Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Does crossover interference count in Saccharomyces cerevisiae?

Franklin W Stahl1, Henriette M Foss, Lisa S Young

  • 1Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene 97403-1229, USA. fstahl@molbio.uoregon.edu

Genetics
|September 30, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The regulatory mechanisms controlling meiotic cross-over patterning in plants.

Biochemical Society transactions·2025
Same author

ANAPHASE-PROMOTING COMPLEX/CYCLOSOME coactivators maintain AURORA 1 kinase homeostasis during meiotic chromosome segregation.

The Plant cell·2025
Same author

Heterochromatin in plant meiosis.

Nucleus (Austin, Tex.)·2024
Same author

HEI10 is subject to phase separation and mediates RPA1a degradation during meiotic interference-sensitive crossover formation.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2023
Same author

Editorial: Meiosis in plants: sexual reproduction, genetic variation and crop improvement.

Frontiers in plant science·2023
Same author

SCF<sup>RMF</sup> mediates degradation of the meiosis-specific recombinase DMC1.

Nature communications·2023
Same journal

Coexistence of piRNA and KZFP defense systems: Evolutionary dynamics of layered defense against transposable elements.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Creation and manipulation of bipartite expression transgenes in C. elegans using phiC31 recombinase.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Inherited long telomeres induce a genome-wide transcriptional response in budding yeast.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Adaptive Dynamics of Quantitative Traits in a Steadily Changing Environment.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Functional Landscape of Zebrafish Gonadotropins and Receptors: A Comprehensive Genetic Analysis.

Genetics·2026
Same journal

Synergistic actions of Nup43 and Myosin VI drive actin cone assembly during Drosophila spermiogenesis.

Genetics·2026
See all related articles

Meiotic crossover interference differs between organism groups. Group II organisms use double-Holliday junctions for synapsis, producing interference-free crossovers, while pachytene repair in both groups involves interference.

Area of Science:

  • Genetics
  • Molecular Biology
  • Cell Biology

Background:

  • Meiotic crossover interference models explain crossover distribution.
  • Organisms are classified into groups I and II based on interference mechanisms.
  • Group II organisms exhibit unique synapsis and recombination protein requirements.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To test predictions of a revised meiotic crossover interference model in a group II organism (msh4 mutants).
  • To integrate experimental data with known differences between group I and II meiosis.
  • To propose a unified model for meiotic interference in different organism groups.

Main Methods:

  • Experimental analysis of msh4 mutants in a group II organism.
  • Interpretation of experimental results in the context of existing meiotic data.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparative analysis of meiotic processes in group I and group II organisms.

    • Main Results:

    • Experiments in msh4 mutants support the revised interference model for group II organisms.
    • Group II meiosis involves a pairing pathway utilizing double-Holliday junctions for synapsis, yielding interference-free products.
    • Pachytene repair in both groups is associated with interference and specific resolution products, suggesting unligated Holliday junctions.

    Conclusions:

    • A unified model for meiotic interference is proposed, distinguishing between leptotene pairing and pachytene disjunction pathways.
    • The pairing pathway in group II organisms promotes synapsis via interference-free double-Holliday junction resolution.
    • The disjunction pathway in both groups involves interference, with crossovers arising from stabilized, unligated Holliday junctions.