Male meiotic spindle features that efficiently segregate paired and lagging chromosomes

  1. Gunar Fabig  Is a corresponding author
  2. Robert Kiewisz
  3. Norbert Lindow
  4. James A Powers
  5. Vanessa Cota
  6. Luis J Quintanilla
  7. Jan Brugués
  8. Steffen Prohaska
  9. Diana S Chu
  10. Thomas Müller-Reichert  Is a corresponding author
  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  2. Zuse Institute Berlin, Germany
  3. Indiana University, United States
  4. San Francisco State University, United States
  5. Max Planck Institute, Germany

Abstract

Chromosome segregation during male meiosis is tailored to rapidly generate multitudes of sperm. Little is known about mechanisms that efficiently partition chromosomes to produce sperm. Using live imaging and tomographic reconstructions of spermatocyte meiotic spindles in Caenorhabditis elegans, we find the lagging X chromosome, a distinctive feature of anaphase I in C. elegans males, is due to lack of chromosome pairing. The unpaired chromosome remains tethered to centrosomes by lengthening kinetochore microtubules, which are under tension, suggesting that a 'tug of war' reliably resolves lagging. We find spermatocytes exhibit simultaneous pole-to-chromosome shortening (anaphase A) and pole-to-pole elongation (anaphase B). Electron tomography unexpectedly revealed spermatocyte anaphase A does not stem solely from kinetochore microtubule shortening. Instead, movement of autosomes is largely driven by distance change between chromosomes, microtubules, and centrosomes upon tension release during anaphase. Overall, we define novel features that segregate both lagging and paired chromosomes for optimal sperm production.

Data availability

Data have been uploaded to the TU Dresden Open Access Repository and Archive system (OpARA) and are available as open access: http://dx.doi.org/10.25532/OPARA-56

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gunar Fabig

    Experimental Center, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    gunar.fabig@tu-dresden.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3017-0978
  2. Robert Kiewisz

    Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2733-4978
  3. Norbert Lindow

    Visualization and Data Analysis, Zuse Institute Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. James A Powers

    Light Microscopy Imaging Center, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vanessa Cota

    Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Luis J Quintanilla

    Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jan Brugués

    Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Max Planck Institute, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Steffen Prohaska

    Visualization and Data Analysis, Zuse Institute Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Diana S Chu

    Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Thomas Müller-Reichert

    Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    mueller-reichert@tu-dresden.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0203-1436

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MU 1423/10-1)

  • Gunar Fabig
  • Thomas Müller-Reichert

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (No. 675737)

  • Robert Kiewisz
  • Thomas Müller-Reichert

National Institutes of Health (R03 HD093990-01A1)

  • Vanessa Cota
  • Diana S Chu

National Science Foundation (RUI-1817611,DBI-1548297)

  • Vanessa Cota
  • Diana S Chu

National Institutes of Health (NIH1S10OD024988-01)

  • James A Powers

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Fabig 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

  • 2,935
    views
  • 383
    downloads
  • 20
    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. Gunar Fabig
  2. Robert Kiewisz
  3. Norbert Lindow
  4. James A Powers
  5. Vanessa Cota
  6. Luis J Quintanilla
  7. Jan Brugués
  8. Steffen Prohaska
  9. Diana S Chu
  10. Thomas Müller-Reichert
(2020)
Male meiotic spindle features that efficiently segregate paired and lagging chromosomes
eLife 9:e50988.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50988

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50988

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tamás Visnovitz, Dorina Lenzinger ... Edit I Buzas
    Short Report

    Recent studies showed an unexpected complexity of extracellular vesicle (EV) biogenesis pathways. We previously found evidence that human colorectal cancer cells in vivo release large multivesicular body-like structures en bloc. Here, we tested whether this large EV type is unique to colorectal cancer cells. We found that all cell types we studied (including different cell lines and cells in their original tissue environment) released multivesicular large EVs (MV-lEVs). We also demonstrated that upon spontaneous rupture of the limiting membrane of the MV-lEVs, their intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) escaped to the extracellular environment by a ‘torn bag mechanism’. We proved that the MV-lEVs were released by ectocytosis of amphisomes (hence, we termed them amphiectosomes). Both ILVs of amphiectosomes and small EVs separated from conditioned media were either exclusively CD63 or LC3B positive. According to our model, upon fusion of multivesicular bodies with autophagosomes, fragments of the autophagosomal inner membrane curl up to form LC3B positive ILVs of amphisomes, while CD63 positive small EVs are of multivesicular body origin. Our data suggest a novel common release mechanism for small EVs, distinct from the exocytosis of multivesicular bodies or amphisomes, as well as the small ectosome release pathway.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.