A Persistent Daily Rhythm in Photosynthesis

The luminescent marine dinoflagellate, Gonyaulax polyedra, exhibits a diurnal rhythm in the rate of photosynthesis and photosynthetic capacity measured by incorporation of C¹⁴O₂, at different times of day. With cultures grown on alternating light and dark periods of 12 hours each, the maximum rate is at the 8th hour of the light period. Cultures transferred from day-night conditions to continuous dim light continue to show the rhythm of photosynthetic capacity (activity measured in bright light) but not of photosynthesis (activity measured in existing dim light). Cultures transferred to continuous bright light, however, do not show any rhythm. Several other properties of the photosynthetic rhythm are similar to those of previously reported rhythms of luminescence and cell division. This similarity suggests that a single mechanism regulates the various rhythms.     

Action Spectra for Two Effects of Light on Luminescence in Gonyaulax polyedra

The luminescence of the marine dinoflagellate Gonyaulax polyedra shows an endogenous diurnal rhythm. The effect of light during the phase of low luminescence capacity may be observed as an enhancement of luminescence during the subsequent bright phase. During the bright phase, however, illumination diminishes the capacity for luminescence. The action spectra for these two effects of light have been determined, and the major pigments of Gonyaulax have been examined. A consideration of the action spectrum and the pigment complement of Gonyaulax suggests that photosynthesis during the day is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the enhancement of luminescence during the following night. Photoinhibition of luminescence is in part attributable to light absorbed by the photosynthetic pigments. However, activity observed in the far red region of the spectrum beyond the absorption maximum of chlorophyll a suggests that an additional pigment, present in small amounts, may also act as sensitizer for photoinhibition.     

Intensive Linkage Mapping in a Wasp (Bracon Hebetor) and a Mosquito (Aedes Aegypti) with Single-Strand Conformation Polymorphism Analysis of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA Markers

The use of random amplified polymorphic DNA from the polymerase chain reaction (RAPD-PCR) allows efficient construction of saturated linkage maps. However, when analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis, most RAPD-PCR markers segregate as dominant alleles, reducing the amount of linkage information obtained. We describe the use of single strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis of RAPD markers to generate linkage maps in a haplodiploid parasitic wasp Bracon (Habrobracon) hebetor and a diploid mosquito, Aedes aegypti. RAPD-SSCP analysis revealed segregation of codominant alleles at markers that appeared to segregate as dominant (band presence/band absence) markers or appeared invariant on agarose gels. Our SSCP protocol uses silver staining to detect DNA fractionated on large thin polyacrylamide gels and reveals more polymorphic markers than agarose gel electrophoresis. In B. hebetor, 79 markers were mapped with 12 RAPD primers in six weeks; in A. aegypti, 94 markers were mapped with 10 RAPD primers in five weeks. Forty-five percent of markers segregated as codominant loci in B. hebetor, while 11% segregated as codominant loci in A. aegypti. SSCP analysis of RAPD-PCR markers offers a rapid and inexpensive means of constructing intensive linkage maps of many species.     

An rRNA variable region has an evolutionarily conserved essential role despite sequence divergence.

Regions extremely variable in size and sequence occur at conserved locations in eukaryotic rRNAs. The functional importance of one such region was determined by gene reconstruction and replacement in Tetrahymena thermophila. Deletion of the D8 region of the large-subunit rRNA inactivates T. thermophila rRNA genes (rDNA): transformants containing only this type of rDNA are unable to grow. Replacement with an unrelated sequence of similar size or a variable region from a different position in the rRNA also inactivated the rDNA. Mutant rRNAs resulting from such constructs were present only in precursor forms, suggesting that these rRNAs are deficient in either processing or stabilization of the mature form. Replacement with D8 regions from three other organisms restored function, even though the sequences are very different. Thus, these D8 regions share an essential functional feature that is not reflected in their primary sequences. Similar tertiary structures may be the quality these sequences share that allows them to function interchangeably.     

Growth factor, steroid, and steroid antagonist regulation of cyclin gene expression associated with changes in T-47D human breast cancer cell cycle progression.

Cyclins and proto-oncogenes including c-myc have been implicated in eukaryotic cell cycle control. The role of cyclins in steroidal regulation of cell proliferation is unknown, but a role for c-myc has been suggested. This study investigated the relationship between regulation of T-47D breast cancer cell cycle progression, particularly by steroids and their antagonists, and changes in the levels of expression of these genes. Sequential induction of cyclins D1 (early G1 phase), D3, E, A (late G1-early S phase), and B1 (G2 phase) was observed following insulin stimulation of cell cycle progression in serum-free medium. Transient acceleration of G1-phase cells by progestin was also accompanied by rapid induction of cyclin D1, apparent within 2 h. This early induction of cyclin D1 and the ability of delayed administration of antiprogestin to antagonize progestin-induced increases in both cyclin D1 mRNA and the proportion of cells in S phase support a central role for cyclin D1 in mediating the mitogenic response in T-47D cells. Compatible with this hypothesis, antiestrogen treatment reduced the expression of cyclin D1 approximately 8 h before changes in cell cycle phase distribution accompanying growth inhibition. In the absence of progestin, antiprogestin treatment inhibited T-47D cell cycle progression but in contrast did not decrease cyclin D1 expression. Thus, changes in cyclin D1 gene expression are often, but not invariably, associated with changes in the rate of T-47D breast cancer cell cycle progression. However, both antiestrogen and antiprogestin depleted c-myc mRNA by > 80% within 2 h. These data suggest the involvement of both cyclin D1 and c-myc in the steroidal control of breast cancer cell cycle progression.     

Adenosine A1 Agonists and the Ca2+ Channel Agonist Bay K 8644 Produce a Synergistic Stimulation of the GTPase Activity of Go in Rat Frontal Cortical Membranes

Abstract: The identity and role of G proteins in coupling adenosine receptors to effectors have been studied to a limited degree. We have identified the G proteins whose GTPase activity is stimulated by adenosine receptor agonists in neuronal membranes. (R)-Phenylisopropyladenosine, 2-chloroadenosine, and N-ethylcarboxamideadenosine produced a concentration-dependent stimulation of GTPase. At 10^?5M, the increase above basal GTPase in frontal cortex was 25 ± 4, 20 ± 3, and 8 ± 1%, respectively, and in the cerebellum 55 ± 2, 41 ± 4, and 22 ± 2%, respectively. The effects of (R)-phenylisopropyladenosine and 2-chloroadenosine were inhibited by (1) A₁ antagonists (76–96% reduction), (2) pretreatment with pertussis toxin (90–100% reduction), and (3) antibodies raised against the α-subunit of G_i and G_o (55–57% reduction by each), suggesting that A₁ receptors interact equally with G_i and G_o. (R)-Phenylisopropyladenosine increased the binding of a nonhydrolyzable analogue of GTP to membranes in a pertussis toxin-sensitive manner, indicative of activation of G_i or G_o. Previously, (±)-Bay K 8644 enhanced GTP hydrolysis by G_o but not G_i. Now we report a profound synergistic stimulation of GTPase in the presence of (R)-phenylisopropyladenosine and (±)-Bay K 8644 (10^?7 to 10^?5M). (±)-Bay K 8644 had no effect on nucleotide exchange and, thus, cannot activate G_o. It appears that a positive cooperative stimulation of G_o occurs when it is first activated by A₁ receptors and subsequently interacts with the L-type Ca²⁺ channel.     

Neocentromere-mediated Chromosome Movement in Maize

Neocentromere activity is a classic example of nonkinetochore chromosome movement. In maize, neocentromeres are induced by a gene or genes on Abnormal chromosome 10 (Ab10) which causes heterochromatic knobs to move poleward at meiotic anaphase. Here we describe experiments that test how neocentromere activity affects the function of linked centromere/kinetochores (kinetochores) and whether neocentromeres and kinetochores are mobilized on the spindle by the same mechanism. Using a newly developed system for observing meiotic chromosome congression and segregation in living maize cells, we show that neocentromeres are active from prometaphase through anaphase. During mid-anaphase, normal chromosomes move on the spindle at an average rate of 0.79 μm/min. The presence of Ab10 does not affect the rate of normal chromosome movement but propels neocentromeres poleward at rates as high as 1.4 μm/min. Kinetochore-mediated chromosome movement is only marginally affected by the activity of a linked neocentromere. Combined in situ hybridization/immunocytochemistry is used to demonstrate that unlike kinetochores, neocentromeres associate laterally with microtubules and that neocentromere movement is correlated with knob size. These data suggest that microtubule depolymerization is not required for neocentromere motility. We argue that neocentromeres are mobilized on microtubules by the activity of minus end–directed motor proteins that interact either directly or indirectly with knob DNA sequences. C urrent models suggest that chromosomes move by a combination of forces generated by microtubule disassembly (Inoue and Salmon, 1995; Waters et al., 1996) and the activity of molecular motors (Vernos and Karsenti, 1996; Yen and Schaar, 1996). Microtubule disassembly generates a constant poleward force; while molecular motors can generate force in either poleward or away-from-pole directions, depending on the characteristics of the motor protein. Both plus and minus end–directed microtubule-based motors are localized to kinetochores (Hyman and Mitchison, 1991). Immunolocalization experiments indicate that mammalian kinetochores contain the minus end– directed motor dynein throughout metaphase and anaphase (Pfarr et al., 1990; Steuer et al., 1990). The kinesin-like proteins CENP-E, which has a transient kinetochore localization in animals, and MCAK, which is localized between the kinetochore plates of mammalian chromosomes, are also thought to generate and/or regulate chromosome movement (Yen et al., 1992; Lombillo et al., 1995; Wordeman and Mitchison, 1995).In addition to the molecular motors on kinetochores, several kinesin-like proteins are localized to chromosome arms (Vernos and Karsenti, 1996). Two subfamilies of arm-based motors have been identified in animals: the NOD subfamily (Afshar et al., 1995; Tokai et al., 1996) and the Xklp1/chromokinesin subfamily (Vernos et al., 1995; Wang and Adler, 1995). Both Nod and Xklp1 are required for positioning chromosomes on the metaphase plate, suggesting that they encode plus end–directed motors (Afshar et al., 1995; Vernos et al., 1995). Other evidence suggests that minus end–directed motors interact with chromosome arms. In the plant Haemanthus, a poleward force acts along chromosome arms during metaphase (Khodjakov et al., 1996), and forces propelling chromosome arms poleward have been detected during anaphase in crane fly spermatocytes (Adames and Forer, 1996). Little is known about how poleward arm motility at metaphase–anaphase affects the fidelity or rate of chromosome segregation.The neocentromeres of maize (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942) provide a particularly striking example of poleward chromosome arm motility. In the presence of Abnormal chromosome 10 (Ab10),¹ heterochromatic DNA domains known as knobs are transformed into neocentromeres and mobilized on the spindle (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942; Peacock et al., 1981; Dawe and Cande, 1996). Knobs are primarily composed of a tandem 180-bp repeat (Peacock et al., 1981) which shows homology to a maize B centromere clone (Alfenito and Birchler, 1993). A characteristic feature of neocentromeres is that they arrive at the spindle poles in advance of centromeres; in extreme cases the neocentromere-bearing chromosome arms stretch towards the poles (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942; Rhoades, 1952). A recently identified mutation (smd1) demonstrates that a trans-acting factor(s) encoded on Ab10 is essential for converting the normally quiescent heterochromatic knobs into active neocentromeres (Dawe and Cande, 1996).Here we use neocentromeres as a model for understanding the mechanisms and importance of nonkinetochore chromosome movement. As a part of our analysis, we developed a four-dimensional system for observing chromosome segregation in living meiocytes. Our experiments were designed to determine (a) how poleward arm motility affects the rate and fidelity of chromosome segregation; and (b) whether the mechanism of neocentromere motility is comparable to the mechanism of kinetochore motility.