In article <1992Dec11.210026.691 at midway.uchicago.edu>, ecec at quads.uchicago.edu
(Eric Cabot) says:
>>In article <1992Dec11.153054.22186 at midway.uchicago.edu> u
>ecec at midway.uchicago.ed>writes:
>>In article <92345.091058FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
><FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>writes:
>>>Larry says (ref.1)
>>>>>>> It does not follow that because many genes which are functionally
>related
>>>are not linked, that functional relationships never require close linkage.
>>>One obvious example are meiotic drive loci, often within inversions, where e
>th
>>>drive gene and its target are closely linked. If two proteins must be finely
..............
>>Please allow me to stick my oar in here a moment. I don't really agree
>>that the participants in meiotic drive loci are really as tightly linked
>>as you imply. Take the Drosophila melanogaster SD system, for example,
>>the Sd and responder loci are on different sides of the centromere......
>As a followup to my earlier posting (shown above) I'd like to clarify that
>the major players in the segregation distorter system are linked
>but not necessarily because of fine-tuning of the gene products.
>More likely the linkage is necessary to ensure that chromosomes
>..........
>I'd also like to note that there are in fact several known examples
>of SD chromosomes that have the Sd and responder loci bound
>up within inversions (SD-Roma, for example). In otherwords,
>I was incorrect in my initial posting. That's what I get for
>posting to the net before having my first cup of coffee!
> Eric Cabot | "Non Nobis Nati Solum"
>ecec at midway.uchicago.edu |
Thanks for your contribution anyway. We seem to have wandered somewhat off
the topic since Larry Moran puckishly reminded us that we should be careful
not to necessarily regard modern organisms as "living fossils".
Sincerely, Don Forsdyke
