Juxtaposition of heterozygosity and homozygosity during meiosis causes reciprocal crossover remodeling via interference

  1. Piotr A Ziolkowski
  2. Luke E Berchowitz
  3. Christophe Lambing
  4. Nataliya E Yelina
  5. Xiaohui Zhao
  6. Krystyna A Kelly
  7. Kyuha Choi
  8. Liliana Ziolkowska
  9. Viviana June
  10. Eugenio Sanchez-Moran
  11. Chris Franklin
  12. Gregory P Copenhaver
  13. Ian R Henderson  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
  3. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Abstract

During meiosis homologous chromosomes undergo crossover recombination. Sequence differences between homologs can locally inhibit crossovers. Despite this nucleotide diversity and population-scaled recombination are positively correlated in eukaryote genomes. To investigate interactions between heterozygosity and recombination we crossed Arabidopsis lines carrying fluorescent crossover reporters to 32 diverse accessions and observed hybrids with significantly higher and lower crossovers than homozygotes. Using recombinant populations derived from these crosses we observed that heterozygous regions increase crossovers when juxtaposed with homozygous regions, which reciprocally decrease. Total crossovers measured by chiasmata were unchanged when heterozygosity was varied, consistent with homeostatic control. We tested the effects of heterozygosity in mutants where the balance of interfering and non-interfering crossover repair is altered. Crossover remodeling at homozygosity-heterozygosity junctions requires interference and non-interfering repair is inefficient in heterozygous regions. As a consequence heterozygous regions show stronger crossover interference. Our findings reveal how varying homolog polymorphism patterns can shape meiotic recombination.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Piotr A Ziolkowski

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Luke E Berchowitz

    Department of Biology and the Carolina Center for Genome Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Christophe Lambing

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nataliya E Yelina

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Xiaohui Zhao

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Krystyna A Kelly

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kyuha Choi

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Liliana Ziolkowska

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Viviana June

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Eugenio Sanchez-Moran

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Chris Franklin

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Gregory P Copenhaver

    Department of Biology, Carolina Center for Genome Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ian R Henderson

    Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    irh25@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Detlef Weigel, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: June 17, 2014
  2. Accepted: March 26, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 27, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 23, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Ziolkowski 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

  • 3,829
    Page views
  • 861
    Downloads
  • 71
    Citations

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

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. Piotr A Ziolkowski
  2. Luke E Berchowitz
  3. Christophe Lambing
  4. Nataliya E Yelina
  5. Xiaohui Zhao
  6. Krystyna A Kelly
  7. Kyuha Choi
  8. Liliana Ziolkowska
  9. Viviana June
  10. Eugenio Sanchez-Moran
  11. Chris Franklin
  12. Gregory P Copenhaver
  13. Ian R Henderson
(2015)
Juxtaposition of heterozygosity and homozygosity during meiosis causes reciprocal crossover remodeling via interference
eLife 4:e03708.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03708

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03708

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.