You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Timing of Division in Chlamydomonas
Mary McAteer, Lorraine Donnan and Peter C. L. John
The New Phytologist
Vol. 99, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 41-56
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2432515
Page Count: 16
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Timing devices, Cell growth, Cell cycle, Daughter cells, Oscillators, Scotophase, Hourglasses, Mother cells, Population growth, Ethanol
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The duration of the cell cycle of Chlamydomonas is determined by two timed periods which each follow an initiating stimulus. A commitment timer, initiated by the beginning of growth in autonomous daughter cells, is dependent upon concurrent growth and controls the time of first commitment to divide. Division processes, which are then initiated, occupy a second timer period of 6 h duration at 25 ⚬C. Absence of division control by an endogenous oscillator was indicated by an unfluctuating ability to resume cycles of consistent duration when daughter cells were held in darkness or when growing cells in light were subjected to darkness. A consistent time from the beginning of daughter growth to commitment was also observed when daughter formation was delayed by an earlier temperature reduction. Ethanol, which commonly affects circadian oscillators, did not disturb synchrony The division cycle is controlled by growth and not by direct response to light, since commitments ceased when growth was prevented by lack of CO2 in the light. Growth in daughter cells initiated the timer leading to commitment since commitment was reached at similar times after resupply of CO2 or reillumination. Division synchrony in diurnal cycles of periodic illumination is not caused by entrainment of an oscillator but by the growth requirement of the hourglass timer leading to commitment. A model of division control is presented.
The New Phytologist © 1985 New Phytologist Trust