Sex drives intracellular conflict in yeast

A functional bacteria-derived restriction modification system in the mitochondrion of a heterotrophic protist

The overarching trend in mitochondrial genome evolution is functional streamlining coupled with gene loss. Therefore, gene acquisition by mitochondria is considered to be exceedingly rare. Selfish elements in the form of self-splicing introns occur in many organellar genomes, but the wider diversity of selfish elements, and how they persist in the DNA of organelles, has not been explored. In the mitochondrial genome of a marine heterotrophic katablepharid protist, we identify a functional type II restriction modification (RM) system originating from a horizontal gene transfer (HGT) event involving bacteria related to flavobacteria. This RM system consists of an HpaII-like endonuclease and a cognate cytosine methyltransferase (CM). We demonstrate that these proteins are functional by heterologous expression in both bacterial and eukaryotic cells. These results suggest that a mitochondrion-encoded RM system can function as a toxin-antitoxin selfish element, and that such elements could be co-opted by eukaryotic genomes to drive biased organellar inheritance.

A natural variant of the essential host gene MMS21 restricts the parasitic 2-micron plasmid in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Antagonistic coevolution with selfish genetic elements (SGEs) can drive evolution of host resistance. Here, we investigated host suppression of 2-micron (2μ) plasmids, multicopy nuclear parasites that have co-evolved with budding yeasts. We developed SCAMPR (Single-Cell Assay for Measuring Plasmid Retention) to measure copy number heterogeneity and 2μ plasmid loss in live cells. We identified three S. cerevisiae strains that lack endogenous 2μ plasmids and reproducibly inhibit mitotic plasmid stability. Focusing on the Y9 ragi strain, we determined that plasmid restriction is heritable and dominant. Using bulk segregant analysis, we identified a high-confidence Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) with a single variant of MMS21 associated with increased 2μ instability. MMS21 encodes a SUMO E3 ligase and an essential component of the Smc5/6 complex, involved in sister chromatid cohesion, chromosome segregation, and DNA repair. Our analyses leverage natural variation to uncover a novel means by which budding yeasts can overcome highly successful genetic parasites.

Selfish genetic elements

Selfish genetic elements (historically also referred to as selfish genes, ultra-selfish genes, selfish DNA, parasitic DNA, genomic outlaws) are genetic segments that can enhance their own transmission at the expense of other genes in the genome, even if this has no or a negative effect on organismal fitness. [1-6] Genomes have traditionally been viewed as cohesive units, with genes acting together to improve the fitness of the organism. However, when genes have some control over their own transmission, the rules can change, and so just like all social groups, genomes are vulnerable to selfish behaviour by their parts. Early observations of selfish genetic elements were made almost a century ago, but the topic did not get widespread attention until several decades later. Inspired by the gene-centred views of evolution popularized by George Williams[7] and Richard Dawkins,[8] two papers were published back-to-back in Nature in 1980-by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick[9] and Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza[10] respectively-introducing the concept of selfish genetic elements (at the time called "selfish DNA") to the wider scientific community. Both papers emphasized that genes can spread in a population regardless of their effect on organismal fitness as long as they have a transmission advantage. Selfish genetic elements have now been described in most groups of organisms, and they demonstrate a remarkable diversity in the ways by which they promote their own transmission.[11] Though long dismissed as genetic curiosities, with little relevance for evolution, they are now recognized to affect a wide swath of biological processes, ranging from genome size and architecture to speciation.[12].

An Evolutionary Perspective on Yeast Mating-Type Switching

Cell differentiation in yeast species is controlled by a reversible, programmed DNA-rearrangement process called mating-type switching. Switching is achieved by two functionally similar but structurally distinct processes in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. In both species, haploid cells possess one active and two silent copies of the mating-type locus (a three-cassette structure), the active locus is cleaved, and synthesis-dependent strand annealing is used to replace it with a copy of a silent locus encoding the opposite mating-type information. Each species has its own set of components responsible for regulating these processes. In this review, we summarize knowledge about the function and evolution of mating-type switching components in these species, including mechanisms of heterochromatin formation, MAT locus cleavage, donor bias, lineage tracking, and environmental regulation of switching. We compare switching in these well-studied species to others such as Kluyveromyces lactis and the methylotrophic yeasts Ogataea polymorpha and Komagataella phaffii. We focus on some key questions: Which cells switch mating type? What molecular apparatus is required for switching? Where did it come from? And what is the evolutionary purpose of switching?

Homeostatic Responses Regulate Selfish Mitochondrial Genome Dynamics in C. elegans

Mutant mitochondrial genomes (mtDNA) can be viewed as selfish genetic elements that persist in a state of heteroplasmy despite having potentially deleterious metabolic consequences. We sought to study regulation of selfish mtDNA dynamics. We establish that the large 3.1-kb deletion-bearing mtDNA variant uaDf5 is a selfish genome in Caenorhabditis elegans. Next, we show that uaDf5 mutant mtDNA replicates in addition to, not at the expense of, wild-type mtDNA. These data suggest the existence of a homeostatic copy-number control that is exploited by uaDf5 to "hitchhike" to high frequency. We also observe activation of the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPR(mt)) in uaDf5 animals. Loss of UPR(mt) causes a decrease in uaDf5 frequency, whereas its constitutive activation increases uaDf5 levels. UPR(mt) activation protects uaDf5 from mitophagy. Taken together, we propose that mtDNA copy-number control and UPR(mt) represent two homeostatic response mechanisms that play important roles in regulating selfish mitochondrial genome dynamics.

Acknowledging selection at sub-organismal levels resolves controversy on pro-cooperation mechanisms

Cooperators who pay a cost to produce publically-available benefits can be exploited by cheaters who do not contribute fairly. How might cooperation persist against cheaters? Two classes of mechanisms are known to promote cooperation: 'partner choice', where a cooperator preferentially interacts with cooperative over cheating partners; and 'partner fidelity feedback', where repeated interactions between individuals ensure that cheaters suffer as their cooperative partners languish (see, for example, Momeni et al., 2013). However when both mechanisms can act, differentiating them has generated controversy. Here, I resolve this controversy by noting that selection can operate on organismal and sub-organismal 'entities' such that partner fidelity feedback at sub-organismal level can appear as partner choice at organismal level. I also show that cooperation between multicellular eukaryotes and mitochondria is promoted by partner fidelity feedback and partner choice between sub-organismal entities, in addition to being promoted by partner fidelity feedback between hosts and symbionts, as was previously known.