Abstract

Aneuploidy is highly detrimental during development yet common in cancers and pathogenic fungi – what gives rise to differences in aneuploidy tolerance remains unclear. We previously showed that wild isolates of Saccharomyces cerevisiae tolerate chromosome amplification while laboratory strains used as a model for aneuploid syndromes do not. Here, we mapped the genetic basis to Ssd1, an RNA-binding translational regulator that is functional in wild aneuploids but defective in laboratory strain W303. Loss of SSD1 recapitulates myriad aneuploidy signatures previously taken as eukaryotic responses. We show that aneuploidy tolerance is enabled via a role for Ssd1 in mitochondrial physiology, including binding and regulating nuclear-encoded mitochondrial mRNAs, coupled with a role in mitigating proteostasis stress. Recapitulating ssd1D defects with combinatorial drug treatment selectively blocked proliferation of wild-type aneuploids compared to euploids. Our work adds to elegant studies in the sensitized laboratory strain to present a mechanistic understanding of eukaryotic aneuploidy tolerance.

Data availability

Sequencing data for genetic mapping are available in the Short Read Archive (SRA) under access number PRJNA548343, and MULTIPOOL output files are available in Dataset 1. RNA and RNA Immunoprecipitation (RIP) sequencing data are available from the GEO database under accession number GSE132425, and processed data are also available in Dataset 2. Raw proteomic data are available in the PRIDE database (Project accession # PXD013847); processed data are available in Dataset 2, and normalized protein abundance data are available in Dataset 3.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. James Hose

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Leah E Escalante

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Katie J Clowers

    Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. H Auguste Dutcher

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. DeElegant Robinson

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Venera Bouriakov

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Joshua J Coon

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Evgenia Shishkova

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Audrey P Gasch

    Center for Genomic Science Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    For correspondence
    agasch@wisc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8182-257X

Funding

National Cancer Institute ((R01CA229532)

  • Audrey P Gasch

Department of Energy (DE-SC0018409)

  • Joshua J Coon
  • Audrey P Gasch

National Institutes of Health (P41 GM108538)

  • Joshua J Coon

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM007133)

  • H Auguste Dutcher

National Institutes of Health (T32 HG002760)

  • DeElegant Robinson

National Science Foundation (GRFP)

  • Leah E Escalante

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

Copyright

© 2020, Hose 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

  • 5,371
    views
  • 658
    downloads
  • 66
    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. James Hose
  2. Leah E Escalante
  3. Katie J Clowers
  4. H Auguste Dutcher
  5. DeElegant Robinson
  6. Venera Bouriakov
  7. Joshua J Coon
  8. Evgenia Shishkova
  9. Audrey P Gasch
(2020)
The genetic basis of aneuploidy tolerance in wild yeast
eLife 9:e52063.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52063

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52063

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Roger Huerlimann, Natacha Roux ... Timothy Ravasi
    Research Article

    Most teleost fishes exhibit a biphasic life history with a larval oceanic phase that is transformed into morphologically and physiologically different demersal, benthic, or pelagic juveniles. This process of transformation is characterized by a myriad of hormone-induced changes, during the often abrupt transition between larval and juvenile phases called metamorphosis. Thyroid hormones (TH) are known to be instrumental in triggering and coordinating this transformation but other hormonal systems such as corticoids, might be also involved as it is the case in amphibians. In order to investigate the potential involvement of these two hormonal pathways in marine fish post-embryonic development, we used the Malabar grouper (Epinephelus malabaricus) as a model system. We assembled a chromosome-scale genome sequence and conducted a transcriptomic analysis of nine larval developmental stages. We studied the expression patterns of genes involved in TH and corticoid pathways, as well as four biological processes known to be regulated by TH in other teleost species: ossification, pigmentation, visual perception, and metabolism. Surprisingly, we observed an activation of many of the same pathways involved in metamorphosis also at an early stage of the larval development, suggesting an additional implication of these pathways in the formation of early larval features. Overall, our data brings new evidence to the controversial interplay between corticoids and thyroid hormones during metamorphosis as well as, surprisingly, during the early larval development. Further experiments will be needed to investigate the precise role of both pathways during these two distinct periods and whether an early activation of both corticoid and TH pathways occurs in other teleost species.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article

    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.