H.F. Willard

The XIST gene is implicated in X chromosome inactivation, yet the RNA contains no apparent open reading frame. An accumulation of XIST RNA is observed near its site of transcription, the inactive X chromosome (Xi). A series of molecular cytogenetic studies comparing properties of XIST RNA to other protein coding RNAs, support a critical distinction for XIST RNA; XIST does not concentrate at Xi simply because it is transcribed and processed there. Most notably, morphometric and 3-D analysis reveals that XIST RNA and Xi are coincident in 2- and 3-D space; hence, the XIST RNA essentially paints Xi. Several results indicate that the XIST RNA accumulation has two components, a minor one associated with transcription and processing, and a spliced major component, which stably associates with Xi. Upon transcriptional inhibition the major spliced component remains in the nucleus and often encircles the extra-prominent heterochromatic Barr body. The continually transcribed XIST gene and its polyadenylated RNA consistently localize to a nuclear region devoid of splicing factor/poly A RNA rich domains. XIST RNA remains with the nuclear matrix fraction after removal of chromosomal DNA. XIST RNA is released from its association with Xi during mitosis, but shows a unique highly particulate distribution. Collective results indicate that XIST RNA may be an architectural element of the interphase chromosome territory, possibly a component of nonchromatin nuclear structure that specifically associates with Xi. XIST RNA is a novel nuclear RNA which potentially provides a specific precedent for RNA involvement in nuclear structure and cis-limited gene regulation via higher-order chromatin packaging.

Review Articles| June 16 2010 Report of the committee on the genetic constitution of the X chromosome (Part 1 of 3) Subject Area: Genetics K.E. Davies; K.E. Davies Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar J.L. Mandel; J.L. Mandel Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar A.P. Monaco; A.P. Monaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar R.L. Nussbaum; R.L. Nussbaum Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar H.F. Willard; H.F. Willard Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar M.V. Bell; M.V. Bell Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Y. Boyd; Y. Boyd Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar S. Riley S. Riley Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics (1990) 55 (1-4): 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1159/000133019 Article history Published Online: June 16 2010 Content Tools Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation K.E. Davies, J.L. Mandel, A.P. Monaco, R.L. Nussbaum, H.F. Willard, M.V. Bell, Y. Boyd, S. Riley; Report of the committee on the genetic constitution of the X chromosome (Part 1 of 3). Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 31 December 1990; 55 (1-4): 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1159/000133019 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsCytogenetic and Genome Research Search Advanced Search This content is only available via PDF. 1990Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

A female with cystic fibrosis and short stature was investigated for molecular or cytogenetic abnormalities that might explain the combined phenotype. Analysis with polymorphic DNA markers indicated that the father did not contribute alleles to the propositus for markers near the CF locus or for centromeric markers on chromosome 7. High-resolution cytogenetic analysis was normal, and the result could not be explained on the basis of nonpaternity or a submicroscopic deletion. All of the data indicate that the propositus inherited two identical copies of maternal sequences for much or all of chromosome 7. The occurrence of uniparental disomy could be explained by models postulating postfertilization error, gamete complementation, monosomic conception with subsequent chromosome gain, or trisomic conception followed by chromosome loss. Uniparental disomy in an individual with a normal chromosome analysis is a novel mechanism for the occurrence of human genetic disease.

Restriction endonuclease analysis of human genomic DNA has previously revealed several prominent repeated DNA families defined by regularly spaced enzyme recognition sites. One of these families, termed alpha satellite DNA, was originally identified as tandemly repeated 340- or 680-base pair (bp) EcoRI fragments that hybridize to the centromeric regions of human chromosomes. We have investigated the molecular organization of alpha satellite DNA on individual human chromosomes by filter hybridization and in situ hybridization analysis of human DNA and DNA from rodent/human somatic cell hybrids, each containing only a single human chromosome. We used as probes a cloned 340-bp EcoRI alpha satellite fragment and a cloned alpha satellite-containing 2.0-kilobase pair (kbp) BamHI fragment from the pericentromeric region of the human X chromosome. In each somatic cell hybrid DNA, the two probes hybridized to a distinct subset of DNA fragments detected in total human genomic DNA. Thus, alpha satellite DNA on each of the human chromosomes examined--the X and Y chromosomes and autosomes 3, 4, and 21--is organized in a specific and limited number of molecular domains. The data indicate that subsets of alpha satellite DNA on individual chromosomes differ from one another, both with respect to restriction enzyme periodicities and with respect to their degree of sequence relatedness. The results suggest that some, and perhaps many, human chromosomes are characterized by a specific organization of alpha satellite DNA at their centromeres and that, under appropriate experimental conditions, cloned representatives of alpha satellite subfamilies may serve as a new class of chromosome-specific DNA markers.