Article Navigation
Article Contents
-
Acknowledgments
-
Footnotes
-
Literature Cited
-
Further Reading in GENETICS
-
Other Articles in GENETICS by A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle
- < Previous
- Next >
Journal Article
, R Scott Hawley Stowers Institute for Medical Research , Kansas City, Missouri 64110 Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology , University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas 66160 Corresponding author: 1000 East 50th St., Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, MO 64110. E-mail: rsh@stowers.org Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Barry Ganetzky Department of Genetics , University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic
Genetics, Volume 203, Issue 3, 1 July 2016, Pages 1001–1003, https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.116.191825
Published:
01 July 2016
- Split View
- Views
- Article contents
- Figures & tables
- Video
- Audio
- Supplementary Data
-
Cite
Cite
R Scott Hawley, Barry Ganetzky, Alfred Sturtevant and George Beadle Untangle Inversions, Genetics, Volume 203, Issue 3, 1 July 2016, Pages 1001–1003, https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.116.191825
Close
Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
Centennial
Open in new tabDownload slide
Great articles often begin with an intriguing paradox, describe an elegant experimental approach, provide lasting and important data, and change the course of their discipline. Sturtevant and Beadle (1936) meets all of those criteria and stands as a paradigm for the genetic analysis of chromosome behavior in Drosophila. It began with two paradoxes, both of which were vexing but not obviously connected. First, females heterozygous for paracentric inversions, which do not include the centromere, failed to produce progeny bearing single crossovers within the inversion but did produce progeny bearing double crossovers. There was no change in the number of eggs hatched, ruling out inviability of eggs containing single crossover chromosomes as an explanation. Second, although such females only rarely produced progeny bearing two maternal X chromosomes, they frequently produced progeny with no maternal X chromosomes (patroclinous males). How was inversion heterozygosity producing such an odd set of meiotic anomalies?
Sturtevant and Beadle demonstrated that single crossovers did indeed occur within the inverted segments by characterizing crossing over in attached-X chromosomes, where both the normal X and its inversion-bearing hom*olog were attached to a single centromere. The arms of attached-X chromosomes (being hom*ologs) undergo pairing and crossing over. These authors found that the occurrence of single crossovers within the inverted region in such chromosomes generated ring-X chromosomes at expected frequencies for the larger inversions and substantial frequencies for the smaller ones.
These observations led Sturtevant and Beadle to conclude that in the inversion heterozygotes, “…single crossover chromatids are selectively eliminated during the meiotic process.” But how? And is that “selective elimination” tied to the production of those patroclinous exceptions? Sturtevant and Beadle proposed that the mechanism for selective elimination lay in the fact that meiosis in Drosophila involves only nuclear division within the oocyte—no cell division occurs (Huettner 1924). The four meiotic nuclei are arranged in a row perpendicular to the egg cortex. Only the innermost nucleus participates in fertilization; the other three are eliminated.
A single crossover within a paracentric inversion generates two (noncrossover) parental types and two recombinant products: one acentric fragment lacking a centromere and a complementary dicentric chromosome with a chromatin bridge connecting two hom*ologous centromeres. The acentric fragment cannot attach to the meiotic spindle and is lost, but what becomes of the dicentric chromosome and the two nonrecombinant chromatids that compose the meiotic tetrad? Sturtevant and Beadle proposed that
A single chromatid tie at the first meiotic division results in orientation of the spindle attachments in such a manner that only chromatids with a single spindle attachment get into the terminal nuclei, one of which will become the egg nucleus.
This hypothesis explains both the selective elimination of single crossover chromosomes and the failure of that loss to cause egg mortality because the dicentric chromatids are relegated to the inner two nuclei that never participate in fertilization anyway (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Outcomes of crossing over in Drosophila females heterozygous for a paracentric inversion. In each panel, only the innermost nucleus following meiosis II will become an oocyte nucleus and participate in fertilization. Without crossing over, hom*ologs and sister chromatids segregate normally at the first and second meiotic divisions, respectively. Depending on initial orientation, either hom*olog has an equal probability of segregating to the oocyte. A single crossover within the inversion produces two noncrossover chromatids, an acentric fragment that is lost, and a dicentric bridge that is relegated to the two central nuclei at meiosis II; only a noncrossover chromatid can segregate to the oocyte. Thus, single-crossover progeny are not recovered from inversion heterozygotes and there is no increase in egg mortality. A double crossover involving the same two nonsister chromatids (two-strand double) results in two double recombinant and two noncrossover chromatids. The double recombinant chromatids can segregate normally to the oocyte nucleus. However, a double crossover involving all four strands (four-strand double) produces two acentric fragments and a double dicentric bridge. As shown, both chromatids composing the dicentric remain stuck in the central nuclei, resulting in an oocyte nucleus that is nullo-X and will produce a patroclinous male when fertilized by an X-bearing sperm. The known ratios of two-, three-, and four-strand double crossover bivalents allowed Sturtevant and Beadle to make their famous prediction that the ratio of double recombinant progeny to patroclinous males should be 3:2.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Four-strand double crossovers, which involve all four chromatids, generate a double dicentric chromosome in which both pairs of sister centromeres are connected to their hom*olog by chromatid bridges. These dicentric chromatids are unable to segregate at meiosis II and both remain stuck in the central nuclei. Sturtevant and Beadle thus proposed that
A double chromatid tie results in the formation of end nuclei with no X chromosome, and a no-X egg will result.
Such a no-X egg will, if fertilized by an X-bearing sperm, produce a patroclinous male. But not all double crossovers within the inversion involve four-strand doubles: two-strand and three-strand doubles also occur at predicted frequencies. By considering the outcome of all possible double crossover events, Sturtevant and Beadle predicted that the ratio of viable double crossover progeny to patroclinous males should be 3:2. The fit of this hypothesis to their experimental data was astounding. Not only did Sturtevant and Beadle beautifully explain both paradoxes, but their analysis also served as a paradigm for subsequent examination of other complex meiotic chromosome mechanisms by many investigators.
Sturtevant and Beadle (1936) stands as a classic in the exacting analytical process known as “doing genetics.” Few papers exemplify the beauty of genetic analysis as well as this gem.
Acknowledgments
We thank Angela Miller for illustration and editorial assistance.
Communicating editor: C. Gelling
ORIGINAL CITATION
Alfred H. Sturtevant and George W. Beadle
GENETICS September 1, 1936 21: 554–604
Image of George Beadle (left) and Alfred Sturtevant (right) in 1951. Courtesy of the Archives, California Institute of Technology.
Literature Cited
Huettner A F
1924
Maturation and fertilization in Drosophila melanogaster.
J. Morphol.
39
:
249
–
265
.
Sturtevant A H Beadle G W
1936
The Relations of Inversions in the X Chromosome of Drosophila Melanogaster to Crossing over and Disjunction.
Genetics
21
:
554
–
604
.
Further Reading in GENETICS
Doebley J
2001
George Beadle’s Other Hypothesis: One-Gene, One-Trait.
Genetics
158
:
487
–
493
.
Horowitz N H Berg P Singer M Lederberg J Susman M
2004
A centennial: George W. Beadle, 1903–1989.
Genetics
166
:
1
–
10
.
Lucchesi J C
1994
Sturtevant’s mantle and the (lost?) art of chromosome mechanics.
Genetics
136
:
707
–
708
.
Provine W B
1991
Alfred Henry Sturtevant and crosses between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.
Genetics
129
:
1
–
5
.
Strauss B S
2016
Biochemical Genetics and Molecular Biology: The Contributions of George Beadle and Edward Tatum.
Genetics
203
:
13
–
20
.
Other Articles in GENETICS by A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle
Beadle G W
1932
a
The Relation of Crossing over to Chromosome Association in Zea-Euchlaena Hybrids.
Genetics
17
:
481
–
501
.
Beadle G W
1932
b
Genes in Maize for Pollen Sterility.
Genetics
17
:
413
–
431
.
Beadle G W
1935
Crossing over near the Spindle Attachment of the X Chromosomes in Attached-X Triploids of Drosophila Melanogaster.
Genetics
20
:
179
–
191
.
Beadle G W
1937
Development of Eye Colors in Drosophila: Fat Bodies and Malpighian Tubes in Relation to Diffusible Substances.
Genetics
22
:
587
–
611
.
Beadle G W Coonradt V L
1944
Heterocaryosis in Neurospora Crassa.
Genetics
29
:
291
–
308
.
Beadle G W Emerson S
1935
Further Studies of Crossing over in Attached-X Chromosomes of Drosophila Melanogaster.
Genetics
20
:
192
–
206
.
Beadle G W Ephrussi B
1936
The Differentiation of Eye Pigments in Drosophila as Studied by Transplantation.
Genetics
21
:
225
–
247
.
Beadle G W Ephrussi B
1937
Development of Eye Colors in Drosophila: Diffusible Substances and Their Interrelations.
Genetics
22
:
76
–
86
.
Dobzhansky T Beadle G W
1936
Studies on Hybrid Sterility IV. Transplanted Testes in Drosophila Pseudoobscura.
Genetics
21
:
832
–
840
.
Dobzhansky T Sturtevant A H
1938
Inversions in the Chromosomes of Drosophila Pseudoobscura.
Genetics
23
:
28
–
64
.
Emerson S Sturtevant A H
1932
The Linkage Relations of Certain Genes in Oenothera.
Genetics
17
:
393
–
412
.
Ephrussi B Beadle G W
1937
a
Development of Eye Colors in Drosophila: Transplantation Experiments on the Interaction of Vermilion with Other Eye Colors.
Genetics
22
:
65
–
75
.
Ephrussi B Beadle G W
1937
b
Development of Eye Colors in Drosophila: Production and Release of cn+ Substance by the Eyes of Different Eye Color Mutants.
Genetics
22
:
479
–
483
.
Houlahan M B Beadle G W Calhoun H G
1949
Linkage Studies with Biochemical Mutants of Neurospora Crassa.
Genetics
34
:
493
–
507
.
Sturtevant A H
1917
Crossing over without Chiasmatype?
Genetics
2
:
301
–
304
.
Sturtevant A H
1920
Genetic Studies on DROSOPHILA SIMULANS. I. Introduction. Hybrids with DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER.
Genetics
5
:
488
–
500
.
Sturtevant A H
1921
a
Genetic Studies on DROSOPHILA SIMULANS. II. Sex-Linked Group of Genes.
Genetics
6
:
43
–
64
.
Sturtevant A H
1921
b
Genetic Studies on DROSOPHILA SIMULANS. III. Autosomal Genes. General Discussion.
Genetics
6
:
179
–
207
.
Sturtevant A H
1925
The Effects of Unequal Crossing over at the Bar Locus in Drosophila.
Genetics
10
:
117
–
147
.
Sturtevant A H
1928
A Further Study of the so-Called Mutation at the Bar Locus of Drosophila.
Genetics
13
:
401
–
409
.
Sturtevant A H
1936
Preferential Segregation in Triplo-IV Females of Drosophila Melanogaster.
Genetics
21
:
444
–
466
.
Sturtevant A H
1940
Genetic Data on Drosophila Affinis, with a Discussion of the Relationships in the Subgenus Sophophora.
Genetics
25
:
337
–
353
.
Sturtevant A H
1945
A Gene in Drosophila Melanogaster That Transforms Females into Males.
Genetics
30
:
297
–
299
.
Sturtevant, A. H.,
1946
On the dot chromosomes of Drosophila repleta and D. hydei.
Genetics
31
:
259
–
268
.
Sturtevant A H
1956
A Highly Specific Complementary Lethal System in Drosophila Melanogaster.
Genetics
41
:
118
–
123
.
Sturtevant A H
2001
Reminiscences of T. H. Morgan.
Genetics
159
:
1
–
5
.
Sturtevant A H Dobzhansky T
1936
Geographical Distribution and Cytology of “Sex Ratio” in Drosophila Pseudoobscura and Related Species.
Genetics
21
:
473
–
490
.
Sturtevant A H Novitski E
1941
The hom*ologies of the Chromosome Elements in the Genus Drosophila.
Genetics
26
:
517
–
541
.
© Genetics 2016
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Download all slides
Advertisem*nt
Citations
Views
409
Altmetric
More metrics information
Metrics
Total Views 409
307 Pageviews
102 PDF Downloads
Since 1/1/2021
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
January 2021 | 2 |
February 2021 | 2 |
March 2021 | 4 |
April 2021 | 2 |
May 2021 | 4 |
June 2021 | 1 |
July 2021 | 2 |
August 2021 | 3 |
September 2021 | 13 |
October 2021 | 2 |
November 2021 | 6 |
December 2021 | 8 |
February 2022 | 9 |
March 2022 | 5 |
April 2022 | 18 |
May 2022 | 2 |
June 2022 | 11 |
July 2022 | 7 |
August 2022 | 6 |
September 2022 | 17 |
October 2022 | 17 |
November 2022 | 12 |
December 2022 | 22 |
January 2023 | 12 |
February 2023 | 13 |
March 2023 | 20 |
April 2023 | 34 |
May 2023 | 8 |
June 2023 | 4 |
July 2023 | 13 |
August 2023 | 8 |
September 2023 | 7 |
October 2023 | 22 |
November 2023 | 17 |
December 2023 | 3 |
January 2024 | 22 |
February 2024 | 18 |
March 2024 | 14 |
April 2024 | 5 |
May 2024 | 6 |
June 2024 | 8 |
Email alerts
Article activity alert
New issue alert
Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic
See also
-
Companion Article
- ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS
Citing articles via
Google Scholar
-
Latest
-
Most Read
-
Most Cited
More from Oxford Academic
Biological Sciences
Genetics and Genomics
Molecular and Cell Biology
Science and Mathematics
Books
Journals
Advertisem*nt