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

  • 5,385
    views
  • 1,251
    downloads
  • 101
    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
    Shihui Chen, Carolyn Marie Phillips
    Research Article

    RNA interference (RNAi) is a conserved pathway that utilizes Argonaute proteins and their associated small RNAs to exert gene regulatory function on complementary transcripts. While the majority of germline-expressed RNAi proteins reside in perinuclear germ granules, it is unknown whether and how RNAi pathways are spatially organized in other cell types. Here, we find that the small RNA biogenesis machinery is spatially and temporally organized during Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis. Specifically, the RNAi factor, SIMR-1, forms visible concentrates during mid-embryogenesis that contain an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, a poly-UG polymerase, and the unloaded nuclear Argonaute protein, NRDE-3. Curiously, coincident with the appearance of the SIMR granules, the small RNAs bound to NRDE-3 switch from predominantly CSR-class 22G-RNAs to ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs. NRDE-3 binds ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs in the somatic cells of larvae and adults to silence ERGO-target genes; here we further demonstrate that NRDE-3-bound, CSR-class 22G-RNAs repress transcription in oocytes. Thus, our study defines two separable roles for NRDE-3, targeting germline-expressed genes during oogenesis to promote global transcriptional repression, and switching during embryogenesis to repress recently duplicated genes and retrotransposons in somatic cells, highlighting the plasticity of Argonaute proteins and the need for more precise temporal characterization of Argonaute-small RNA interactions.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Steven Henikoff, David L Levens
    Insight

    A new method for mapping torsion provides insights into the ways that the genome responds to the torsion generated by RNA polymerase II.