Wildlife Biology in Practice, Vol 1, No 1 (2005)

Wildl. Biol. Pract., 2005; 1(1); 24-32;

Open Access Policy
Online ISSN: 1646-2742
doi: 10.2461/wbp.2005.1.4
Copyright © 2005 Burlibaşa, Cucu, Gavrilă.
Published by: Portuguese Wildlife Society

Creative Commons License This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The electronic version of this article can be found at:
http://www.socpvs.org/journals/index.php/wbp/article/view/10.2461-wbp.2005.1.4

Amphibians as Model Organisms for Studying the Dynamics of Eukaryote Genetic Material Architecture

  • L. Burlibaşa *
    University of Bucharest, Institute of Genetics 1-3 Aleea Portocalelor, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania Tel/Fax: + 4021 318 15 65
  • N. Cucu *
    University of Bucharest, Institute of Genetics 1-3 Aleea Portocalelor, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania Tel/Fax: + 4021 318 15 65
  • L. Gavrilă *
    University of Bucharest, Institute of Genetics 1-3 Aleea Portocalelor, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania Tel/Fax: + 4021 318 15 65

Abstract


Amphibians have played a key role in the elucidation of the mechanisms of early development over the last century. Much of our knowledge about the mechanisms of vertebrate early development comes from studies using Xenopus laevis. Xenopus sp. is a major contributor to our understanding of cell biological and biochemical processes, including: (1) chromosome replication; (2) chromatin, cytoskeleton and nuclear assembly; (3) cell cycle progression and (4) intracellular signaling. Amphibian embryos remained the embryos of choice for experimental embryology for many decades. European embryologists used predominantly urodele embryos (such as Triturus) and embryos of the frog Rana temporaria, which is related to the North American species Rana pipiens.
Using light, fluorescence, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and molecular investigations, some peculiar aspects of chromatin and chromosome organization and evolution in oogenesis and spermatogenesis of amphibians were investigated. We have focused our investigations on dynamics of the chromatin structure in different stages of development.
Keywords: amphibians, chromatin remodelling, gametogenesis, DNA methylation, lampbrush chromosomes, ribosomal gene amplification.


Printer Friendly PDF

Keywords

amphibians; chromatin remodelling; gametogenesis; DNA methylation; lampbrush chromosomes; ribosomal gene amplification.

References

1. Macgregor, H.C. 1993. An Introduction to Animal Cytogenetics. Chapman & Hall, London.

2. Barsacchi, G., Bussotti, L. & Mancino, G. 1970. The maps of the lampbrush chromosomes of Triturus (Amphibia Urodela) IV. Triturus vulgaris meridonalis. Chromosoma 31: 255-279.
doi: 10.1007/BF00321223.
3. Brown, D. & Dawid I. B. 1970. Specific gene amplification in oocytes. Science 160: 272-280
doi: 10.1126/science.160.3825.272.
4. Kasinsky, H.E. 1995. Evolution and origins of sperm nuclear basic proteins. In: Jamieson, B.G.M., Ausio, J., & Justine, J.-L. (eds), Advances in Spermatozoal Phylogeny and Taxonomy. Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. 166 : 463-473. Paris.

5. Bloch, D., 1976. Histones of sperm . In R.C.King, Handbook of Genetics. Plenum Press, New York.

6. Ausio, J. 1995. Histone H1 and the evolution of the nuclear sperm-specific proteins. In: Jamieson, B.G.M., Ausio, J. & Justine, J.-L. (eds), Advances in Spermatozoal Phylogeny and Taxonomy. Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. 166: 447-462. Paris.

7. Gemmele, J.N. & Akiyama, S. 1996. An efficient method for the extraction of DNA from vertebrate tissues; Tehnical Tips, vol. 12, No. 9, September

8. Gall, J. C. 1981. Chromosome structure and C-value paradox. The J. Cell. Biol. 91 (2): 35-145.

9. Wyatt, G.R. 1951. The purine and pyrimidine composition of deoxypentose nucleic acids. Biochem. J. 48: 584-590.

10. Gautier, F., Bunemann, H. & Grotjahn, L. 1977. Analysis of calf thymus satellite DNA: evidence for specific methylation of cytosine in CG sequences. Eur. J. Biochem. 80: 175-183
doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1977.tb11869.x.
11. Bird, A. P. 1984. Methylation of Genes for 18S, 28S and 5S Ribosomal RNA. In: Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 108: 129-141, Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg.

12. Bird, A. P. & Southern, E.M. 1978. Use of restriction enzymes to study eukaryotic DNA methylation I. The methylation pattern in ribosomal DNA from Xenopus. J. Mol. Biol. 118: 27-47.
doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(78)90242-5.
13. Waalwijk, C. & Flavell, R.A. 1978. MspI, an isoschizomer of HpaII which cleaves both unmethylated and methylated HpaII sites. Nucl. Acids Res. 5: 3231-3236.
doi: 10.1093/nar/5.9.3231.
14. Dawid, I.B., Brown, D.D. & Reeder, R.H. 1970. Composition and structure of chromosomal and amplified ribosomal DNAs of Xenopus laevis. J. Mol. Biol. 51: 341-360.
doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(70)90147-6.
15. Hecht, N.B. 1995.The making of a spermatozoon: a molecular perspective. Dev. Genetics 16: 95-103.
doi: 10.1002/dvg.1020160202.
16. Sommerville, J., Baird, J. & Turner, B.M. 1993. Histone H4 acetylation and transcription in amphibian chromatin. J. Cell Biol. 120 (2): 277-90.
doi: 10.1083/jcb.120.2.277.
17. Casas, M. T., Ausio, J. & Subirana, J. A. 1993. Chromatin fibers with different protamine and histone compositions. Exp. Cell Res. 204: 192-197.
doi: 10.1006/excr.1993.1024.