title: Discovering non-random segregation of sister chromatids: the naïve treatment of a premature discovery.
abstract: The discovery of non-random chromosome segregation (Figure 1) is discussed from the perspective of what was known in 1965 and 1966. The distinction between daughter, parent, or grandparent strands of DNA was developed in a bacterial system and led to the discovery that multiple copies of DNA elements of bacteria are not distributed randomly with respect to the age of the template strand. Experiments with higher eukaryotic cells demonstrated that during mitosis Mendel's laws were violated; and the initial serendipitous choice of eukaryotic cell system led to the striking example of non-random segregation of parent and grandparent DNA template strands in primary cultures of cells derived from mouse embryos. Attempts to extrapolate these findings to established tissue culture lines demonstrated that the property could be lost. Experiments using plant root tips demonstrated that the phenomenon exists in plants and that it was, at some level, under genetic control. Despite publication in major journals and symposia (Lark et al., 1966, 1967; Lark, 1967, 1969a,b,c) the potential implications of these findings were ignored for several decades. Here we explore possible reasons for the pre-maturity (Stent, 1972) of this discovery.
authors: Department of Biology, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
authors: Karl G
authors: KG
authors: Lark
keywords: mouse; non-random segregation; radioautography; sister chromatid; stem cell
references: Trends Genet. 2007 Apr;23(4):192-9
references: 17316885
references: Genetics. 2012 Mar;190(3):831-40
references: 22518878
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 Oct;56(4):1192-9
references: 5230145
references: Nature. 2007 May 24;447(7143):425-32
references: 17522676
references: Genetics. 1994 Aug;137(4):891-4
references: 7982570
references: Exp Cell Res. 1965 Mar;37:614-36
references: 14315085
references: Science. 1966 Dec 2;154(3753):1202-5
references: 5921385
references: Genetics. 2004 Aug;167(4):1529-36
references: 15342495
references: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012 Jul 01;4(7):a008136
references: 22687277
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1958 May;44(5):476-83
references: 16590224
references: Nature. 1975 May 15;255(5505):197-200
references: 1143315
references: J Biol Chem. 1961 Mar;236:864-75
references: 13790780
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1967 Jul;58(1):352-9
references: 5231616
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1965 Nov;54(5):1444-50
references: 5325654
references: Bacteriol Rev. 1966 Mar;30(1):3-32
references: 5324649
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1958 Jul 15;44(7):671-82
references: 16590258
references: J Mol Biol. 1968 Feb 14;31(3):401-14
references: 4866332
references: Biochim Biophys Acta. 1966 Jun 22;119(3):517-25
references: 5336308
references: J Gen Microbiol. 1958 Dec;19(3):592-606
references: 13611202
references: Sci Am. 1972 Dec;227(6):84-93
references: 4564019
references: Genetics. 1969 Jun;62(2):289-305
references: 17248446
references: J Mol Biol. 1968 Feb 14;31(3):389-99
references: 4866331
references: J Mol Biol. 1965 Aug;13(1):105-26
references: 5323611
references: J Mol Biol. 1970 Sep 14;52(2):337-48
references: 4922217
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1963 Jun;49:793-801
references: 13942212
references: J Bacteriol. 1966 Sep;92(3):789-91
references: 4288497
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1957 Jan 15;43(1):122-8
references: 16589984
references: Nature. 1953 Apr 25;171(4356):737-8
references: 13054692
references: Exp Cell Res. 1961 Dec;25:585-621
references: 13905658
references: Biochim Biophys Acta. 1963 Sep 17;76:9-24
references: 14068565