1. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

ZCWPW1 is recruited to recombination hotspots by PRDM9, and is essential for meiotic double strand break repair

Research Article
  • Cited 3
  • Views 1,154
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e53392 doi: 10.7554/eLife.53392

Abstract

During meiosis, homologous chromosomes pair and recombine, enabling balanced segregation and generating genetic diversity. In many vertebrates, double-strand breaks (DSBs) initiate recombination within hotspots where PRDM9 binds, and deposits H3K4me3 and H3K36me3. However, no protein(s) recognising this unique combination of histone marks have been identified. We identified Zcwpw1, containing H3K4me3 and H3K36me3 recognition domains, as having highly correlated expression with Prdm9. Here, we show that ZCWPW1 has co-evolved with PRDM9 and, in human cells, is strongly and specifically recruited to PRDM9 binding sites, with higher affinity than sites possessing H3K4me3 alone. Surprisingly, ZCWPW1 also recognises CpG dinucleotides. Male Zcwpw1 knockout mice show completely normal DSB positioning, but persistent DMC1 foci, severe DSB repair and synapsis defects, and downstream sterility. Our findings suggest ZCWPW1 recognition of PRDM9-bound sites at DSB hotspots is critical for synapsis, and hence fertility.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel Wells

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    daniel.john.wells@outlook.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Emmanuelle Bitoun

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ebitoun@well.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Daniela Moralli

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gang Zhang

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Anjali Hinch

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Julia Jankowska

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Peter Donnelly

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Catherine Green

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Simon R Myers

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    myers@stats.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2585-9626

Funding

Wellcome (098387/Z/12/Z)

  • Simon R Myers

Wellcome (212284/Z/18/Z)

  • Simon R Myers

Wellcome (109109/Z/15/Z)

  • Daniel Wells

Wellcome (095552/Z/11/Z)

  • Peter Donnelly

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments received local ethical review approval from the University of Oxford Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (Clinical Medicine board) and were carried out in accordance with the UK Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The specific protocols used were authorised by the UK Home Office under Project Licence PPL 3003437.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bernard de Massy, CNRS UM, France

Publication history

  1. Received: November 7, 2019
  2. Accepted: July 31, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 3, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 16, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Wells 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

  • 1,154
    Page views
  • 235
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)