Subject:  RpL30/plume identity
Hi Gillian,
Hope all is well with you.  As promised (a while back), here are the results
of a few complementation crosses I've done between so-called 'RpL30' and
'plume' mutants:
RpL30k09918, RpL30DG05508, RpL30SH0229 and plume01265 are all
homozygous lethal and lethal in trans with each other.
plumek00308 is different.  The original stock I got from Bloomington was
homozygous viable and was w+ and y+- this does not match the given
genotype at all.  Kevin sent me the back-up stock from Bloomington- this
looks better, being w- and y-, with a w+ transgene, but it is
homozygous viable and seems to have completely lost CyO.  This back-up line
is viable with all the other four RpL30/plume alleles mentioned above.
Significantly however, plumek00308/RpL30DG05508 trans-hets give a
weak-med Minute phenotype that is not seen in either individual
heterozygote.  I don't see this with the other transhets, but note that
DG05508 is predicted to be the strongest mutation (see below).
This is where these elements are inserted (as far as I can tell):
RpL30k09918- ~20bp upstream of predicted 5' UTR
RpL30DG05508- in middle of coding sequence
RpL30SH0229- ~20bp upstream of predicted 5' UTR (more likely) or in coding
sequence
plume01265- ~30bp upstream of predicted 5' UTR
plumek00308- no sequence info available
So, I reckon this all says that plume and RpL30 are the same thing, though
I'm not sure whether this is good enough evidence to fuse the gene reports
in FlyBase...
Best wishes,
Steven.
\--
Steven Marygold Ph.D.
Growth Regulation Laboratory (Rm 503),
Cancer Research UK London Research Institute,
44 Lincoln's Inn Fields,
LONDON, WC2A 3PX
U.K.