1996
DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0418
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Homologous Recombination between thetufGenes ofSalmonella typhimurium

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
85
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
(75 reference statements)
5
85
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that the direction of gene conversion is not random, and a possible explanation could relate to the chromosomal location of the individual manB isogenes. Abdulkarim & Hughes (1996) observed that for the tufA and tufB genes in S. enterica (which are evolving in concert), the rate of sequence transfer was different depending on which tuf gene was the donor. It was suggested that the distribution and frequency of chromosomal breakpoints and chi sites, in relation to the location of the individual tuf genes, contributed to the biased rates of sequence transfer in one direction (Abdulkarim & Hughes, 1996).…”
Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This suggests that the direction of gene conversion is not random, and a possible explanation could relate to the chromosomal location of the individual manB isogenes. Abdulkarim & Hughes (1996) observed that for the tufA and tufB genes in S. enterica (which are evolving in concert), the rate of sequence transfer was different depending on which tuf gene was the donor. It was suggested that the distribution and frequency of chromosomal breakpoints and chi sites, in relation to the location of the individual tuf genes, contributed to the biased rates of sequence transfer in one direction (Abdulkarim & Hughes, 1996).…”
Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Abdulkarim & Hughes (1996) observed that for the tufA and tufB genes in S. enterica (which are evolving in concert), the rate of sequence transfer was different depending on which tuf gene was the donor. It was suggested that the distribution and frequency of chromosomal breakpoints and chi sites, in relation to the location of the individual tuf genes, contributed to the biased rates of sequence transfer in one direction (Abdulkarim & Hughes, 1996). At present we have no specific explanation for the unidirectional gene conversion of manB OAg genes ; however, there is a precedent in relation to the tufA and tufB genes.…”
Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies with bacterial species (1,22,28,29,39,46,51,(57)(58)(59), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (4,7,12,13,20,24,30,32,33,35,36,40,43,44), and higher eukaryotes (14,15,52,56) have uniformly found that sequence divergence acts as a potent barrier to recombination. As first shown in conjugational crosses between Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium (39), much of the recombination barrier associated with sequence divergence in prokaryotes derives from the action of the MMR machinery (1,16,22,28,29,51,57).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As first shown in conjugational crosses between Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium (39), much of the recombination barrier associated with sequence divergence in prokaryotes derives from the action of the MMR machinery (1,16,22,28,29,51,57). The MMR system of E. coli (31) is used as a paradigm for eukaryotic MMR, and homologs of the bacterial MutS protein, which binds mismatched base pairs, and of the MutL protein, which interacts with MutS, have been identified in eukaryotes (11).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…coli bacteria have a paralogous copy of the EF-Tu gene tufA, in the form of tufB, that frequently recombines with the original copy (Abdulkarim and Hughes 1996). Each of the EF-Tu genes has its own specific expression machinery, and EF-Tu produced through tufB accounts for one-third of the cellular EF-Tu as that produced by the tufA gene in bacteria (Van Delft et al 1987;van der Meide et al 1983;Zengel and Lindahl 1982).…”
Section: Electronic Supplementary Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%