Assortative fertilization in 
            <i>Drosophila</i>

Markow, Therese A.

doi:10.1073/pnas.94.15.7756

Cited by 103 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A high degree of functional/sequence specificity makes it unlikely that D. melanogaster protamine chaperones will be able to remodel MSC assembled from more divergent, evolutionarily distant protamines. This specificity may contribute to gametic isolation of distinct species (Markow 1997). In the future, it will be interesting to analyze cross-reactivity of protamines and protamine chaperones from these species in MSC remodeling in vitro and in vivo.…”

Section: Genes and Development 2035mentioning

confidence: 99%

Drosophila TAP/p32 is a core histone chaperone that cooperates with NAP-1, NLP, and nucleophosmin in sperm chromatin remodeling during fertilization

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear DNA in the male gamete of sexually reproducing animals is organized as sperm chromatin compacted primarily by sperm-specific protamines. Fertilization leads to sperm chromatin remodeling, during which protamines are expelled and replaced by histones. Despite our increased understanding of the factors that mediate nucleosome assembly in the nascent male pronucleus, the machinery for protamine removal remains largely unknown. Here we identify four Drosophila protamine chaperones that mediate the dissociation of protamine-DNA complexes: NAP-1, NLP, and nucleophosmin are previously characterized histone chaperones, and TAP/p32 has no known function in chromatin metabolism. We show that TAP/p32 is required for the removal of Drosophila protamine B in vitro, whereas NAP-1, NLP, and Nph share roles in the removal of protamine A. Embryos from P32-null females show defective formation of the male pronucleus in vivo. TAP/p32, similar to NAP-1, NLP, and Nph, facilitates nucleosome assembly in vitro and is therefore a histone chaperone. Furthermore, mutants of P32, Nlp, and Nph exhibit synthetic-lethal genetic interactions. In summary, we identified factors mediating protamine removal from DNA and reconstituted in a defined system the process of sperm chromatin remodeling that exchanges protamines for histones to form the nucleosome-based chromatin characteristic of somatic cells.

show abstract

Section: Genes and Development 2035mentioning

confidence: 99%

Drosophila TAP/p32 is a core histone chaperone that cooperates with NAP-1, NLP, and nucleophosmin in sperm chromatin remodeling during fertilization

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…crickets [Howard and Gregory 1993;Howard et al 2002], flour beetles [Robinson et al 1994;Wade et al 1995], Drosophila [Markow 1997;Price 1997;Price et al 2000;Dixon et al 2003]), or plant stigmas are colonized by more than one species' pollen (Iris [Arnold et al 1993;Arnold 1997] and sunflowers [Riesberg et al 1995]). These experiments indicate that postmating, prezygotic factors can have a strong effect on the number and type of offspring produced when females are multiply mated (Howard 1999;Bernasconi et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conspecific pollen or sperm precedence, or biased use of sperm from males of one species when a female is exposed to sperm from males of multiple species, is increasingly recognized as an important barrier to hybridization and gene flow between closely related species (Arnold et al 1993;Price 1997;Markow 1997;Howard et al 1998;Howard 1999). This type of postmating/prezygotic isolating mechanism can act as a cryptic barrier to fertilization between closely related species without obvious premating reproductive isolating mechanisms, and signals the action of a broad suite of mechanisms that prevent fertilization after insemination or pollination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conspecific Sperm Precedence in Two Species of Tropical Sea Urchins

Geyer

Palumbi

2005

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Conspecific sperm precedence occurs when females are exposed to sperm from males of multiple species, but preferentially use sperm of a conspecific. Conspecific sperm precedence and its mechanisms have been documented widely in terrestrial species, in which complex female behaviors or reproductive tract morphologies can allow many opportunities for female choice and sperm competition, however, the opportunity for conspecific sperm precedence in free spawning marine invertebrates has been largely ignored. Two sea urchin species, Echinometra oblonga and E. sp. C, have high levels of interspecific fertilization in no-choice lab crosses, but no natural hybrids have been found. We performed competitive fertilization assays to test for conspecific sperm precedence and found that eggs of both species showed a marked preference for conspecific sperm when fertilized with heterospecific sperm mixtures. Strong rejection of heterospecific sperm would not have been predicted from no-choice assays and helps explain the lack of natural hybrids. We also found significant variation in hybridization success among crosses. Conspecific sperm precedence in free spawning invertebrates shows that the simple surfaces of eggs and sperm provide ample opportunity for egg choice and sperm competition even in the absence of intricate behavior or complex reproductive morphologies.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, their statement overlooks the several studies of intrapopulation and interpopulation crosses by Dobzhansky and his collaborators as well as the more recent empirical work (reviewed in Templeton 1980Templeton , 1996 which has found partial, although not full, reproductive isolation associated with founder events. Simple between-line crosses, of course, cannot detect postcopulatory, prezygotic isolation, found to be common in insects by Markow (1997) and Howad et al…”

Section: Issues In Speciationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ongoing Synthesis: A Reply to Coyne, Barton, and Turelli

Goodnight

Wade

2000

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

where m is the mean migration rate. The term m in (A1) vanishes with deterministic migration, and this is the only difference between the two diffusions that they compare in their figure 4. However, if we ignore selection, which we agree has no effect on the infinitesimal variance in the weak-selection limit, the exact expression for Var(p tϩ1 ͦ p t ) is easily computed for their model as: We wish to address some of the important issues raised by Coyne et al. (2000) in their critique of our Perspective on the contrasting views of Fisher and Wright (Wade and Goodnight 1998). Many of the points that they raise illustrate important differences between their view and ours on the content of evolutionary theory and on the experimental approaches used to test and investigate evolutionary hypotheses in laboratory and field studies. We believe that a controversy like this can be useful because it helps to identify gaps in the current understanding of evolutionary geneticists and to frame questions for future research. However, we also believe that, ultimately, it can be resolved only by continuing to collect more experimental data and by integrating the theoretical and empirical findings of the past 20 years more fully into existing thought. Only by broadening the range of data and types of experiments considered relevant can features like epistasis and population genetic structure be understood. By moving from parsimony to true understanding, we hope to resolve the differences between the two schools of thought, which have their roots in the Fisher-Wright debates (e.g., Provine 1971, Lloyd 2000.Empirical studies cited in our Perspective have had a formative influence on our views of Fisher and Wright, the relationship between interdemic and group selection, and the role of gene interactions (epistasis) in evolution. As Coyne et al. (2000) point out, our 1998 paper, by design, is a ''Perspective'' and we do not respond directly to the specific objections to Wright's shifting balance theory (SBT) that they raised in an earlier paper (Coyne et al. 1997). Instead, we reexamine the theories of both Fisher and Wright in light of new theoretical findings and new empirical data gathered in the 60 plus years since the original theories were put forward. We conclude that both theories, at least in their idealized original versions, have difficulty incorporating important features of natural populations (see table 2 in Wade and Goodnight 1998) because of the assumptions that differ between them. We argue that this limits the application of each theory to different domains. We conclude that many of the recent theoretical and empirical findings are not, strictly speaking, explicit in either theory and can be viewed as ''enriching'' both of them, especially Wright's. Many of these recent findings were discovered by ourselves and our colleagues in attempts to evaluate more rigorously some of the ideas that Wright expressed only in words and also in attempts to provide an empirical foundation to the study of adaptive evolution in genet...

show abstract

Assortative fertilization in Drosophila

Cited by 103 publications

References 47 publications

Drosophila TAP/p32 is a core histone chaperone that cooperates with NAP-1, NLP, and nucleophosmin in sperm chromatin remodeling during fertilization

Drosophila TAP/p32 is a core histone chaperone that cooperates with NAP-1, NLP, and nucleophosmin in sperm chromatin remodeling during fertilization

Conspecific Sperm Precedence in Two Species of Tropical Sea Urchins

The Ongoing Synthesis: A Reply to Coyne, Barton, and Turelli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About