Open Close
Tower, J. (1999.12.23). PW62 chromosome. 
FlyBase ID
Publication Type
Personal communication to FlyBase
PubMed ID
PubMed Central ID
Text of Personal Communication
From jtower@XXXX Thu Dec 23  00:32:00  1999
Envelope-to: gm119@XXXX
Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999  00:32:00  +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999  16:48:16  -0800
To: Gillian Millburn (Genetics) <gm119@XXXX>
From: John Tower <jtower@XXXX>
Subject: Re: Helping FlyBase
Dear Gillian,
Yes you may consider this information a personal communication to
flybase. We know PW62 chromosome is WT for cactus, chiffon and l(2)35Fe,
but is lethal over dfRA5. We also know PW62 is lethal over dfChif64.
Since chif64 distal breakpoint is in cactus first intron, that suggests a
lethal mutation on PW62 proximal to cactus. However, what that might be
and whether it might be the PW62-2 P insertion we do not know. Hope this
helps, let me know if any Qs. Best wishes, John
>Dear Dr. Tower,
>I have been curating your paper for FlyBase:
>Landis and Tower, 1999, Development 126(19): 4281--4293
>and I have also been talking to John Roote about the complicated (!)
>'PW62' chromosome to try and make sure that we have the data correctly
>in our files.
>John said that he had written to you about the paper and showed me the
>e-mail he'd sent you and your reply. It would be really helpful if I
>could curate the information in your e-mail as a personal communication
>from you to FlyBase, as it has new information and corrections of some
>of what was in the paper.
>I have included the copy of the mail John sent me below. I would be
>grateful if you could write and tell me whether its OK for me to curate
>this mail as a personal communication from you to FlyBase,
>In addition, do you know whether the 'PW62-2' insertion (that is in the
>1.8kb transcript on your map in Figure 5 of the paper) causes lethality
>FlyBase currently has a record of one of the inserts on the PW62
>chromosome (also called 'k08106') as causing a lethal allele of
>'l(2)35Fg' and this lethal maps in the region between cact and chif, so
>I am wondering whether our 'l(2)35Fg' is the same as your 'PW62-2'.
>Gillian Millburn.
>FlyBase (Cambridge),
>Department of Genetics,
>University of Cambridge,
>Downing Street, email: gm119@XXXX
>Cambridge, CB2 3EH, Ph : 01223-333963
>UK. FAX: 01223-333992
>>From jr32@XXXX Thu Dec 09  10:24:21  1999
>Envelope-to: gm119@XXXX
>Delivery-date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999  10:24:21  +0000
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999  10:26:08  +0000
>To: Michael Ashburner <m.ashburner@XXXX>,
> 'Gillian Millburn (Genetics)' <gm119@XXXX>
>From: John Roote <jr32@XXXX>
>Subject: chiffon
>>Envelope-to: jr32@XXXX
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999  16:36:52  -0800
>>To: John Roote <jr32@XXXX>
>>From: John Tower <jtower@XXXX>
>>Subject: Re:
>>Hi John,
>>>Dear John,
>>>Good to see your chiffon paper in Development.
>>>I have a couple of questions:
>>>1) is the distal RA5 breakpoint (Fig 5A) a typo? We know that RA5 extends
>>>far proximal of cactus - beyond BicC (into 35E).
>>**Yes, that is a mistake - it was supposed to be off to the left with hash
>>marks through it...
>>>2) how did you determine that PW62 (=k08106) was mutant for cactus? Is
>>>this published or did you find it to be lethal or sterile with a cac-
>>>deletion? i'm worried because our k08106 stock appears to be wildtype over
>>>cac alleles and deletions (e.g. II30 and III18).
>>**This is also a mistake - we find it is WT for cactus, text was supposed
>>to say it was lethal over RA5. (chifETBE3 is also cactus plus).
>>>3) is the PW62-1 insert in cact coding region?
>>the cactus intron.
>>>4) have you looked for transcripts between cactus and chiffon, other than
>>>the 3 shown on the map? And do you happen to know which correspond to the
>>>predictions in the region: DS02740.16, l(2)35Fe (=DS02740.17), DS02740.18,
>>>DS02740.19 and DS09218.1?
>>** We indicate one transcript between cactus and chiffon, of 1.8 kb near
>>chiffon, contained in the trasnsformation constructs. Several genomic
>>fragments between chiffon and cactus hybridized to approx. 1.8 kb messages
>>in ovary RNA - these were spread over the whole region and Gary concluded
>>there must be more than one gene between chiffon and cactus yeilding approx
>>1.8 kb sized transcripts, but that is a far as we took it. If it would be
>>useful I can have Gary give you more detailed info on what fragments
>>between chiffon and cactus hybridized on Northerns. However, I know we
>>didn't put much effort into mapping the transcripts or trying to correlate
>>them with the potential ORFs identified by the genome project.
Associated Information
Associated Files
Other Information
Secondary IDs
    Language of Publication
    Additional Languages of Abstract
    Parent Publication
    Publication Type
    Data From Reference
    Aberrations (2)
    Alleles (4)
    Genes (4)
    Insertions (3)