Catastrophic chromosomal restructuring during genome elimination in plants

  1. Ek Han Tan
  2. Isabelle M Henry
  3. Maruthachalam Ravi
  4. Keith R Bradnam
  5. Terezie Mandakova
  6. Mohan P A Marimuthu
  7. Ian Korf
  8. Martin A Lysak
  9. Luca Comai  Is a corresponding author
  10. Simon W L Chan
  1. University of California, Davis, United States
  2. Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, India
  3. Masaryk University, Czech Republic

Abstract

Genome instability is associated with mitotic errors and cancer. This phenomenon can lead to deleterious rearrangements, but also genetic novelty, and many questions regarding its genesis, fate and evolutionary role remain unanswered. Here, we describe extreme chromosomal restructuring during genome elimination, a process resulting from hybridization of Arabidopsis plants expressing different centromere histones H3. Shattered chromosomes are formed from the genome of the haploid inducer, consistent with genomic catastrophes affecting a single, laggard chromosome compartmentalized within a micronucleus. Analysis of breakpoint junctions implicates breaks followed by repair through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or stalled fork repair. Furthermore, mutation of required NHEJ factor DNA Ligase 4 results in enhanced haploid recovery. Lastly, heritability and stability of a rearranged chromosome suggest a potential for enduring genomic novelty. These findings provide a tractable, natural system towards investigating the causes and mechanisms of complex genomic rearrangements similar to those associated with several human disorders.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ek Han Tan

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Isabelle M Henry

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Maruthachalam Ravi

    School of Biology, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Keith R Bradnam

    Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Terezie Mandakova

    Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mohan P A Marimuthu

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ian Korf

    Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Martin A Lysak

    Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Luca Comai

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    lcomai@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Simon W L Chan

    Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Tan et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,331
    views
  • 1,234
    downloads
  • 95
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ek Han Tan
  2. Isabelle M Henry
  3. Maruthachalam Ravi
  4. Keith R Bradnam
  5. Terezie Mandakova
  6. Mohan P A Marimuthu
  7. Ian Korf
  8. Martin A Lysak
  9. Luca Comai
  10. Simon W L Chan
(2015)
Catastrophic chromosomal restructuring during genome elimination in plants
eLife 4:e06516.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06516

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06516

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article Updated

    The preservation of genome integrity during sperm and egg development is vital for reproductive success. During meiosis, the tumor suppressor BRCA1/BRC-1 and structural maintenance of chromosomes 5/6 (SMC-5/6) complex genetically interact to promote high fidelity DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, but the specific DSB repair outcomes these proteins regulate remain unknown. Using genetic and cytological methods to monitor resolution of DSBs with different repair partners in Caenorhabditis elegans, we demonstrate that both BRC-1 and SMC-5 repress intersister crossover recombination events. Sequencing analysis of conversion tracts from homolog-independent DSB repair events further indicates that BRC-1 regulates intersister/intrachromatid noncrossover conversion tract length. Moreover, we find that BRC-1 specifically inhibits error prone repair of DSBs induced at mid-pachytene. Finally, we reveal functional interactions of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 in regulating repair pathway engagement: BRC-1 is required for localization of recombinase proteins to DSBs in smc-5 mutants and enhances DSB repair defects in smc-5 mutants by repressing theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). These results are consistent with a model in which some functions of BRC-1 act upstream of SMC-5/6 to promote recombination and inhibit error-prone DSB repair, while SMC-5/6 acts downstream of BRC-1 to regulate the formation or resolution of recombination intermediates. Taken together, our study illuminates the coordinated interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ryo Kariyazono, Takashi Osanai
    Research Article

    The hox operon in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, encoding bidirectional hydrogenase responsible for H2 production, is transcriptionally upregulated under microoxic conditions. Although several regulators for hox transcription have been identified, their dynamics and higher-order DNA structure of hox region in microoxic conditions remain elusive. We focused on key regulators for the hox operon: cyAbrB2, a conserved regulator in cyanobacteria, and SigE, an alternative sigma factor. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing revealed that cyAbrB2 binds to the hox promoter region under aerobic conditions, with its binding being flattened in microoxic conditions. Concurrently, SigE exhibited increased localization to the hox promoter under microoxic conditions. Genome-wide analysis revealed that cyAbrB2 binds broadly to AT-rich genome regions and represses gene expression. Moreover, we demonstrated the physical interactions of the hox promoter region with its distal genomic loci. Both the transition to microoxic conditions and the absence of cyAbrB2 influenced the chromosomal interaction. From these results, we propose that cyAbrB2 is a cyanobacterial nucleoid-associated protein (NAP), modulating chromosomal conformation, which blocks RNA polymerase from the hox promoter in aerobic conditions. We further infer that cyAbrB2, with altered localization pattern upon microoxic conditions, modifies chromosomal conformation in microoxic conditions, which allows SigE-containing RNA polymerase to access the hox promoter. The coordinated actions of this NAP and the alternative sigma factor are crucial for the proper hox expression in microoxic conditions. Our results highlight the impact of cyanobacterial chromosome conformation and NAPs on transcription, which have been insufficiently investigated.