|Citation||Munoz, E., Cook, K. (2004.4.7). 'W3' confusion. (Export to RIS)|
|Publication Type||Personal communication to FlyBase|
|Text of Personal Communication||
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:19:01 \-0500
From: Kevin Cook <kcook@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Subject: 'W3' confusion
Cc: matthewkXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Enzo Muñoz <ermunozXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Enzo Munoz and I have been corresponding about a case of confusing
synonymy. I thought I'd summarize what we have figured out. Perhaps you
can archive this note in case someone tries to work on these genes and alleles.
There are two mutant strains called 'W3'. One of the mutated X chromosomes
carries mutations in the run and unc loci, and the other strain carries a
mutation in shakB. The relevant allele entries are
The W3 chromosome carrying run9 and uncW3a was described in Lifschytz
and Yakobovitz (Molec. Gen. Genet. 1978 161:275--284 = FBrf0032163). They
described recombination experiments that mapped lethality both to the left
of l(1)19Ec (=l(1)J9) and shakB (=l(1)R-9-29) and to the right of l(1)19Ec.
They also showed that the Dp(1;Y)mal+-linked lethal l(1)YT14 failed to
Lindsley and Zimm (DIS 68: 110, 1990) cite unpublished results of George
Lefevre, Jr. showing that 'l(1)W3b' is an allele of shakB. In this
reference l(1)W3b was called pas15. (Passover is a synonym for shaking
B.) In Lindsley and Zimm, 1992 (the Redbook), the synonym for shakB15
is l(1)N36, but I suspect 'N36' was simply a case of 'W3b' being written
Enzo received both W3 lines from Lifschytz and maintained them as distinct
stocks. Crosses made by Abe Schalet and Enzo showed that the run9
uncW3a stock failed to complement run4 (=l(1)LB19), run2 (=l(1)AA33),
run18 (=l(1)17-26), run17-44, run19 (=l(1)17-169) and Df(1)16-3-53
for lethality and Df(1)17-351 for the unc phenotype, yet complemented
shakB6 (=l(1)E81), shakB11 (=l(1)R-9-29), shakB19 (=l(1)17-189) and
Enzo worked less with the shakB15 stock, but nevertheless showed that it
failed to complement
shakB6 (=l(1)E81) and shakB11 (=l(1)R-9-29), yet complemented Df(1)17-351.
The distinction between the two W3 stocks must have been clear to Lifschytz
and Lefevre, because references to the run9 uncW3a chromosomes use
'W3a' in allele designations and references to the shakB15 chromosomes
Nevertheless, the distinction was blurred in both Lindsley and Zimm 1990
and 1992, where l(1)YT14 was listed as an allele of shakB (=shakB17)
(presumably because both l(1)YT14 and shakB alleles failed to complement
something called 'W3'!). In Figure 2 of Lifschytz and Yakobovitz, 1978,
l(1)YT14 is shown mapping to the left of shakB, a position consistent with
it being an allele of run, rather than an allele of unc. This position of
l(1)YT14 was probably determined from complementation tests with deletions
to the left of shakB.
I recommend the following changes to FlyBase entries: (1) The shakB17
allele entry should be eliminated and a new allele entry created for
l(1)YT14 under the run gene--perhaps as runYT14. (The l(1)YT14
chromosome is extinct, so the purpose of this is to correct a historical
mistake and prevent confusion.) (2) l(1)W3 and l(1)W3b should be listed
as synonyms for shakB15.
Kevin Cook, Ph.D. Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center
Department of Biology http://flystocks.bio.indiana.edu
Jordan Hall 142
Indiana University 812-856-1213
1001 E. Third St. 812-855-2577 (fax)
Bloomington, IN 47405-3700 kcook@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What does this section display?
What does this section not display?
This section does not currently display links that were removed or gene model changes.
|All updates||Click here to see a list of all updates to this record from FB2010_08 and on.|
|Language of Publication||English|
|Additional Languages of Abstract|
|Also Published As|
|Data from Reference|