1887

Chapter 24 : Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $15.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555816810/9781555815387_Chap24-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555816810/9781555815387_Chap24-2.gif

Abstract:

This review illustrates the logic style that Roth taught in investigation of chromosome rearrangements and highlights the interesting findings. A few explanations were proposed for the rarity of inversions: inverse-order repeats occur infrequently in the chromosomes of these organisms; inversion rearrangements may cause deleterious effects that cause a selective disadvantage; and mechanistic constraints may prevent the formation of the rearrangements. Inversions were frequently recovered among recombinants when the repeated sequences flanked certain chromosome segments, termed “permissive". The author focuses on the Roth lab’s approach to studying the barriers to inversion of nonpermissive chromosome segments in . Typhimurium and will correlate findings with outcomes of investigations in . Alternatively, barriers to the recombination events required for inversion may block formation of the rearrangements. The crosses yielded inversion rearrangements at frequencies expected of two-fragment transduction events. The role of DNA replication is considered in the homologous recombination events that form inversion rearrangements. Investigation of inversion formation by homologous recombination in found that replication pausing at inverted sites is not the only explanation for nonpermissive and restrictive intervals. It remains to be determined if other barriers limit inversion in . The findings summarized here highlight topics to investigate regarding the mechanism of inversion formation and barriers to this process for nonpermissive chromosomal segments. The role of DNA replication in inversion formation could be examined by testing the outcome of placing blocked sites within permissive arcs of the chromosome.

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24

Key Concept Ranking

DNA Synthesis
0.72152686
Bacterial Genetics
0.61078084
Generalized Transduction
0.5073087
Insertion Mutation
0.4967398
DNA-Binding Proteins
0.48609373
0.72152686
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Recombination events between inverse-order homologous repeats in the same circular chromosome. Homologous repeats are provided as MudA sequences, represented as thick arrows. Triangles represent insertions of drug resistance elements within the sequence homology. Recombination events between the inverse-order repeated sequences can form Lacrecombinants by the following events: inversion (left), two exchanges (center), and apparent conversion (right) ( ) (modified from reference ).

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

Chromosomal intervals that are permissive, nonpermissive, or restrictive for inversion in Solid lines indicate intervals that can invert (permissive); thin dashed lines represent chromosome segments that fail to invert (nonpermissive); the thick gray dashed line represents the chromosome arc where inversions form but have viability defects (restrictive). In the left panel, the intervals were defined with the recombination system; in the right panel, intervals were defined with the recombination system ( ). Bow ties represent the position and orientation of putative sites, which were identified from a genome search that queried all of the allowable sequence variations (3; L. Miesel, unpublished data). Replication is inhibited in the direction from the concavity to the flat side of the bow ties. Note the polar orientation of sites that permit replication forks to travel in the origin-terminus direction but not the opposite direction.

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3

Chromosomal intervals that are permissive, nonpermissive, or restrictive for inversion in Solid lines indicate intervals that can invert (permissive); thin dashed lines represent chromosome segments that fail to invert (nonpermissive); the thick gray dashed line represents the chromosome arc where inversions form but have viability defects (restrictive). Data for chromosomal intervals are from reference . Bow ties represent the position and orientation of the known sites ( ).

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4

(A) Schematic representation of formation of inversions by a two-fragment generalized transduction cross. The transduced fragment 1 carries a selectable marker flanked by sequence homology to two separate sites in the recipient chromosome. Two of the homologous sequences (d) are in inverse orientation relative to the recipient chromosome. (B) Incorporation of fragment 1 generates an inviable chromosomal structure. (C) Simultaneous incorporation of both fragments 1 and 2 meets the selection for fragment 1 and generates a viable chromosome that carries an inversion rearrangement. It is notable that formation of inversion by the transduction method does not require intrachromosomal recombination or the reciprocal exchange of flanking markers. This contrasts events that form inversion by recombination between inverse-order chromosomal repeats in the bacterial chromosome ( Fig. 1 , left) (modified from reference ).

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5

A model for RecBCD-mediated inversion formation. (1) The RecBCD enzyme enters the circular chromosome at a double-stranded break that occurs near one of the repeated sequences (arrow). RecBCD degrades the chromosome until it encounters a Chi site in the correct orientation. (2) Encounter with Chi attenuates the RecBCD exonuclease, converting the enzyme to a recombinase. (3) The Chi-stimulated RecBCD enzyme travels into the repeated sequence where it promotes reciprocal exchange with the second repeat. (4) An inversion-bearing recombinant is formed. The chromosome has a gap at the RecBCD degradation site, which is repaired from a sister chromosome (the region of repair is indicated by a heavy gray line) (modified from reference ).

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6

Recombination events between inverse-order repeats that form only inversion-bearing recombinants, the interval (permissive). Recombinants cannot form by gene conversion or double recombination. The gray filled bars represent sequences present in a MudJ element; the black triangle represents a TniOdTc insertion in The solid black bars represent a deletion that extends from the 3’ end of through the MudJ element to (modified from reference ).

Citation: Miesel L. 2011. Barriers to the Formation of Inversion Rearrangements in , p 233-243. In Maloy S, Hughes K, Casadesús J (ed), The Lure of Bacterial Genetics. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555816810.ch24
1. Bidnenko, V.,, S. Dusko Ehrlich, and, B. Michel. 2002. Replication fork collapse at replication terminator sequences. EMBO J. 21:38983907.
2. Burland, V.,, G. Plunkett II,, D. L. Daniels, and, F. R. Blattner. 1993. DNA sequence and analysis of 136 kilobases of the Escherichia coli genome: organizational symmetry around the origin of replication. Genomics 16:551–561.
3. Caskun-Ari, F. F., and, T. M. Hill. 1997. Sequence-specific interactions in the Tus- Ter complex and the effect of base pair substitutions on arrest of DNA replication in Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 272:2644826456.
4. Dixon, D. A., and, S. C. Kowalczykowski. 1993. The recombination hotspot χ is a regulatory sequence that acts by attenuating the nuclease activity of the E. coli RecBCD enzyme. Cell 73:8796.
5. Esnault, E.,, M. Valens,, O. Espéli, and, F. Boccard. 2007. Chromosome structuring limits genome plasticity in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genetics 3:24862499.
6. François, V.,, J. Louarn,, J. Patte,, J.-E. Rebollo, and, J.-M. Louarn. 1990. Constraints in chromosomal inversions in Escherichia coli are not explained by replication pausing at inverted terminator-like sequences. Mol. Microbiol. 4: 537542.
7. Guijo, M. I.,, J. Patte,, M. D. M. Campos,, J. M. Louarn, and, J. E. Rebollo. 2001. Localized remodeling of the Escherichia coli chromosome: the patchwork of segments refractory and tolerant to inversion near the replication terminus. Genetics 157:14131423.
8. Horiuchi, T., and, Y. Fujimura. 1995. Recombinational rescue of the stalled DNA replication fork: a model based on analysis of an Escherichia coli strain with a chromosome region difficult to replicate. J. Bacteriol. 177:783791.
9. Kogoma, T.,, G. W. Cadwell,, K. G. Barnard, and, T. Asai. 1996. The DNA replication priming protein, PriA, is required for homologous recombination and double-strand break repair.J. Bacteriol. 178:12581264.
10. Lesterlin, C.,, R. Mercier,, F. Boccard,, F. X. Barre, and, F. Cornet. 2005. Roles for replichores and macrodomains in segregation of the Escherichia coli chromosome. EMBO Rep. 6:557562.
11. Mahan, M. J., and, J. R. Roth. 1989. Role of recBC function in formation of chromosomal rear-rangments: a two-step model for recombination. Genetics 121:433443.
12. Miesel, L. 1994. Studies of chromosomal and transductional recombination in Salmonella typhimurium. Ph.D. thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
13. Miesel, L.,, A. Segall, and, J. R. Roth. 1994. Construction of chromosomal rearrangements in Salmonella by transduction: inversions of non-permissive segments are not lethal. Genetics 137: 919932.
14. Miesel, L., and, J. R. Roth. 1996. Evidence that SbcB and RecF pathway functions contribute to RecBCD-dependent transductional recombination. J. Bacteriol. 178:31463155.
15. Murphy, K. C. 2000. Bacteriophage P22 Abc2 protein binds to RecC increases the 5′ strand nicking activity of RecBCD and together with λ Bet, promotes Chi-independent recombination. J. Mol. Biol. 296:385401.
16. Neylon, C., A. V. Kralicek,, T. M. Hill, and, N. E. Dixon. 2005. Replication termination in Escherichia coli: structure and antihelicase activity of the Tus-Ter complex. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 69:501 526.
17. Rebollo, J. E.,, V. François, and, J. M. Louarn. 1988. Detection and possible role of two large non-divisible zones on the Escherichia coli chromosome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85:93919395.
18. Roecklein, B. A.,, A. Pelletier, and, P. L. Kuempel. 1991. The tus gene of Escherichia coli: autoregulation, analysis of flanking sequences and identification of a complementary system in Salmonella typhimurium. Res. Microbiol. 142:169 175.
19. Roth, J. R.,, N. Benson,, T. Galitski,, K. Haack,, J. G. Lawrence, and, L. Miesel. 1996. Rearrangements of the bacterial chromosome: formation and applications, p. 22562276. In F. C. Neidhardt, , R. Curtiss III, , J. L. Ingraham, , E. C. C. Lin, , K. B. Low, , B. Magasanik, , W. S. Reznikoff, , M. Riley, , M. Schaechter, and, H. E. Umbarger (ed.), Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, 2nd ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
20. Segall, A. M.,, M. J. Mahan, and, J. R. Roth. 1988. Rearrangement of the bacterial chromosome: forbidden inversions. Science 241:13141318.
21. Segall, A. M., and, J. R. Roth. 1994. Approaches to half-tetrad analysis in bacteria: recombination between repeated, inverse-order chromosomal sequences. Genetics 136:2739.
22. Sharma, B., and, T. M. Hill. 1995. Insertion of inverted Ter sites into the terminus region of Escherichia coli chromosome delays completion of DNA replication and disrupts the cell cycle. Mol. Microbiol. 18:4561.
23. Smith, G. R.,, S. K. Amundsen,, A. M. Chadbury,, K. C. Cheng,, A. S. Ponticelli,, C. M. Roberts,, D. W. Shultz, and, A. F. Taylor. 1984. Roles of RecBC enzyme and Chi sites in homologous recombination. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 49:485495.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error