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 coordinate interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.

Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (‘TADs’) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first, a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop. In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of MicroC to analyze how TADs are organized, and experimental manipulations of the even skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the ‘loop-extrusion’ and the ‘boundary-pairing’ models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model, and instead suggest that the endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their partners, either head-to-head or head-to-tail, with varying degrees of specificity. Although our experiments do not address how partners find each other, the mechanism is unlikely to require loop extrusion.