7-|904. 10. Bridges, С.В., Nondisjunction as Рrооf of the Сhrоmоsоmе Theory of Heredity, Geпetics, 19L6, yol. 1, рр" 1-

52, |07-|62.

1. Sturtevant, А.Н. and Beadleo G.'!V'., The Relation of Inversions in the Х Сhrоmоsоmе of Drosophila mеlапоgaster to Crossing Очеr апd Disjunction, Genetics, 1936, vol. 2l, рр.554-604. |2. Меrriаm, I.R. and Frost, I.N., Exchange and Nondisjunction of the Х Chromosomes in Fеmаlе Drosophila mеlапоgаstец Geпetics, 1964, vol. 49, рр. |a9-122. 13. Сhаdоъ В.F. and Chadova, Е.V., Meiotic Asynapsis of

1

the Сепtrоmеriс Regions апd Its Effect оп Crossing Очеr

RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

GENETICS Vol. 35 No.

5

1999

ТНЕ CONTACT MODEL OF CROSSING OVER and Сhrоmоsоmе Distribution in Fеmаlе Drosophila,

Dokl. Дkаd. l,{auk SSSR, 1981, vol. 26l, рр. 993-996. 14. Chadov, В.F. and Podoplelova, M.L.o Sечеrа1 Fеаturеs of the Рrосеss of Сhrоmоsоmе Conjugation iп Drosophila, Dokl. Дkаd. Nauk SSлSR, 1984, vol. 276, рр. 738-742. 15.

Liining, K.Q., Genetics of IпЬrеd Drosophila mеlапо-

gaster: VI. Crossing Over in Secondary Nondisjunction Exceptionals, Hereditas (Lund, Swed.), 1982, vol. 96,

рр. 1б1-1_74.

1б.

Ltining, K.Q., Genetics of

ed Drosophila mеlапоgaster: VII. Evidence of Nоrmаl Сhrоmоsоmе Pairing in the Distal Ends of Х Сhrоmоsоmеs in Secondary Nопdisjunction, Hereditas (Lund, Swed.), |981 vol. 96, IпЬr

рр. 287-290. |7. MacDonald, М., Hassoldo Т., Harvey, J., et al., The Origin of 47,XXY and 47,ХХХ Aneuploidy, Hurrl. MoI.

Gепеt., |994, vol. 3, рр. 1365-1371_, 18. Shеrmап, S.L., Petersen, М.В.о Frееmап, S.B., et al., Nondisjunction of Сhrоmоsоmе 2| in Маtеrпаl Meiosis I: Evidence for а Maternal-Age Dependent Mechanism Involving Reduced Recombination, Нum. Mol. Gепеt., |994, vol. 3, рр. |529-1535. 19. Ross, L.O.o Maxfield, R., and Dawson, D., Exchanges Аrе Not Equally Able to Епhапсе Meiotic Сhrоmоsоmе Segregation in Yeast, Proc. Natl. Дсаd. ,Scj. USД, |996, vol. 93,рр. 49794983. 20. Chadoy, B.F., Mechanism of Сhrоmоsоmе Nondisjunction iп Drosophila Meiosis, Сhrоmоsоmе Segregatioп апd Дпеuрlоiф,АЬЬопdапdоlо, А.о Vig, В.К.о and Roi, R., Eds., IspraJRC, 1996, рр. 328-342.

2t. Hawley, R.S., McKim, K.S., and Arbel, Т., Meiotic Segregation in Drosophila mеlапоgаstеr Females: Моlе-

cules, Mechanisms, and Myths , Дппu. Rеv. Gепеt., |993,

vol.

27 ,

рр.28l-З1_7. 22. Hawley, R.S ., Frazier, J.A., and Rasool}, R., Соmmепtаrу: Separation Anxiety: The Etiology of Disjunction in

Flies and People, Нum. Mol. Gепеt., 199{ vol.

З,

рр. 1521-1 528. 23. Chadov, В.F. and Podoplelova, M.L., Сhrоmоsоmе Conjugation in Drosophila: I. Interrelationships between Conjugation, Crossing Overo and Disjunction and Evidence for the Disjunction Origin in the Сепtrоmеriс Сhrоmоsоmе Region, Gепеtikа (NIoscow), 1985, vol. 21, по. 9, рр. 1 472-|480. 24. Roberts, Р., The Genetics of Сhrоmоsоmе АЬеrrаtiоп, The Geпetics апd Biology of Drosophila, АshЬurпеrо М. and Novitski, Е., London: Academic, vol. 1а, рр. 67-

28. Chadov, B.F., Rесочеrу of Rеаrrапgеmепts in Drosophila Based оп а Nondisjunction Ъst, Dros. Iпf. Serv., 1991, чо1. 70, рр.

рр.274-275.

32. Volkova, E.I. and Buzykanova, G.N., New Mutants: Rероrt, Dros. Iпf. Sеw., |991_, vol. 70, рр. 275-276.

В.F., Chadova, Е.V., and Khotskina, Е.А., Coorientation of Two Nonhomologous Сhrоmоsоmеs during Meiosis in Drosophila: II. Asymmetrical Effect оп Сhrоmоsоmе Nondisjunction, Gепеtikа (Moscow),

з3. Chadov,

1988, vol. 24, по. 1, рр. 60-б8. 34. Dobzhansky, Т., Studies of Сhrоmоsоmе Conjugation: II. Relation between Crossing Очеr and Disjunction of Сhrоmоsоmе s, Z. Iпdukt. ДЬ s tаmm. -Vе vol. 64, рр. 269-З09.

рр.253-26|.

з6. Rasooly, R.S., New, С.М. , Zhапg, (

1)TW-6oS Mutation

38.

5

, et al., The Lethal а

Chadov, В.F.о Реriсепtrоmеriс Heterochromatin and

Сhrоmоsоmе Coorientation in Dividing Cells of Drosophila, Gепеtikп (Moscow), 1987, vol. 23,по.6, рр. 10821087.

А Mechanism of Meiotic Сhrоmоsоmе Nondisjunction in Drosophila:

39. Chadov, В.F. and Podoplelova, M.L.,

40.

4|.

The Role of Complete and Partial Asynapsis of Homologues, Gепеtikа (Moscow), 1985, vol. 21, no. 5,рр. 77Ь 778. Nicklas, R.B., Сhrоmоsоmе Micromanipulation: I. Induced Reorientation and the Ехреrimепtаl Сопtrоl of Segregation in Meiosis, Chromosoma, 1967, чоl. 2l, рр. 17-50. Nicklas, R.B. and Koch, С.А., Сhrоmоsоmе Мiсrоmапipulation: II. Spindle FiЬеr Tension and Reorientation of Ma0-Oriented Сhrоmоsоmеs, /. Cell Biol., |969, vol. 43, рр. 40-50. Саrрепtец А.Т.С., Chiasma Fuпсtiоп, Cell (Cambridge, Mass.) , |994, vol. 77 , рр. 959-962. Ostergreen, G., The Mechanism of Coorientation in Bivalents and Multivalents: The Theory of Orientation Ьу Pulling, Hereditas (Lund, Swed.), 1951, vol. 37, по. 1, рр. 85-156.

44. Chadov, В.F.,

No.

Р.

of Drosophila mеlапоgаstеr Is

Dominant Allele of поd and Is Associated with а Single Base Раir Change in the Putative ATP-Binding Domain, Genetics, 199l, vol. |29, рр.409422. 37. Chadov, В.F., А Hypothesis of the Delayed Pairing of Реriсепtrоmеriс Heterochromatic Сhrоmоsоmе Region s during the First Meiotic Division in Drosophila, Gепеtika (Moscow), 1989, чо1.25,по.6, рр. 1036-1046.

26. Chadov, ,В.F., Chadova, Е.V., and Khotskina, Е.А., Сhrоmоsоmе Conjugation iп Drosophila: II. Asynaptic and Desynaptic Effects of Сhrоmоsоmе Aberration, Genetifra (Moscow), 1986, vol. 22,по. 1, рр. 62-70. 27. Chadov, B.F., Ivanov, Yu.N., and Аrtеmоча, Е.V.о Isolation of Сhrоmоsоmаl Mutations iп Drosophila mеlапоgaster with а Test for Nondisjunction, Gепеtifrа (Moscow), 1985, чо1. 21, по. 7о рр. 1143-1150.

35

|933,

IV. General Scheme of the Process of Meiotic Сhrоmоsome Pairing, Gепеtikа (Moscow), 1986, vol. 22, по. 2,

42.

Vоl.

re rb uп g s I.,

35. Сhаdоv, В.F., Сhrоmоsоmе Conjugation in Drosophila:

184.

GENETICS

4142.

29. Artjomova, E.V, New Mutants: Report, Dro* Iпf. Serv., |991, vol. 70, р. 265. 30. Аrdоmочц Е.V. and Buzykanova, G.N., New Mutants: Report, Dros. Iпf. Sеrv., |99t, чоl. 70, рр. 265-266. 31. Omelianchuk, L.V., Chadova, Е.Y., Kopil, S.A., et al., New Mutants: Rероrt, Dros. Iпf. Serv., |99t, vol. 70,

25. Grell, R.F., А New Mode1 for Secondary Nondisjunction: the Role of Distributive Pairing, Gепеtiсs, |962, vol. 47, рр, I737-L754.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

499

4з.

Meiotic Pairing and Coorientation of

Сhrоmоsоmеs in Drosophila melanogaster, iп РrоЬlеmу

genetiki i teorii selektsii (РrоЬlеms in Genetics and the Тhеоrу of Breeding), Novosibirsk: Nauka, t99l, рр. 177-197.

1999

=--\ 500

CHADov

45. Resnik, М.А., The Repair of Double-Strand Breaks in DNA: А Model Involving Recombination, J. Тhеоr Biol.,1976, vol. 59, рр. 97-104. 46. Szostak, J.'W''., Оrr-W'еачеr, T.L., Rothstein, R.J., and Stahl, F.'W',, The Double-Strand-Break Rераir Model fоr Recombination, Cell (Cambridge, Mass.), 1983, vol. 33, рр. 25-35. 47. Chadov, В.F. and Anan'ina, G.N., А Distance between Homologous Regions Ьеfоrе Pairing and the Probability

of Crossing Очеr in Тhеm, Dokl. Дkаd. Nаuk, vol. 358, рр.26Ф269.

1998,

48. ZiсНец D., Моrеаu, P.J.F.' Нuупh, A.D., and Slezec, А.М., Correlation between Pairing Initiation Sites, Recombination Nodules, and Meiotic Recombination in sordaria

macrospora, Genetics, 1992, чо1. 132, рр. 135-148. 49. Darlington, C.D., The Сопtrоl of the Сhrоmоsоmе Ьу the Gепоtуре and lts, Bearing оп Some Ечоlutiопаrу РrоЬlеffiý, Дm. Nat., |932, vol. 66о по. 702, рр. 25-51.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL оF

GENETICS Vol. 35 No.

5

1,999

|+