ARID1A governs the silencing of sex-linked transcription during male meiosis in the mouse

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The work by Debashish U. Menon, Noel Murcia, and Terry Magnuson brings important knowledge about histone H3.3 dynamics involved in meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). MSCI is unique to gametes and failure during this process can lead to infertility. Classically, MSCI has been studied in the context of DNA Damage repair pathways and little is known about the epigenetic mechanisms behind maintenance of the sex body as a silencing platform during meiosis. One of the major strengths of this work is the evidence provided on the role of ARID1A, a BAF subunit, in MSCI through the regulation of H3.3 occupancy in specific genic regions. This is well supported by a combination of immunofluorescence, RNA seq, CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq.
The mouse model in this study is a conditional Stra8 Cre mouse. Loss of ARID1A in this mouse, caused up regulation of XY linked genes in prophase I spermatocytes and ingression of RNA pol II to the sex body, indicating a role for this chromatin remodeller in MSCI. Using RNA seq and CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq, the authors show that ARID1A regulates chromatin accessibility of the sex chromosomes. ARID1A interacts with gene transcription start sites of sex-linked genes, and loss of ARID1A increased promoter accessibility of XY linked genes with concomitant gene up regulation.

This work suggests that ARID1A regulates chromatin composition of the sex body relative to the autosomes. In the absence of ARID1A, spermatocytes show less enrichment of H3.3 in the sex chromosomes and stable levels of the canonical histones H3.1/3.2. By overlapping CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq data, authors show that changes in chromatin accessibility in the absence of ARID1A are given by redistribution of occupancy of H3.3. Gained open chromatin in mutants corresponds to up regulation of H3.3 occupancy at transcription start sites of genes regulated by ARID1A.

Interestingly, ARID1A loss caused increased promoter occupancy by H3.3 in regions usually occupied by PRDM9. PRDM9 is a protein with histone methyltransferase activity that catalyzes histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation during meiotic prophase I, and positions double strand break (DSB) hotspots. Lack of ARID1A causes reduction in occupancy of DMC1, a recombinase involved in DSB repair, in non-homologous sex regions. These data suggest that ARID1A might indirectly influence DNA DSB repair on the sex chromosomes by regulating the localization of H3.3. This is very interesting given the suggested role for ARID1A in genome instability in cancer cells (Nacarelli et al 2020: 10.1080/23723556.2019.1690923, Zhang et al. 2023: 10.1093/carcin/bgad011 and others). It raises the question of whether this role is also involved in meiotic DSB repair in autosomes and/or how this mechanism differs in sex chromosomes compared to autosomes.

It is worth mentioning that authors show that there are Arid1a transcripts that escape the Cre system. This might mask the phenotype of the Arid1a knockout, given that many of the sequencing techniques used here are done on a heterogeneous population of knockout and wild type spermatocytes. In relation to this, I think that the use of the term "pachytene arrest" might be overstated, since this is not the phenotype truly observed (these mice produce sperm). ARID1A is present throughout prophase I and it might have pre-MSCI roles that impact earlier stages of Meiosis I and cell death might be happening in these earlier stages too.

Overall the research presented here is solid, adds new knowledge on how the sex chromatin is silenced during meiosis and has generated relevant databases for the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors tried to characterize the function of the SWI/SNF remodeler family, BAF, in spermatogenesis. The authors focused on ARID1A, a BAF-specific putative DNA binding subunit, based on gene expression profiles. The study has several serious issues with the data and interpretation. The conditional deletion mouse model of ARIDA using Stra8-cre showed inefficient deletion; spermatogenesis did not appear to be severely compromised in the mutants. Using this data, the authors claimed that meiotic arrest occurs in the mutants. This is obviously a misinterpretation. In the later parts, the authors performed next-gen analyses, including ATAC-seq and H3.3 CUT&RUN, using the isolated cells from the mutant mice. However, with this inefficient deletion, most cells isolated from the mutant mice appeared not to undergo Cre-mediated recombination. Therefore, these experiments do not tell any conclusion pertinent to the Arid1a mutation. Furthermore, many of the later parts of this study focus on the analysis of H3.3 CUT&RUN. However, Fig. S7 clearly suggests that the H3.3 CUT&RUN experiment in the wild-type simply failed. Thus, none of the analyses using the H3.3 CUT&RUN data can be interpreted. Overall, I found that the study does not have rigorous data, and the study is not interpretable. If the author wishes to study the function of ARID2 in spermatogenesis, they may need to try other cre-lines to have more robust phenotypes, and all analyses must be redone using a mouse model with efficient deletion of ARID2.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Magnuson and colleagues investigate the meiotic functions of ARID1A, a putative DNA binding subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler BAF. The authors develop a germ cell specific knockout mouse model using Stra8-cre and observe that ARID1A-deficient cells undergo pachytene arrest, although due to inefficiency of the Stra8-cre system the mice retain ARID1A-expressing cells that yield sperm and allow fertility. Because ARID1A was found to accumulate at the XY body late in Prophase I, the authors suspected a potential role in meiotic silencing and by RNAseq observe significant misexpression of sex-linked genes that typically are silenced at pachytene. They go on to show that ARID1A is required for exclusion of RNA PolII from the sex body, consistent with a meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI) defect. The authors proceed to investigate the impacts of ARID1A on chromatin accessibility and H3.3 deposition genome-wide. H3.3 is known be regulated by ARID1A and is linked to silencing, and here the authors find that upon loss of ARID1A, overall H3.3 enrichment at the sex body as measured by IF failed to occur, but H3.3 was enriched specifically at transcriptional start sites of sex-linked genes that are normally regulated by ARID1A. The results suggest that ARID1A normally prevents H3.3 accumulation at target promoters on sex chromosomes and based on additional data, restricts H3.3 to intergenic sites. Finally, the authors present data implicating ARID1A and H3.3 occupancy in DSB repair, finding that ARID1A KO leads to a reduction in focus formation by DMC1, a key repair protein. Overall the paper covers a lot of ground, provides important new insights into the process of MSCI from the perspective of chromatin composition and structure, and raises many interesting questions. In general the paper is well written and the data are clear. Specific points to address are as follows:

1. A challenge with the author's CKO model is the incomplete efficiency of ARID1A loss, due to incomplete CRE-mediated deletion. The authors effectively work around this issue, but they don't state specifically what percentage of CKO cells lack ARID1A staining. This information should be added. They refer to cells that retain ARID1A staining in CKO testes as 'internal controls' but this reviewer finds that label inappropriate. Although some cells that retain ARID1A won't have undergone CRE-mediated excision, others may have excised but possibly have delayed kinetics of deletion or ARID1A RNA/protein turnover and loss. Such cells likely have partial ARID1A depletion to different extents and therefore in some cases are no longer wild-type. In subsequent figures in which co-staining for ARID1A is done, it would be appropriate for the authors to specify if they are quantifying all cells from CKO testes, or only those that lack ARID1A staining.

2. The authors don't see defects in a few DDR markers in ARID1A CKO cells and conclude that the role of ARID1A in silencing is 'mutually exclusive to DDR pathways' (p 12) and 'occurs independently of DDR signaling' (p30). The data suggest that ARID1A may not be required for DDR signaling, but do not rule out the possibility that ARID1A is downstream of DDR signaling (and the authors even hypothesize this on p30). The data provided do not justify the conclusion that ARID1A acts independently of DDR signaling.

3. After observing no changes in levels or localization of H3.3 chaperones, the authors conclude that 'ARID1A impacts H3.3 accumulation on the sex chromosomes without affecting its expression or incorporation during pachynema.' It's not clear to this reviewer what the authors mean by this. Aside from the issue of not having tested DAXX or HIRA activity, are they suggesting that some other process besides altered incorporation leads to H3.3 accumulation and if so what process would that be?

4. The authors find an interesting connection between certain regions that gained chromatin accessibility after ARID1A loss (clusters G1 and G3) and presence of the PRDM9 sequence motif. The G1 and G3 clusters also show DMC1 occupancy and H3K4me3 enrichment. However, an additional cluster with gained accessibility (G4) also shows DMC1 occupancy and H3K4me3 enrichment but unlike clusters G1 and G3 has modest H3.3 accumulation. The paper would benefit for additional discussion about the G4 cluster (which encompasses 960 peak calls). Is there any enrichment of PRDM9 sites in G4? If H3.3 exclusion governs meiotic DSBs, how does cluster G4 fit into the model?

5. The impacts of ARID1A loss on DMC1 focus formation (reduced sex chromosome association) are very interesting and also raise additional questions. Are DMC1 foci on autosomes also affected during pachynema? The corresponding lack of apparent effect on RAD51 implies that breaks are still made and resected, enabling RAD51 filament formation. A more thorough quantitative assessment of RAD51 focus formation will be interesting in the long run, enabling determination of the number of break sites and the kinetics of repair, which the authors suggest is perturbed by ARID1A loss but don't directly test. It isn't clear how a nucleosomal factor (H3.3) would influence loading of recombinases onto ssDNA, especially if the alteration is not at the level of resection and ssDNA formation. Additional discussion of this point is warranted. Lastly, there currently are various notions for the interplay between RAD51 and DMC1 in filament formation and break repair, and brief discussion of this area and the implications of the new findings from the ARID1A CKO would strengthen the paper further.