Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letters to Editor
  • Published:

Theoretical Explanation of Mouse Satellite DNA Renaturation Kinetics

Abstract

DNA base sequence complexity is commonly calculated from k′2, the observed second order rate constant of renaturation corrected to constant molecular weight and defined renaturation conditions1–4. Several investigators have cautioned that k′2 is influenced by base pair mismatching in the reacting DNA sequences5–7, but no other serious difficulties have been noticed in using k′2 values to measure base sequence complexity except for the case of mouse satellite DNA. Waring et al.3 and Flamm et al.8 calculated a repeat length of 350 nucleotides from k′2 measurements, but Southern9 found a repeating unit of approximately twelve nucleotides by analysis of pyrimidine tracts. Hutton and Wetmur10 have recently shown that the kinetic complexity of mouse satellite DNA defies conventional analysis: the apparent repeat size calculated from k′2 depends upon the DNA fragment size. I shall show that for a particular kind of DNA structure, of which mouse satellite DNA is an example, the usual method of calculating base sequence complexity from k′2 cannot be used. The difficulty stems from an altered molecular weight dependence of k2 for DNA repeated sequences which are shorter than the length of the reacting DNA strands.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Wetmur, J. G., and Davidson, N., J. molec. Biol., 31, 341 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bolton, E. T., Britten, R. J., Cowie, D. B., Roberts, R. B., Szafranski, P., and Waring, M. J., Yb. Carnegie Inst., 1964, 313 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Waring, M. J., and Britten, R. J., Science, N.Y., 154, 791 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Britten, R. J., and Kohne, D. E., Science, N.Y., 161, 529 (1968).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sutton, W. D., and McCallum, M., Nature new Biol., 232, 83 (1971).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutton, J. R., and Wetmur, J. G., Biochemistry, N.Y., 12, 558 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, C. H., and Wetmur, J. G., Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun., 50, 879 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Flamm, W. G., Walker, P. M. B., and McCallum, M., J. molec. Biol., 42, 441 (1969).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Southern, E. M., Nature, 227, 794 (1970).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hutton, J. R., and Wetmur, J. G., Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun., 52, 1148 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmitz, K. S., and Schurr, J. M., J. Phys. Chem., 76, 534 (1972).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

CHILTON, MD. Theoretical Explanation of Mouse Satellite DNA Renaturation Kinetics. Nature New Biology 246, 16–17 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1038/newbio246016a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/newbio246016a0

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing