Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Control of the Crossover Localization in Allium
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Control of the Crossover Localization in Allium
Do you wish to request the book?
The Control of the Crossover Localization in Allium
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Control of the Crossover Localization in Allium
2023
Overview
Meiotic crossovers/chiasmata are not randomly distributed and strictly controlled. The mechanisms behind crossover (CO) patterning remain largely unknown. In Allium cepa, as in the vast majority of plants and animals, COs predominantly occur in the distal 2/3 of the chromosome arm, while in Allium fistulosum they are strictly localized in the proximal region. We investigated the factors that may contribute to the pattern of COs in A. cepa, A. fistulosum and their F1 diploid (2n = 2x = 8C + 8F) and F1 triploid (2n = 3x = 16F + 8C) hybrids. The genome structure of F1 hybrids was confirmed using genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). The analysis of bivalents in the pollen mother cells (PMCs) of the F1 triploid hybrid showed a significant shift in the localization of COs to the distal and interstitial regions. In F1 diploid hybrid, the COs localization was predominantly the same as that of the A. cepa parent. We found no differences in the assembly and disassembly of ASY1 and ZYP1 in PMCs between A. cepa and A. fistulosum, while F1 diploid hybrid showed a delay in chromosome pairing and a partial absence of synapsis in paired chromosomes. Immunolabeling of MLH1 (class I COs) and MUS81 (class II COs) proteins showed a significant difference in the class I/II CO ratio between A. fistulosum (50%:50%) and A. cepa (73%:27%). The MLH1:MUS81 ratio at the homeologous synapsis of F1 diploid hybrid (70%:30%) was the most similar to that of the A. cepa parent. F1 triploid hybrid at the A. fistulosum homologous synapsis showed a significant increase in MLH1:MUS81 ratio (60%:40%) compared to the A. fistulosum parent. The results suggest possible genetic control of CO localization. Other factors affecting the distribution of COs are discussed.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
