4.4 Article

Distinct Regulation of Mlh1p Heterodimers in Meiosis and Mitosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

期刊

GENETICS
卷 185, 期 2, 页码 459-467

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.110.116806

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Royal Society
  3. Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
  4. Medical Research Council
  5. MRC [G0600232, G0902043] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0902043, G0600232] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mlh1p forms three heterodimers that are important for mismatch repair (Mlh1p/Pms1p), crossing over during meiosis (Mlh1p/Mlh3p), and channeling crossover events into a specific pathway (Mlh1p/Mlh2p). All four proteins contain highly conserved ATPase domains and Pms1p has endonuclease activity. Studies of the functional requirements for Mlh1p/Pms1p in Saccharomyces cerevisae revealed an asymmetric contribution of the ATPase domains to repairing mismatches. Here we investigate the functional requirements of the Mlh1p and Mlh3p ATPase domains in meiosis by constructing separation of function mutations in Mlh3p. These mutations are analogous to mutations of Mlh1p that have been shown to lead to loss of ATP binding and/or ATP hydrolysis. Our data suggest that ATP binding by Mlh3p is required for meiotic crossing over while ATP hydrolysis is dispensable. This has been seen previously for Mlh1p. However, when mutations that affect ATP hydrolysis by both Mlh3p and Mlh1p are combined within a single cell, meiotic crossover frequencies are reduced. These observations suggest that the function of the Mlh1p/Mlh3p heterodimer requires both subunits to bind ATP but only one to efficiently hydrolyze it. Additionally, two different amino acid substitutions to the same residue (G97) in Mlh3p affect the minor mismatch repair function of Mlh3p while only one of them compromises its ability to promote crossing over. These studies thus reveal different functional requirements among the heterodimers formed by Mlh1p.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据