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

  • 5,351
    views
  • 1,243
    downloads
  • 100
    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
    Carmina Lichauco, Eric J Foss ... Antonio Bedalov
    Research Article

    The association between late replication timing and low transcription rates in eukaryotic heterochromatin is well known, yet the specific mechanisms underlying this link remain uncertain. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the histone deacetylase Sir2 is required for both transcriptional silencing and late replication at the repetitive ribosomal DNA (rDNA) arrays. We have previously reported that in the absence of SIR2, a de-repressed RNA PolII repositions MCM replicative helicases from their loading site at the ribosomal origin, where they abut well-positioned, high-occupancy nucleosomes, to an adjacent region with lower nucleosome occupancy. By developing a method that can distinguish activation of closely spaced MCM complexes, here we show that the displaced MCMs at rDNA origins have increased firing propensity compared to the nondisplaced MCMs. Furthermore, we found that both activation of the repositioned MCMs and low occupancy of the adjacent nucleosomes critically depend on the chromatin remodeling activity of FUN30. Our study elucidates the mechanism by which Sir2 delays replication timing, and it demonstrates, for the first time, that activation of a specific replication origin in vivo relies on the nucleosome context shaped by a single chromatin remodeler.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Liza Dahal, Thomas GW Graham ... Xavier Darzacq
    Research Article

    Type II nuclear receptors (T2NRs) require heterodimerization with a common partner, the retinoid X receptor (RXR), to bind cognate DNA recognition sites in chromatin. Based on previous biochemical and overexpression studies, binding of T2NRs to chromatin is proposed to be regulated by competition for a limiting pool of the core RXR subunit. However, this mechanism has not yet been tested for endogenous proteins in live cells. Using single-molecule tracking (SMT) and proximity-assisted photoactivation (PAPA), we monitored interactions between endogenously tagged RXR and retinoic acid receptor (RAR) in live cells. Unexpectedly, we find that higher expression of RAR, but not RXR, increases heterodimerization and chromatin binding in U2OS cells. This surprising finding indicates the limiting factor is not RXR but likely its cadre of obligate dimer binding partners. SMT and PAPA thus provide a direct way to probe which components are functionally limiting within a complex TF interaction network providing new insights into mechanisms of gene regulation in vivo with implications for drug development targeting nuclear receptors.