The frequency of colony formation in monolayers of cultured frog cell lines treated with puromycin was compared in (a) haploid and heteroploid lines and (b) mutagen-treated and nontreated haploid lines. Evidence that resistant colonies result from gene mutation was negative, since the colony frequency is independent of both ploidy and mutagen treatment. A study of five frog cell lines showed that colony formation in puromycin depends on (a) the concentration of puromycin, (b) preselection of the population with puromycin, and, particularly, (c) the capacity of the treated population to survive some exposure to puromycin. One haploid and one heteroploid strain showing stable resistance to puromycin have been isolated; comparison of those variants with sensitive populations has shown that resistance to puromycin is correlated with the cells' capacity to exclude the drug. The evidence for different levels of membrane permeability, combined with evidence for many degrees of resistance among and within cell populations, suggests a model of self-determining membrane units. The evolution of a resistant phenotype may result from changes in the proportion of specific units in the membrane population.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
1 December 1971
Article|
December 01 1971
PUROMYCIN RESISTANCE IN HAPLOID AND HETEROPLOID FROG CELLS: GENE OR MEMBRANE DETERMINED?
Liselotte Mezger-Freed
Liselotte Mezger-Freed
From The Institute for Cancer Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
Search for other works by this author on:
Liselotte Mezger-Freed
From The Institute for Cancer Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
Received:
April 30 1971
Revision Received:
August 20 1971
Online ISSN: 1540-8140
Print ISSN: 0021-9525
Copyright © 1971 by The Rockefeller University Press
1971
J Cell Biol (1971) 51 (3): 742–751.
Article history
Received:
April 30 1971
Revision Received:
August 20 1971
Citation
Liselotte Mezger-Freed; PUROMYCIN RESISTANCE IN HAPLOID AND HETEROPLOID FROG CELLS: GENE OR MEMBRANE DETERMINED? . J Cell Biol 1 December 1971; 51 (3): 742–751. doi: https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.51.3.742
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.
Sign in via your Institution
Sign in via your InstitutionSuggested Content
Email alerts
Advertisement
Advertisement