Subject: Info on Adelaide Carpenter's stocks Hi Rachel-- We recently received a batch of stocks from Adelaide Carpenter and there are details about the stocks that need to make it into FB. 1. Meiotic mutants We now have stocks of mei-1601, mei-381 and mei-991. None of these have FB entries. All come from Baker and Carpenter, 1972 (FBrf0023919) which I don't think has been curated (I think there are quite a few other mei mutations in the paper that aren't in FB). The stocks are: 4878 y1 mei-1601/C(1)DX, y1 f1/Dp(1;Y)y+; spapol 4881 y1 mei-381/C(1)DX, y1 f1/Dp(1;Y)y+; spapol 4882 y1 mei-991/C(1)DX, y1 f1/Dp(1;Y)y+; spapol 2. Jag The stock Adelaide sent is: 4913 Df(2R)17l, cn1 Jag2/CyO 2 041F03-04;042A03-09 Synonym : Df(2R)171 The missing wing end mentioned in FBab0022235 is most likely a second allele of Jag based on phenotype and map position; however, allelism has not been checked by complementation (does Jag1 even still exist?). 3. TM3, Sb D Ser ry balancer variant The stock is: 4910 cn1; TM3, In(3LR)D6, D6 Sb1 Ser1 ryRK/mwh1 P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 ry506 Needs to be listed under TM3 entry. 4. l(3)78Ad1 4904 Ab(3L;het)ME178, mwh1 l(3)78Ad1 red1 e1/TM2 This aberration fails to complement Dfs of 78A. l(3)78Ad1 gives a name to the mutation. 5. l(3)78Ae1 4875 T(2;3)ME21, mwh1 l(3)78Ae1 red1 e1/TM3, Sb1 ryRK This T(2;3) fails to complement Dfs of 78A. l(3)78Ae1 gives a name to the mutation. 6. l(3)ry32 4909 cn1; T(3;4)11d, mwh1 l(3)ry32 e1 ry506/TM3, Sb1 Ser1 This one is problematic. The T(3;4) comes from an experiment that mutated the ry+ in P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 by X rays. T(3;4)11d (78A5-6;het) fails to complement Dfs of 78A, but there may be no second lethal mutation in addition to the lethal at l(3)ry3. Adelaide says that P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 may not map to 78C as described. So how should we deal with this? We could say that the only mutation is an X ray-induced ry- derivative of P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 called l(3)ry32, but that would entail moving l(3)ry3 from 78C to 78A. Alternatively, we could create a l(3)78Af1 mutation for the lethal in 78A (associated with the T(2;3) breakpoint) and create a l(3)ry32 for the ry- derivative. Please advise. 7. Dp(2;3)Me3 4903 Dp(2;3)Me3/DcxF 060D01+;060E02-3;063A02+ Transposition of 60D2 to 60E1,2 into interband between 63A2 and 63A3. New order: 61A1-63A2/60E2-60D2/63A3-100F. Me3 phenotype weaker than Me1 and unscoreable in cn. Me3 lethal over Me1. 8. l(2)82Fk1 4870 mwh1 l(3)82Fk1 red1 e4/TM3, Sb1 Ser1 ENU. leaky late pupal/eclosion lethal. Thanks for giving this your attention. Kevin > Dear Kevin (or maybe Adelaide - I don't know who wrote which bit of this), >2. Jag >The stock Adelaide sent is: >4913 Df(2R)17l, cn1 Jag2/CyO 2 041F03-04;042A03-09 > >The missing wing end mentioned in FBab0022235 is most likely a second >allele of Jag based on phenotype and map position; however, allelism has >not been checked by complementation (does Jag1 even still exist?). I am not sure what you want me to record here. Is it that Df(2R)17l deletes Jag? If so, there is no need to infer an allele of Jag, I would simply record that Df(2R)17l 'deletes or disrupts' Jag. Alternatively one of the breaks might break IN Jag, in which case an allele would be in order, as well as the 'Df(2R)17l 'deletes or disrupts' Jag' statement. Alternatively again Df(2R)17l might have nothing to do with the jagged phenotype, in which case 'Df(2R)17l 'does not deletes or disrupt' Jag' and Jag2 simply arose at the same time as Df(2R)17l. One reasonable (?) route is to record that 'Df(2R)17l 'deletes or disrupts' Jag' and NOT make an allele. An even safer route would be to make no map statements at all but simply record the phenotype - in fact that is the way that this data has been dealt with in the past. That is what I have done again (being a cautious sort). It all depends on how confident you are that the phenotype maps to the Jagged locus (your call not mine). Haven't a clue whether Jag1 exists. It's not cropped up in any publication during FlyBase curation, which is suggestive that it is at least not very well .... >3. TM3, Sb D Ser ry balancer variant >The stock is: >4910 cn1; TM3, In(3LR)D6, D6 Sb1 Ser1 ryRK/mwh1 >P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 ry506 > >Needs to be listed under TM3 entry. I have generated a balancer variant, TM3-D6, Bal_short_name: TM3, Sb1 D6 Ser1 ryRK, under In(3LR)D6, which is where it belongs, being a variant of a distinct aberration. >6. l(3)ry32 > >4909 cn1; T(3;4)11d, mwh1 l(3)ry32 e1 ry506/TM3, Sb1 Ser1 > >This one is problematic. The T(3;4) comes from an experiment that mutated >the ry+ in P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 by X rays. T(3;4)11d (78A5-6;het) >fails to complement Dfs of 78A, but there may be no second lethal mutation >in addition to the lethal at l(3)ry3. Adelaide says that >P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 may not map to 78C as described. > >So how should we deal with this? We could say that the only mutation is an >X ray-induced ry- derivative of P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 called >l(3)ry32, but that would entail moving l(3)ry3 from 78C to 78A. >Alternatively, we could create a l(3)78Af1 mutation for the lethal in 78A >(associated with the T(2;3) breakpoint) and create a l(3)ry32 for the >ry- derivative. Please advise. In the absence of further info I would prefer not to invoke any new loci/alleles. There is just not enough here to go on, to choose between the various possibilities. If the translocation breaks at 78A, why is it ry-? If the translocation breaks at ry (in P{ry+t7.2=ry11}) why does the chromosome fail to comp Dfs at 78A? Either way we do not necessarily need a new allele of l(3)ry3. Are we absolutely sure that 78A6-78C are still there? We probably are .... Rachel. Subject: Re: Info on Adelaide Carpenter's stocks Dear Rachel, Re Jag (Df(2R)17l): I agree with conservatism (after all, that's why I didn't name the Df as Jag-something!). This is one of the many incidental things I picked up: I've done nothing but note the phenotype, done the cytology, and don't expect to do more. However, however this is handled there should be some sort of pointer under the Jagged gene entry \-- so that someone who \*does* become interested in Jag knows about this stock so they can order it and do the legwork on it! We didn't notice any haplo-sensitive phenotype in The Great Translocation Hunt down there, so presumably the dominant phenotype is due to a neomorphic mutation caused by one or both breakpoints -- or, of course, by an extraneous hit somewhere else on 2. Again, someone who cares would have to do an experiment. Re that damned P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry3: I know a few more things about it: sorry, this issue came up back when my stocklist was being curated, I thought I'd given you all the necessary information! but apparently not -- and there was one additional cross I had to do (and did). 1) The original P insert is viable over deficiencies of 78C; 2) The original P insert is lethal over deficiencies of 78A; these two observations strongly suggest that the lethality, if not the P, is in 78A. Furthermore, 3) the X-ray induced knockout of the ry+ of that insert has its breakpoint in 78A. This strongly suggests that the original insert was in 78A, not C! However, I have not bothered to check its location by in situ. Moreover, it's worth noting that this is one of the regions that Bridges revised; if whoever did its in situ cytology used the wrong map, and didn't try to to get its position closer than the nearest major bands, '78C' is consistent with 78A5-6. I think there's enough evidence here to move P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry3 to 78A5-6. Hope this clears up the confusion! Cheers, Adelaide Subject: Re: Info on Adelaide Carpenter's stocks Hi Adelaide and Kevin, thanks for your mail. Re: l(3)ry3 In view of what Adelaide has added about P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry3 I have arranged for the cytology reported in FBrf0054167 (Berg and Spradling, 1991) to be marked as suspect which will prevent it from being used in map generation, and I have generated a new allele of l(3)ry3, l(3)ry32 (caused by T(3;4)11d, progenitor l(3)ry31). Since T(3;4)11d has a 78A5-6 break, the new reported location for l(3)ry3 will become 78A5-6. The gene report for l(3)ry3 will include the following comment: 'l(3)ry31 is viable over deficiencies of 78C and lethal over deficiencies of 78A.' So Kevin, to tweak what you said, a better thing would be to say >cn1; T(3;4)11d, mwh1 l(3)ry32 e1 ry506/TM3, >Sb1 Ser1 > >with a comment that says 'The P{ry+t7.2=ry11}l(3)ry31 progenitor >chromosome has been mutated to ry- in this stock; T(3;4)11d fails to >complement Dfs of 78A.' Re: Df(2R)17l I have made this note under 'comments on cytology' for the Jag gene: 'Df(2R)17l shows a phenotype very similar to that reported for Jag1, suggesting that Jag may be disrupted by the deficiency.' and under Df(2R)17l I have recorded that 'The missing wing end phenotype is possibly the result of disruption of Jag.' I am happy with all that - hope you are too! Rachel.
