I would not be convinced that the genes are the same; my professor has
taught me otherwise. The exogenous gene on the plasmid could be a
low-copy suppressor of the original mutation, but not the same gene. If
you made a null mutant using your cloned gene, and the phenotypes of the
null and original mutant were similar, then I would be more persuaded, yet
would not be discouraged if the phenotypes were different. If you crossed
the null mutant with the original mutant, saw that they failed to
complement each other, but that each mutation alone was heterozygous
recessive, then I would be almost convinced. If you lastly showed after
sporulating the diploid with both mutations, that all 4 spores per tetrad
had mutant phenotypes, then I would believe the genes are the same.
Happy dissecting,
Mike
In article <8o3o96$5c8$1 at mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
Ji-Wu Wang <jwwang at sunm.shcnc.ac.cn> wrote:
>A wild-type copy of a specific gene can complement the growth defect of
>a S. cerevisiae mutant at 37'C. I wonder whether we can say that the
>specific gene is the same as the gene which contains the mutation, if we
>do not carry out a genetic test of location further.
>>--
>Ji-Wu Wang
>Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry
>Chinese Academy of Sciences
>Shanghai
>P.R. China
>>>---
______________O_________oO_____________oO______o_______oO___________________
YEAST bionet newsgroup see: http://www.bio.net/hypermail/YEAST/
YEAST e-mail: messages sent to yeast at net.bio.net
subscribe: e-mail biosci-server at net.bio.net with: subscribe yeast
unsubscribe: e-mail biosci-server at net.bio.net with: unsubscribe yeast
YEAST on the WWW: http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces/VL-yeast.html
problems with the YEAST newsgroup? E-mail the moderator: francis at cmmt.ubc.ca
