Loss of Drosophila Mei-41/ATR Alters Meiotic Crossover Patterning

Functions of the Bloom Syndrome Helicase N-terminal Intrinsically Disordered Region

Bloom Syndrome helicase (Blm) is a RecQ family helicase involved in DNA repair, cell-cycle progression, and development. Pathogenic variants in human BLM cause the autosomal recessive disorder Bloom Syndrome, characterized by predisposition to numerous types of cancer. Prior studies of Drosophila Blm mutants lacking helicase activity or protein have shown sensitivity to DNA damaging agents, defects in repairing DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), female sterility, and improper segregation of chromosomes in meiosis. Blm orthologs have a well conserved and highly structured RecQ helicase domain, but more than half of the protein, particularly in the N-terminus, is predicted to be unstructured. Because this region is poorly conserved across multicellular organisms, we compared closely related species to identify regions of conservation, potentially indicating important functions. We deleted two of these Drosophila-conserved regions in D. melanogaster using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and assessed the effects on different Blm functions. Each deletion had distinct effects on different Blm activities. Deletion of either conserved region 1 (CR1) or conserved region 2 (CR2) compromised DSB repair through synthesis-dependent strand annealing and resulted in increased mitotic crossovers. In contrast, CR2 is critical for embryonic development but CR1 is not as important. CR1 deletion allows for proficient meiotic chromosome segregation but does lead to defects in meiotic crossover designation and patterning. Finally, deletion of CR2 does not lead to significant meiotic defects, indicating that while each region has overlapping functions, there are discreet roles facilitated by each. These results provide novel insights into functions of the N-terminal disordered region of Blm.

Centromere-proximal suppression of meiotic crossovers in Drosophila is robust to changes in centromere number, repetitive DNA content, and centromere-clustering

Accurate segregation of homologous chromosomes during meiosis depends on both the presence and the regulated placement of crossovers (COs). The centromere effect, or CO exclusion in pericentromeric regions of the chromosome, is a meiotic CO patterning phenomenon that helps prevent nondisjunction, thereby protecting against chromosomal disorders and other meiotic defects. Despite being identified nearly a century ago, the mechanisms behind this fundamental cellular process remain unknown, with most studies of the Drosophila centromere effect focusing on local influences of the centromere and pericentric heterochromatin. In this study, we sought to investigate whether dosage changes in centromere number and repetitive DNA content affect the strength of the centromere effect, using phenotypic recombination mapping. Additionally, we studied the effects of repetitive DNA function on centromere effect strength using satellite DNA-binding protein mutants displaying defective centromere-clustering in meiotic nuclei. Despite what previous studies suggest, our results show that the Drosophila centromere effect is robust to changes in centromere number, repetitive DNA content, as well as repetitive DNA function. Our study suggests that the centromere effect is unlikely to be spatially controlled, providing novel insight into the mechanisms behind the Drosophila centromere effect.

Centromere-Proximal Suppression of Meiotic Crossovers in Drosophila is Robust to Changes in Centromere Number and Repetitive DNA Content

Accurate segregation of homologous chromosomes during meiosis depends on both the presence and regulated placement of crossovers (COs). The centromere effect (CE), or CO exclusion in pericentromeric regions of the chromosome, is a meiotic CO patterning phenomenon that helps prevent nondisjunction (NDJ), thereby protecting against chromosomal disorders and other meiotic defects. Despite being identified nearly a century ago, the mechanisms behind this fundamental cellular process remain unknown, with most studies of the Drosophila CE focusing on local influences of the centromere and pericentric heterochromatin. In this study, we sought to investigate whether dosage changes in centromere number and repetitive DNA content affect the strength of the CE, using phenotypic recombination mapping. Additionally, we also studied the effects of repetitive DNA function on CE strength using satellite-DNA binding protein mutants shown to have defective centromere clustering. Despite what previous studies suggest, our results show that the Drosophila CE is robust to dosage changes in centromere number and repetitive DNA content, and potentially also to repetitive DNA function. Our study suggests that the CE is unlikely to be spatially controlled, providing novel insight into the mechanisms behind the Drosophila centromere effect.

Emerging mechanisms and roles of meiotic crossover repression at centromeres

Crossover events during recombination in meiosis are essential for generating genetic diversity as well as crucial to allow accurate chromosomal segregation between homologous chromosomes. Spatial control for the distribution of crossover events along the chromosomes is largely a tightly regulated process and involves many facets such as interference, repression as well as assurance, to make sure that not too many or too few crossovers are generated. Repression of crossover events at the centromeres is a highly conserved process across all species tested. Failure to inhibit such recombination events can result in chromosomal mis-segregation during meiosis resulting in aneuploid gametes that are responsible for infertility or developmental disorders such as Down's syndrome and other trisomies in humans. In the past few decades, studies to understand the molecular mechanisms behind this repression have shown the involvement of a multitude of factors ranging from the centromere-specific proteins such as the kinetochore to the flanking pericentric heterochromatin as well as DNA double-strand break repair pathways. In this chapter, we review the different mechanisms of pericentric repression mechanisms known till date as well as highlight the importance of understanding this regulation in the context of chromosomal segregation defects. We also discuss the clinical implications of dysregulation of this process, especially in human reproductive health and genetic diseases.

Meiotic, genomic and evolutionary properties of crossover distribution in Drosophila yakuba

The number and location of crossovers across genomes are highly regulated during meiosis, yet the key components controlling them are fast evolving, hindering our understanding of the mechanistic causes and evolutionary consequences of changes in crossover rates. Drosophila melanogaster has been a model species to study meiosis for more than a century, with an available high-resolution crossover map that is, nonetheless, missing for closely related species, thus preventing evolutionary context. Here, we applied a novel and highly efficient approach to generate whole-genome high-resolution crossover maps in D. yakuba to tackle multiple questions that benefit from being addressed collectively within an appropriate phylogenetic framework, in our case the D. melanogaster species subgroup. The genotyping of more than 1,600 individual meiotic events allowed us to identify several key distinct properties relative to D. melanogaster. We show that D. yakuba, in addition to higher crossover rates than D. melanogaster, has a stronger centromere effect and crossover assurance than any Drosophila species analyzed to date. We also report the presence of an active crossover-associated meiotic drive mechanism for the X chromosome that results in the preferential inclusion in oocytes of chromatids with crossovers. Our evolutionary and genomic analyses suggest that the genome-wide landscape of crossover rates in D. yakuba has been fairly stable and captures a significant signal of the ancestral crossover landscape for the whole D. melanogaster subgroup, even informative for the D. melanogaster lineage. Contemporary crossover rates in D. melanogaster, on the other hand, do not recapitulate ancestral crossovers landscapes. As a result, the temporal stability of crossover landscapes observed in D. yakuba makes this species an ideal system for applying population genetic models of selection and linkage, given that these models assume temporal constancy in linkage effects. Our studies emphasize the importance of generating multiple high-resolution crossover rate maps within a coherent phylogenetic context to broaden our understanding of crossover control during meiosis and to improve studies on the evolutionary consequences of variable crossover rates across genomes and time.

Meiotic Crossover Patterning

Proper number and placement of meiotic crossovers is vital to chromosome segregation, with failures in normal crossover distribution often resulting in aneuploidy and infertility. Meiotic crossovers are formed via homologous repair of programmed double-strand breaks (DSBs). Although DSBs occur throughout the genome, crossover placement is intricately patterned, as observed first in early genetic studies by Muller and Sturtevant. Three types of patterning events have been identified. Interference, first described by Sturtevant in 1915, is a phenomenon in which crossovers on the same chromosome do not occur near one another. Assurance, initially identified by Owen in 1949, describes the phenomenon in which a minimum of one crossover is formed per chromosome pair. Suppression, first observed by Beadle in 1932, dictates that crossovers do not occur in regions surrounding the centromere and telomeres. The mechanisms behind crossover patterning remain largely unknown, and key players appear to act at all scales, from the DNA level to inter-chromosome interactions. There is also considerable overlap between the known players that drive each patterning phenomenon. In this review we discuss the history of studies of crossover patterning, developments in methods used in the field, and our current understanding of the interplay between patterning phenomena.

Polyploid mitosis and depolyploidization promote chromosomal instability and tumor progression in a Notch-induced tumor model

Ploidy variation is a cancer hallmark and is frequently associated with poor prognosis in high-grade cancers. Using a Drosophila solid-tumor model where oncogenic Notch drives tumorigenesis in a transition-zone microenvironment in the salivary gland imaginal ring, we find that the tumor-initiating cells normally undergo endoreplication to become polyploid. Upregulation of Notch signaling, however, induces these polyploid transition-zone cells to re-enter mitosis and undergo tumorigenesis. Growth and progression of the transition-zone tumor are fueled by a combination of polyploid mitosis, endoreplication, and depolyploidization. Both polyploid mitosis and depolyploidization are error prone, resulting in chromosomal copy-number variation and polyaneuploidy. Comparative RNA-seq and epistasis analysis reveal that the DNA-damage response genes, also active during meiosis, are upregulated in these tumors and are required for the ploidy-reduction division. Together, these findings suggest that polyploidy and associated cell-cycle variants are critical for increased tumor-cell heterogeneity and genome instability during cancer progression.

Phospho-Regulation of Meiotic Prophase

Germ cells undergoing meiosis rely on an intricate network of surveillance mechanisms that govern the production of euploid gametes for successful sexual reproduction. These surveillance mechanisms are particularly crucial during meiotic prophase, when cells execute a highly orchestrated program of chromosome morphogenesis and recombination, which must be integrated with the meiotic cell division machinery to ensure the safe execution of meiosis. Dynamic protein phosphorylation, controlled by kinases and phosphatases, has emerged as one of the main signaling routes for providing readout and regulation of chromosomal and cellular behavior throughout meiotic prophase. In this review, we discuss common principles and provide detailed examples of how these phosphorylation events are employed to ensure faithful passage of chromosomes from one generation to the next.

Meiosis Progression and Recombination in Holocentric Plants: What Is Known?

Differently from the common monocentric organization of eukaryotic chromosomes, the so-called holocentric chromosomes present many centromeric regions along their length. This chromosomal organization can be found in animal and plant lineages, whose distribution suggests that it has evolved independently several times. Holocentric chromosomes present an advantage: even broken chromosome parts can be correctly segregated upon cell division. However, the evolution of holocentricity brought about consequences to nuclear processes and several adaptations are necessary to cope with this new organization. Centromeres of monocentric chromosomes are involved in a two-step cohesion release during meiosis. To deal with that holocentric lineages developed different adaptations, like the chromosome remodeling strategy in Caenorhabditis elegans or the inverted meiosis in plants. Furthermore, the frequency of recombination at or around centromeres is normally very low and the presence of centromeric regions throughout the entire length of the chromosomes could potentially pose a problem for recombination in holocentric organisms. However, meiotic recombination happens, with exceptions, in those lineages in spite of their holocentric organization suggesting that the role of centromere as recombination suppressor might be altered in these lineages. Most of the available information about adaptations to meiosis in holocentric organisms is derived from the animal model C. elegans. As holocentricity evolved independently in different lineages, adaptations observed in C. elegans probably do not apply to other lineages and very limited research is available for holocentric plants. Currently, we still lack a holocentric model for plants, but good candidates may be found among Cyperaceae, a large angiosperm family. Besides holocentricity, chiasmatic and achiasmatic inverted meiosis are found in the family. Here, we introduce the main concepts of meiotic constraints and adaptations with special focus in meiosis progression and recombination in holocentric plants. Finally, we present the main challenges and perspectives for future research in the field of chromosome biology and meiosis in holocentric plants.

Meiotic Double-Strand Break Processing and Crossover Patterning Are Regulated in a Sex-Specific Manner by BRCA1-BARD1 in Caenorhabditis elegans

Meiosis is regulated in a sex-specific manner to produce two distinct gametes, sperm and oocytes, for sexual reproduction. To determine how meiotic recombination is regulated in spermatogenesis, we analyzed the meiotic phenotypes of mutants in the tumor suppressor E3 ubiquitin ligase BRC-1-BRD-1 complex in Caenorhabditis elegans male meiosis. Unlike in mammals, this complex is not required for meiotic sex chromosome inactivation, the process whereby hemizygous sex chromosomes are transcriptionally silenced. Interestingly, brc-1 and brd-1 mutants show meiotic recombination phenotypes that are largely opposing to those previously reported for female meiosis. Fewer meiotic recombination intermediates marked by the recombinase RAD-51 were observed in brc-1 and brd-1 mutants, and the reduction in RAD-51 foci could be suppressed by mutation of nonhomologous-end-joining proteins. Analysis of GFP::RPA-1 revealed fewer foci in the brc-1brd-1 mutant and concentration of BRC-1-BRD-1 to sites of meiotic recombination was dependent on DNA end resection, suggesting that the complex regulates the processing of meiotic double-strand breaks to promote repair by homologous recombination. Further, BRC-1-BRD-1 is important to promote progeny viability when male meiosis is perturbed by mutations that block the pairing and synapsis of different chromosome pairs, although the complex is not required to stabilize the RAD-51 filament as in female meiosis under the same conditions. Analyses of crossover designation and formation revealed that BRC-1-BRD-1 inhibits supernumerary COs when meiosis is perturbed. Together, our findings suggest that BRC-1-BRD-1 regulates different aspects of meiotic recombination in male and female meiosis.

Crossover Interference: Shedding Light on the Evolution of Recombination

Through recombination, genes are freed to evolve more independently of one another, unleashing genetic variance hidden in the linkage disequilibrium that accumulates through selection combined with drift. Yet crossover numbers are evolutionarily constrained, with at least one and not many more than one crossover per bivalent in most taxa. Crossover interference, whereby a crossover reduces the probability of a neighboring crossover, contributes to this homogeneity. The mechanisms by which interference is achieved and crossovers are regulated are a major current subject of inquiry, facilitated by novel methods to visualize crossovers and to pinpoint recombination events. Here, we review patterns of crossover interference and the models built to describe this process. We then discuss the selective forces that have likely shaped interference and the regulation of crossover numbers.

Distinct Functions in Regulation of Meiotic Crossovers for DNA Damage Response Clamp Loader Rad24(Rad17) and Mec1(ATR) Kinase

The number and distribution of meiotic crossovers (COs) are highly regulated, reflecting the requirement for COs during the first round of meiotic chromosome segregation. CO control includes CO assurance and CO interference, which promote at least one CO per chromosome bivalent and evenly-spaced COs, respectively. Previous studies revealed a role for the DNA damage response (DDR) clamp and the clamp loader in CO formation by promoting interfering COs and interhomolog recombination, and also by suppressing ectopic recombination. In this study, we use classical tetrad analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to show that a mutant defective in RAD24, which encodes the DDR clamp loader (RAD17 in other organisms), displayed reduced CO frequencies on two shorter chromosomes (III and V), but not on a long chromosome (chromosome VII). The residual COs in the rad24 mutant do not show interference. In contrast to rad24, mutants defective in the ATR kinase homolog Mec1, including a mec1 null and a mec1 kinase-dead mutant, show slight or few defects in CO frequency. On the other hand, mec1 COs show defects in interference, similar to the rad24 mutant. Our results support a model in which the DDR clamp and clamp-loader proteins promote interfering COs by recruiting pro-CO Zip, Mer, and Msh proteins to recombination sites, while the Mec1 kinase regulates CO distribution by a distinct mechanism. Moreover, CO formation and its control are implemented in a chromosome-specific manner, which may reflect a role for chromosome size in regulation.

The tumor suppressor BRCA1-BARD1 complex localizes to the synaptonemal complex and regulates recombination under meiotic dysfunction in Caenorhabditis elegans

Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) and binding partner BRCA1-associated RING domain protein 1 (BARD1) form an essential E3 ubiquitin ligase important for DNA damage repair and homologous recombination. The Caenorhabditis elegans orthologs, BRC-1 and BRD-1, also function in DNA damage repair, homologous recombination, as well as in meiosis. Using functional GFP fusions we show that in mitotically-dividing germ cells BRC-1 and BRD-1 are nucleoplasmic with enrichment at foci that partially overlap with the recombinase RAD-51. Co-localization with RAD-51 is enhanced under replication stress. As cells enter meiosis, BRC-1-BRD-1 remains nucleoplasmic and in foci, and beginning in mid-pachytene the complex co-localizes with the synaptonemal complex. Following establishment of the single asymmetrically positioned crossover on each chromosome pair, BRC-1-BRD-1 concentrates to the short arm of the bivalent. Localization dependencies reveal that BRC-1 and BRD-1 are interdependent and the complex fails to properly localize in both meiotic recombination and chromosome synapsis mutants. Consistent with a role for BRC-1-BRD-1 in meiotic recombination in the context of the synaptonemal complex, inactivation of BRC-1 or BRD-1 enhances the embryonic lethality of mutants defective in chromosome synapsis. Our data suggest that under meiotic dysfunction, BRC-1-BRD-1 stabilizes the RAD-51 filament and alters the recombination landscape; these two functions can be genetically separated from BRC-1-BRD-1's role in the DNA damage response. Together, we propose that BRC-1-BRD-1 serves a checkpoint function at the synaptonemal complex where it monitors and modulates meiotic recombination.