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

  • 5,356
    views
  • 1,241
    downloads
  • 97
    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. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bethany M Bartlett, Yatendra Kumar ... Wendy A Bickmore
    Research Article Updated

    During oncogene-induced senescence there are striking changes in the organisation of heterochromatin in the nucleus. This is accompanied by activation of a pro-inflammatory gene expression programme – the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) – driven by transcription factors such as NF-κB. The relationship between heterochromatin re-organisation and the SASP has been unclear. Here, we show that TPR, a protein of the nuclear pore complex basket required for heterochromatin re-organisation during senescence, is also required for the very early activation of NF-κB signalling during the stress-response phase of oncogene-induced senescence. This is prior to activation of the SASP and occurs without affecting NF-κB nuclear import. We show that TPR is required for the activation of innate immune signalling at these early stages of senescence and we link this to the formation of heterochromatin-enriched cytoplasmic chromatin fragments thought to bleb off from the nuclear periphery. We show that HMGA1 is also required for cytoplasmic chromatin fragment formation. Together these data suggest that re-organisation of heterochromatin is involved in altered structural integrity of the nuclear periphery during senescence, and that this can lead to activation of cytoplasmic nucleic acid sensing, NF-κB signalling, and activation of the SASP.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.