Abstract

The IS6 family of insertion sequences is a large but coherent group which was originally named to avoid confusion between a number of identical or nearly identical IS that were identified at about the same time and given different names (IS15D, IS26, IS46, IS140, IS160, IS176). The underlying common mechanistic feature of all IS6 family members which have been investigated is that they appear to transpose by replicative transposition and form pseudo compound transposons with the flanking IS in direct repeat and in which associated genes are simply transferred to the target replicon and lost from the donor.In the accompanying letter Hall raises a number of very serious and wide-ranging criticisms of our recent review article concerning the IS6 family of insertion sequences. She clearly feels that we have undervalued her work and that we question or ignore certain of her in vivo results. This impression is almost certainly the result of the standard of proof we generally apply to mechanistic aspects of transposition where we think it important to identify transposition intermediates including the types of synaptic, strand cleavage and strand transfer complexes involved.

Highlights

  • Hall raises a number of serious and wide-ranging criticisms of our review article [1] that we: 1) “seriously misrepresented” her work with Harmer; 2) failed to take into account her data [2]; 3) “incorrectly implied that any mechanism established for IS26 can be assumed to apply to a range of IS that are at best very distantly related” and 4) that “questioned the existence of translocatable unit (TU)”

  • In the case of all IS6 family members investigated far [1], that common feature appears to be replicative cointegrate formation and the formation of pseudo compound transposons [5] with the flanking IS in direct repeat in which associated genes are transferred to the target replicon and lost from the donor [5]

  • We did not mean to imply that the entire IS6 family possess the mechanistic variation proposed by Hall

Read more

Summary

Background

Hall raises a number of serious and wide-ranging criticisms of our review article [1] (see https://tnpedia.fcav.unesp.br/index.php/IS_Families/IS6_family) that we: 1) “seriously misrepresented” her work with Harmer; 2) failed to take into account her data [2]; 3) “incorrectly implied that any mechanism established for IS26 can be assumed to apply to a range of IS that are at best very distantly related” and 4) that “questioned the existence of translocatable unit (TU)”.

Main text
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call