Mathematical Meiotic Models of Genome Analysis: Comparison With Molecular Approaches

  • J. Sybenga
Part of the Stadler Genetics Symposia Series book series (SGSS)

Summary

The analysis of the evolutionary distance between genomes is one of the justifications of genome analysis based on molecular analysis and high resolution mapping. It is also the main objective of estimating affinity differences between genomes by mathematical meiotic models, based on the relative frequencies of diakinesis/metaphase I configurations in polyploid hybrids. Polyploid hybrids are preferred over diploid hybrids because they combine several genomes in the same meiotic cellular environment. The first stage of meiotic pairing, although DNA dependent, is indirect and less DNA specific than the second phase. This involves accurate DNA homology search, often leading to crossing-over and chiasmata. The combination of the two stages results in configurations that contain detailed information on evolutionary divergence at both the DNA level and in a more general biological sense. In polyploids these configurations include multivalents of various shapes. In order to interpret this information in terms of evolutionary distance, different mathematical models have been developed. These correspond in some essential respects, but differ in others. Their relative merits are discussed and it is indicated that some frequently adopted simplifications are not acceptable. Certain autopolyploids suggest considerable spurious divergence between identical genomes as a result of the properties of their meiotic pairing and chiasma system. It is advisable, therefore, not to draw conclusions from hybrids alone.

When this and other complicating factors, including variation in pairing and chiasma patterns, are taken into account, diakinesis and metaphase I configurations can give good information on genome differentiation. This includes differences in DNA sequence and gross structural homology as well as other forms of evolutionary divergence.

Keywords

Synaptonemal Complex Chiasma Frequency Preferential Pairing Chiasma Formation Meiotic Pairing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso, LC., and Kimber, G., 1981, The analysis of meiosis in hybrids II. Triploid hybrids, Can.J.Genet.Cytol. 23: 221.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, T., Cacheiro, N.L.A., Russell, L.B., and Ward, D.C., 1993, Molecular characterization of a pericentric inversion in mouse chromosome 8 implicates telomeres as promoters of meiotic recombination, Chromosoma 102: 112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benavente, E., and Orellana, J., 1989, Pairing competition between identical and homologous chromosomes in autotetraploid rye heterozygous for interstitial C-bands, Chromosoma 98: 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callow, R.S., and Gladwell, I., 1984, A general treatment of chromosome synapsis in even-numbered polyploids, J.Theor.Biol. 106: 455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, C.G.D., and Kimber, G., 1992a, Developments in the meiotic analysis of hybrids. II. Amended models for tetraploids, Heredity 68: 105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, C.G.D., and Kimber, G., 1992b, Developments in the meiotic analysis of hybrids. V. Second order models for tetraploids and pentaploids, Heredity 68: 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crane, C.F., and Sleper,D.A., 1989a, A model of meiotic chromosome association in triploids, Genome 32: 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane, C.F., and Sleper, D.A., 1989b, A model of meiotic chromosome association in tetraploids, Genome 32; 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossway, A., and Dvorak, J., 1984, Distribution of nonstructural variation along three chromosome arms between wheat cultivars Chinese Spring and Cheyenne, Genetics 106: 309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Darlington, C.D., 1965, “Cytology”. J.and A. Churchill Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  11. Driscoll, C.J., Bielig, LM., and Darvey, N.L, 1979, An analysis of frequencies of chromosome configurations in wheat and wheat hybrids, Genetics 91: 755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, M., Mello-Sampayo, T. and Sears, E.R., 1966, Somatic association in Triticum aestivum, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 56: 1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill, K.S., Gill, B.S., Endo, T.R., and Friebe, B., 1994, Lack of correspondence between chiasmata and crossovers in wheat, IV Kew Chromosome Conf. p. 71.Google Scholar
  14. Goodspeed, T.H., and Clausen, R.E., 1928, Interspecific hybridization in Nicotiana VIII. The sylvestris-tomentosa-tabacum hybrid triangle and its bearing on the origin of tabacum, Univ. Cal. Publ. Bot. 11: 245.Google Scholar
  15. Hamey, Y., Abberton, M.T., Wallace, A.J., and Callow, R.S., 1988, Pairing autonomy and chromosome size, in: “III Kew Chromosome Conference,” P.E. Brandham, ed., HMSO London:241.Google Scholar
  16. Havekes, F., Jong, J.H. de, and Heijting, C., 1993, Synapsis and chiasma formation in tomato, Abstracts XVII Internat. Congr. Genetics Birmingham p. 132.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, RC., and Casey, J., 1982, Cytogenetic analyses of autopolyploids: models and methods for triploids to octoploids, Am. J. Bot. 69: 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, R.C., and Hauber, D.P., 1982, Autotriploid and autotetraploid analyses:. correction coefficients for proposed binomial models, Am. J. Bot. 69: 644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jauhar, P.P., 1990, Multidisciplinary approach to genome analysis in the diploid species, Thinopyrum bessarabicum and Th. elongatum (Lophopyrum eiongatum), of the Triticeae, Theor. Appl. Genet. 80: 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, G.H., 1967, The control of chiasma distribution in rye, Chromosoma 22: 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, G.H., 1984, The control of chiasma distribution, in: “Controlling events in meiosis,” C.W.Evans, and H.G.Dickinson, eds., 38th Symp. Soc. Exp. Biologists; Comp. Biologists Cambridge p. 293.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, G.H., 1994, Meiosis in autopolyploid Crepis capillaris. III. Comparison of triploids and tetraploids; evidence for non-independence of autonomous pairing sites, Heredity 73: 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, G.H., and Vincent, J.E., 1994, Meiosis in autopolyploid Crepis capillaris. II Autotetraploids, Gen orne 37: 497.Google Scholar
  24. Jongedijk, E., Ramanna, M.S., Sawor, Z., and Hermsen, J.G.T., 1991, Formation of first division restitution (FDR) 2n-gametes through pseudo-homotypic division in ds-1 (desynapsis) mutants of diploid potato: routine production of tetraploid progeny from 2xFDR-2xFDR crosses, Theor. Appl. Genet. 82: 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kihara, H., 1930, Genomanalyse bei Triticum und Aegilops, Cytologia 1:263. Kimber, G., and Alonso, L.C. 1981, The analysis of meiosis in hybrids. III. Tetraploid hybrids, Can.J.Genet.Cytol. 23: 235.Google Scholar
  26. Lavania, U.C., Srivastava, S., and Sybenga, J. 1991, Cytogenetics of fertility improvement in artificial autotetraploids of Hyoscyamus niger L., Genome 34: 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loidl, J., 1986, Synaptonemal complex spreading in Allium. H. Tetraploid Allium vineale, Genome 28: 754.Google Scholar
  28. Loidl, J., and Länger, H., 1993, Evaluation of models of homologue search with respect to their efficiency on meiotic pairing, Heredity 71: 342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lukaszewski, A. J., and Gustafson, J. P., 1983, Translocations and modifications of chromosomes in triticale x wheat hybrids, Theor. AppL Genet. 64: 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maguire, M.P., 1968, Chromosome pairing in altered constitutions and models of synapsis and crossing-over, Genet. Res. 12: 21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maguire, M.P., 1980, Adaptive advantage for chiasma interference: a novel suggestion, Heredity 45: 127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maguire, M.P., 1985, Evidence on the nature and complexity of the mechanism of chiasma maintenance in maize, Genet.Res. 45: 37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nilsson, N.-0., Sä11, T., and Bengtson, B.O., 1993, Chiasma and recombination data in plants: are they compatible? Trends in Genet. 9: 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orellana, J., and Santos, J.L., 1985, Pairing competition between identical and homologous chromosomes in autotetraploid rye. I. Submetacentric chromosomes, Genetics 111: 933.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sears, E.R., 1984, Mutations in wheat that raise the level of meiotic chromosome pairing, in: “Genetic manipulation in plant improvement,” J.P. Gustafson, ed., 16th Stadler Genetics Symp. Columbia MO, pp. 295.Google Scholar
  36. Steinmetz, M., Uematsu, Y., and Lindahl, K.F., 1987, Hotspots of homologous recombination in mammalian genomes, Trends In Genet. (January):7. Sybenga, J., 1965, The quantitative analysis of chromosome pairing and chiasma formation based on the relative frequencies of MI configurations. II. Primary trisomies, Genetica 36: 339.Google Scholar
  37. Sybenga, J., 1966, The zygomere as hypothetical unit of chromosome pairing initiation, Genetica 37: 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sybenga, J., 1972, “General Cytogenetics,” North Holland/American Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Sybenga, J., 1973, Allopolyploidization of autopolyploids. 2. Manipulation of the chromosome pairing system, Euphytica 22: 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sybenga, J., 1975, “Meiotic Configurations,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York.Google Scholar
  41. Sybenga, J., 1976, Quantitative variation in chromosome pairing affinities within a species, Secale cereale, in: “Current Chromosome Research”, K. Jones, and P.E. Brandham, eds., Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press p. 143.Google Scholar
  42. Sybenga, J., 1988, Mathematical models for estimating preferential pairing and recombination in triploid hybrids, Genome 30: 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sybenga, J., 1992, “Cytogenetics in Plant Breeding,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Sybenga, J., 1994, Preferential pairing estimates from multivalent frequencies in tetraploids, Genome 37: 1045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sybenga, J., 1995a, Limitations and pitfalls in the use of quantitative polyploid meiotic models for genome analysis, in:“Methods of Genome Analysis in Plants: their Merits and Pitfals,” P.P. Jauhar, ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton. in press.Google Scholar
  46. Sybenga, J., 1995b, Meiotic pairing in autohexaploid Lathyrus: a mathematical model, Heredity,in press.Google Scholar
  47. Sym, M., and Roeder, G.S., 1994, Crossover interference is abolished in the absence of a synaptonemal complex protein, Cell 79: 283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vincent, J.E., and Jones, G.H., 1993, Meiosis in autopolyploid Crepis capillaris. I Triploids and trisomics; implication for models of chromosome pairing, Chromosoma 102: 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallace, A.J., and Callow, R.S., 1993, Synaptic responses to concerted genomic evolution in Lathyrus. II. Intragenomic effects, Heredity 70: 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang, R.R.-C., 1989, An assessment of genome analysis based on chromosome pairing in hybrids of perennial Triticeae, Genome 32: 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Sybenga
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsWageningen Agricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations