BRCA1/BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 regulate DNA repair pathway engagement during C. elegans meiosis

Abstract

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.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, Figure 1 - figure supplements 2-3, Figure 2 - figure supplements 1-2, and Figure 4 - figure supplements 1-3. Source code files have been provided for Figure 4-figure supplement 3.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Erik Toraason

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alina Salagean

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5377-9375
  3. David E Almanzar

    School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jordan E Brown

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Colette M Richter

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Nicole A Kurhanewicz

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ofer Rog

    School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6558-6194
  8. Diana E Libuda

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    For correspondence
    dlibuda@uoregon.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4944-1814

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM128890)

  • Diana E Libuda

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R00HD076165)

  • Diana E Libuda

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007413)

  • Erik Toraason

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R25HD070817)

  • Alina Salagean

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007464)

  • David E Almanzar

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM128804)

  • Ofer Rog

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bernard de Massy, CNRS UM, France

Version history

  1. Received: May 31, 2022
  2. Accepted: August 7, 2024
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 8, 2024 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2024, Toraason 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.

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. Erik Toraason
  2. Alina Salagean
  3. David E Almanzar
  4. Jordan E Brown
  5. Colette M Richter
  6. Nicole A Kurhanewicz
  7. Ofer Rog
  8. Diana E Libuda
(2024)
BRCA1/BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 regulate DNA repair pathway engagement during C. elegans meiosis
eLife 13:e80687.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80687

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80687

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Wenfan Ke, Miki Fujioka ... James B Jaynes
    Research Article

    The chromosomes in multicellular eukaryotes are organized into a series of topologically independent loops called TADs. In flies, TADs are formed by physical interactions between neighboring boundaries. Fly boundaries exhibit distinct partner preferences, and pairing interactions between boundaries are typically orientation-dependent. Pairing can be head-to-tail or head-to-head. The former generates a stem-loop TAD, while the latter gives a circle-loop TAD. The TAD that encompasses the Drosophila even skipped (eve) gene is formed by the head-to-tail pairing of the nhomie and homie boundaries. To explore the relationship between loop topology and the physical and regulatory landscape, we flanked the nhomie boundary region with two attP sites. The attP sites were then used to generate four boundary replacements: λ DNA, nhomie forward (WT orientation), nhomie reverse (opposite of WT orientation), and homie forward (same orientation as WT homie). The nhomie forward replacement restores the WT physical and regulatory landscape: in MicroC experiments, the eve TAD is a ‘volcano’ triangle topped by a plume, and the eve gene and its regulatory elements are sequestered from interactions with neighbors. The λ DNA replacement lacks boundary function: the endpoint of the ‘new’ eve TAD on the nhomie side is ill-defined, and eve stripe enhancers activate a nearby gene, eIF3j. While nhomie reverse and homie forward restore the eve TAD, the topology is a circle-loop, and this changes the local physical and regulatory landscape. In MicroC experiments, the eve TAD interacts with its neighbors, and the plume at the top of the eve triangle peak is converted to a pair of ‘clouds’ of contacts with the next-door TADs. Consistent with the loss of isolation afforded by the stem-loop topology, the eve enhancers weakly activate genes in the neighboring TADs. Conversely, eve function is partially disrupted.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Lisa Baumgartner, Jonathan J Ipsaro ... Julius Brennecke
    Research Advance

    Members of the diverse heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) family play crucial roles in heterochromatin formation and maintenance. Despite the similar affinities of their chromodomains for di- and tri-methylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9me2/3), different HP1 proteins exhibit distinct chromatin-binding patterns, likely due to interactions with various specificity factors. Previously, we showed that the chromatin-binding pattern of the HP1 protein Rhino, a crucial factor of the Drosophila PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA) pathway, is largely defined by a DNA sequence-specific C2H2 zinc finger protein named Kipferl (Baumgartner et al., 2022). Here, we elucidate the molecular basis of the interaction between Rhino and its guidance factor Kipferl. Through phylogenetic analyses, structure prediction, and in vivo genetics, we identify a single amino acid change within Rhino’s chromodomain, G31D, that does not affect H3K9me2/3 binding but disrupts the interaction between Rhino and Kipferl. Flies carrying the rhinoG31D mutation phenocopy kipferl mutant flies, with Rhino redistributing from piRNA clusters to satellite repeats, causing pronounced changes in the ovarian piRNA profile of rhinoG31D flies. Thus, Rhino’s chromodomain functions as a dual-specificity module, facilitating interactions with both a histone mark and a DNA-binding protein.