A screen for synthetic lethal interactions with pds1Δ using a modified SGA analysis. A pds1Δ strain (MATα MFα::MFαpromoterLEU2 can1Δ::MFApromoterHIS3 his3Δ ura3Δ met15Δ lys2Δ pds1::NAT, S288C background) carrying a centromeric plasmid encoding PDS1 and URA3 (pPDS1) was crossed individually to ∼4700 MATa strains of the yeast deletion collection, each containing a single deletion of a nonessential gene (designated genenΔ). Following diploid selection, the strains were sporulated and selected for double mutants (pds1Δ genenΔ) containing pPDS1 (for double-mutant selection procedure see ). Of the 4700 crosses, ∼90% gave rise to double-mutant strains containing the plasmid. Of those, 260 strains showed a putative synthetic interaction as scored by the inability to lose pPDS1 (see below). A total of 220 of these strains were further examined by tetrad analysis. For each of these strains, four double-mutant isolates (pds1Δ genenΔ) and two single-mutant isolates (genenΔ) were assayed by three 10-fold serial dilutions for their ability to survive in the absence of Pds1p function by counterselecting for pPDS1 on 5-FOA media. Because 5-FOA is toxic to cells expressing URA3, only cells that have spontaneously lost pPDS1 would be able to grow on the 5-FOA plates. The inability to grow on 5-FOA, indicative of a requirement for Pds1p for growth, was manifested by either synthetic lethality (for example, see cin8Δ or slk19Δ) or severe synthetic sickness (see chl1Δ or sti1Δ). Double-mutant combinations that were unable to grow on 5-FOA were transformed with pOC78, a centromeric plasmid coding for PDS1 LEU2 HIS3. If the inability of the genenΔ pds1Δ pPDS1 strain to grow on 5-FOA was due to a requirement for PDS1 (and not due to the integration of the URA3 gene into the chromosome, for example), then the presence of pOC78 should allow these cells to grow on 5-FOA. Of the 220 strains examined by tetrad analysis, 21 showed a true synthetic interaction. The identity of the gene disruptions in these strains was verified by sequencing. The high false-positive rate, which is in line with recent reports (), may be due to technical challenges associated with the automated procedure () that can be affected by various factors such as growth rate differences and morphology effects on transfer efficiency.