Evidence That Masking of Synapsis Imperfections Counterbalances Quality Control to Promote Efficient Meiosis

English version České info

Reduction in ploidy to generate haploid gametes during sexual reproduction is accomplished by the specialized cell division program of meiosis. Pairing between homologous chromosomes and assembly of the synaptonemal complex at their interface (synapsis) represent intermediate steps in the meiotic program that are essential to form crossover recombination-based linkages between homologs, which in turn enable segregation of the homologs to opposite poles at the meiosis I division. Here, we challenge the mechanisms of pairing and synapsis during C. elegans meiosis by disrupting the normal 1∶1 correspondence between homologs through karyotype manipulation. Using a combination of cytological tools, including S-phase labeling to specifically identify X chromosome territories in highly synchronous cohorts of nuclei and 3D rendering to visualize meiotic chromosome structures and organization, our analysis of trisomic (triplo-X) and polyploid meiosis provides insight into the principles governing pairing and synapsis and how the meiotic program is “wired” to maximize successful sexual reproduction. We show that chromosomes sort into homologous groups regardless of chromosome number, then preferentially achieve pairwise synapsis during a period of active chromosome mobilization. Further, comparisons of synapsis configurations in triplo-X germ cells that are proficient or defective for initiating recombination suggest a role for recombination in restricting chromosomal interactions to a pairwise state. Increased numbers of homologs prolong markers of the chromosome mobilization phase and/or boost germline apoptosis, consistent with triggering quality control mechanisms that promote resolution of synapsis problems and/or cull meiocytes containing synapsis defects. However, we also uncover evidence for the existence of mechanisms that “mask” defects, thus allowing resumption of prophase progression and survival of germ cells despite some asynapsis. We propose that coupling of saturable masking mechanisms with stringent quality controls maximizes meiotic success by making progression and survival dependent on achieving a level of synapsis sufficient for crossover formation without requiring perfect synapsis.

Vyšlo v časopise: Evidence That Masking of Synapsis Imperfections Counterbalances Quality Control to Promote Efficient Meiosis. PLoS Genet 9(12): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003963
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003963

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. de BoerE, HeytingC (2006) The diverse roles of transverse filaments of synaptonemal complexes in meiosis. Chromosoma 115: 220–234.

2. Mlynarczyk-Evans S, Villeneuve A (2010) Homologous chromosome pairing and synapsis during oogenesis. In: Verlhac M-H, Villeneuve A, editors. Oogenesis: The Universal Process. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 117–140.

3. HayashiM, Mlynarczyk-EvansS, VilleneuveAM (2010) The synaptonemal complex shapes the crossover landscape through cooperative assembly, crossover promotion and crossover inhibition during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Genetics 186: 45–58.

4. HiraokaY, DernburgAF (2009) The SUN rises on meiotic chromosome dynamics. Dev Cell 17: 598–605.

5. McKimKS, PetersK, RoseAM (1993) Two types of sites required for meiotic chromosome pairing in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 134: 749–768.

6. VilleneuveAM (1994) A cis-acting locus that promotes crossing over between X chromosomes in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 136: 887–902.

7. PhillipsCM, DernburgAF (2006) A family of zinc-finger proteins is required for chromosome-specific pairing and synapsis during meiosis in C. elegans. Dev Cell 11: 817–829.

8. PhillipsCM, WongC, BhallaN, CarltonPM, WeiserP, et al. (2005) HIM-8 binds to the X chromosome pairing center and mediates chromosome-specific meiotic synapsis. Cell 123: 1051–1063.

9. SatoA, IsaacB, PhillipsCM, RilloR, CarltonPM, et al. (2009) Cytoskeletal forces span the nuclear envelope to coordinate meiotic chromosome pairing and synapsis. Cell 139: 907–919.

10. PenknerA, TangL, NovatchkovaM, LadurnerM, FridkinA, et al. (2007) The nuclear envelope protein Matefin/SUN-1 is required for homologous pairing in C. elegans meiosis. Dev Cell 12: 873–885.

11. PenknerAM, FridkinA, GloggnitzerJ, BaudrimontA, MachacekT, et al. (2009) Meiotic chromosome homology search involves modifications of the nuclear envelope protein Matefin/SUN-1. Cell 139: 920–933.

12. MaloneCJ, MisnerL, Le BotN, TsaiMC, CampbellJM, et al. (2003) The C. elegans hook protein, ZYG-12, mediates the essential attachment between the centrosome and nucleus. Cell 115: 825–836.

13. MinnIL, RollsMM, Hanna-RoseW, MaloneCJ (2009) SUN-1 and ZYG-12, mediators of centrosome-nucleus attachment, are a functional SUN/KASH pair in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol Biol Cell 20: 4586–4595.

14. BaudrimontA, PenknerA, WoglarA, MachacekT, WegrostekC, et al. (2010) Leptotene/zygotene chromosome movement via the SUN/KASH protein bridge in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet 6: e1001219.

15. WynneDJ, RogO, CarltonPM, DernburgAF (2012) Dynein-dependent processive chromosome motions promote homologous pairing in C. elegans meiosis. J Cell Biol 196: 47–64.

16. LabradorL, BarrosoC, LightfootJ, Muller-ReichertT, FlibotteS, et al. (2013) Chromosome movements promoted by the mitochondrial protein SPD-3 are required for homology search during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet 9: e1003497.

17. MacQueenAJ, ColaiacovoMP, McDonaldK, VilleneuveAM (2002) Synapsis-dependent and -independent mechanisms stabilize homolog pairing during meiotic prophase in C. elegans. Genes Dev 16: 2428–2442.

18. MacQueenAJ, PhillipsCM, BhallaN, WeiserP, VilleneuveAM, et al. (2005) Chromosome sites play dual roles to establish homologous synapsis during meiosis in C. elegans. Cell 123: 1037–1050.

19. Martinez-PerezE, VilleneuveAM (2005) HTP-1-dependent constraints coordinate homolog pairing and synapsis and promote chiasma formation during C. elegans meiosis. Genes Dev 19: 2727–2743.

20. ZhangW, MileyN, ZastrowMS, MacqueenAJ, SatoA, et al. (2012) HAL-2 promotes homologous pairing during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis by antagonizing inhibitory effects of synaptonemal complex precursors. PLoS Genet 8: e1002880.

21. WoglarA, DaryabeigiA, AdamoA, HabacherC, MachacekT, et al. (2013) Matefin/SUN-1 phosphorylation is part of a surveillance mechanism to coordinate chromosome synapsis and recombination with meiotic progression and chromosome movement. PLoS Genet 9: e1003335.

22. RosuS, ZawadzkiKA, StamperEL, LibudaDE, ReeseAL, et al. (2013) The C. elegans DSB-2 Protein Reveals a Regulatory Network that Controls Competence for Meiotic DSB Formation and Promotes Crossover Assurance. PLoS Genet 9: e1003674.

23. StamperEL, RodenbuschSE, RosuS, AhringerJ, VilleneuveAM, et al. (2013) Identification of DSB-1, a protein required for initiation of meiotic recombination in C. elegans, illuminates a checkpoint that promotes crossover assurance. PLoS Genet 9: e1003679.

24. GartnerA, MilsteinS, AhmedS, HodgkinJ, HengartnerMO (2000) A conserved checkpoint pathway mediates DNA damage–induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in C. elegans. Mol Cell 5: 435–443.

25. BhallaN, DernburgAF (2005) A conserved checkpoint monitors meiotic chromosome synapsis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 310: 1683–1686.

26. Jaramillo-LambertA, EllefsonM, VilleneuveAM, EngebrechtJ (2007) Differential timing of S phases, X chromosome replication, and meiotic prophase in the C. elegans germ line. Dev Biol 308: 206–221.

27. NabeshimaK, Mlynarczyk-EvansS, VilleneuveAM (2011) Chromosome painting reveals asynaptic full alignment of homologs and HIM-8-dependent remodeling of X chromosome territories during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet 7: e1002231.

28. GoldsteinP (1984) Triplo-X hermaphrodite of Caenorhabditis elegans: pachytene karyotype analysis, synaptonemal complexes, and pairing mechanisms. Can J Genet Cytol 26: 13–17.

29. DernburgAF, McDonaldK, MoulderG, BarsteadR, DresserM, et al. (1998) Meiotic recombination in C. elegans initiates by a conserved mechanism and is dispensable for homologous chromosome synapsis. Cell 94: 387–398.

30. HayashiM, ChinGM, VilleneuveAM (2007) C. elegans germ cells switch between distinct modes of double-strand break repair during meiotic prophase progression. PLoS Genet 3: e191.

31. KellyWG, SchanerCE, DernburgAF, LeeMH, KimSK, et al. (2002) X-chromosome silencing in the germline of C. elegans. Development 129: 479–492.

32. BeanCJ, SchanerCE, KellyWG (2004) Meiotic pairing and imprinted X chromatin assembly in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Genet 36: 100–105.

33. BesslerJB, AndersenEC, VilleneuveAM (2010) Differential localization and independent acquisition of the H3K9me2 and H3K9me3 chromatin modifications in the Caenorhabditis elegans adult germ line. PLoS Genet 6: e1000830.

34. ShakesDC, WuJC, SadlerPL, LapradeK, MooreLL, et al. (2009) Spermatogenesis-specific features of the meiotic program in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet 5: e1000611.

35. LamelzaP, BhallaN (2012) Histone methyltransferases MES-4 and MET-1 promote meiotic checkpoint activation in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet 8: e1003089.

36. Jaramillo-LambertA, EngebrechtJ (2010) A single unpaired and transcriptionally silenced X chromosome locally precludes checkpoint signaling in the Caenorhabditis elegans germ line. Genetics 184: 613–628.

37. ChecchiPM, EngebrechtJ (2011) Caenorhabditis elegans histone methyltransferase MET-2 shields the male X chromosome from checkpoint machinery and mediates meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. PLoS Genet 7: e1002267.

38. AdamoA, WoglarA, SilvaN, PenknerA, JantschV, et al. (2012) Transgene-mediated cosuppression and RNA interference enhance germ-line apoptosis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 3440–3445.

39. ZicklerD, KlecknerN (1999) Meiotic chromosomes: integrating structure and function. Annu Rev Genet 33: 603–754.

40. von WettsteinD, RasmussenSW, HolmPB (1984) The synaptonemal complex in genetic segregation. Annu Rev Genet 18: 331–413.

41. McClintockB (1933) The association of non-homologous parts of chromosomes in the mid-prophase of meiosis in Zea mays. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat 19: 191–237.

42. JenczewskiE, AlixK (2004) From diploids to allopolyploids: The emergence of efficient pairing control genes in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23: 21–45.

43. HenzelJV, NabeshimaK, SchvarzsteinM, TurnerBE, VilleneuveAM, et al. (2011) An asymmetric chromosome pair undergoes synaptic adjustment and crossover redistribution during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis: implications for sex chromosome evolution. Genetics 187: 685–699.

44. Voelkel-MeimanK, MoustafaSS, LefrancoisP, VilleneuveAM, MacQueenAJ (2012) Full-length synaptonemal complex grows continuously during meiotic prophase in budding yeast. PLoS Genet 8: e1002993.

45. McKimKS, Hayashi-HagiharaA (1998) mei-W68 in Drosophila melanogaster encodes a Spo11 homolog: evidence that the mechanism for initiating meiotic recombination is conserved. Genes Dev 12: 2932–2942.

46. McKimKS, Green-MarroquinBL, SekelskyJJ, ChinG, SteinbergC, et al. (1998) Meiotic synapsis in the absence of recombination. Science 279: 876–878.

47. RasmussenSW (1987) Chromosome pairing in autotetraploid Bombyx males. Inhibition of multivalent correction by crossing over. Carlsberg Res Commun 52: 211–242.

48. RasmussenSW, HolmPB (1979) Chromosome pairing in autotetraploid Bombyx females. Mechanism for exclusive bivalent formation. Carlsberg Res Commun 44: 101–125.

49. CarltonPM, FarruggioAP, DernburgAF (2006) A link between meiotic prophase progression and crossover control. PLoS Genet 2: e12.

50. StackSM, SoulliereDL (1984) The relation between synapsis and chiasma formation in Rhoeo spathacea. Chromosoma 90: 72–83.

51. CalventeA, VieraA, PageJ, ParraMT, GomezR, et al. (2005) DNA double-strand breaks and homology search: inferences from a species with incomplete pairing and synapsis. J Cell Sci 118: 2957–2963.

52. BurgoynePS, MahadevaiahSK, TurnerJM (2009) The consequences of asynapsis for mammalian meiosis. Nat Rev Genet 10: 207–216.

53. BrennerS (1974) The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 77: 71–94.

54. HodgkinJ, HorvitzHR, BrennerS (1979) Nondisjunction mutants of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 91: 67–94.

55. MadlJE, HermanRK (1979) Polyploids and sex determination in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 93: 393–402.

56. MorganDE, CrittendenSL, KimbleJ (2010) The C. elegans adult male germline: stem cells and sexual dimorphism. Dev Biol 346: 204–214.

57. RosuS, LibudaDE, VilleneuveAM (2011) Robust crossover assurance and regulated interhomolog access maintain meiotic crossover number. Science 334: 1286–1289.

58. GumiennyTL, LambieE, HartwiegE, HorvitzHR, HengartnerMO (1999) Genetic control of programmed cell death in the Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite germline. Development 126: 1011–1022.

59. WignallSM, VilleneuveAM (2009) Lateral microtubule bundles promote chromosome alignment during acentrosomal oocyte meiosis. Nat Cell Biol 11: 839–844.

60. KamathRS, FraserAG, DongY, PoulinG, DurbinR, et al. (2003) Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature 421: 231–237.

61. PhillipsCM, MengX, ZhangL, ChretienJH, UrnovFD, et al. (2009) Identification of chromosome sequence motifs that mediate meiotic pairing and synapsis in C. elegans. Nat Cell Biol 11: 934–942.

62. BesslerJB, ReddyKC, HayashiM, HodgkinJ, VilleneuveAM (2007) A role for Caenorhabditis elegans chromatin-associated protein HIM-17 in the proliferation vs. meiotic entry decision. Genetics 175: 2029–2037.