A TOPBP1 Allele Causing Male Infertility Uncouples XY Silencing Dynamics From Sex Body Formation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is a very well written and performed study describing a TOPBP1 separation of function mutation, resulting in defective MSCI maintenance but normal sex body formation. The phenotype differs from that of a previous TOPBP1 null allele, in which both MSCI and sex body formation were defective. Additional defects in CHK phosphorylation and SETX localization are also described.

Strengths:

The study is very rigorous, with a remarkably large number of MSCI marks assayed, phosphoproteomics (leading to the interesting SETX discovery) and 10X RNAseq, allowing the MSCI phenotype to be further deconvolved. The approaches in most cases are robust.

Weaknesses:

There aren't many; please find list below:

1. The authors are committed to the idea that maintenance of MSCI is the major defect here. However, based on the data, an alternative would be that some cells achieve sex body formation and MSCI normally, while others do not. It would only take a small percentage of cells exhibiting MSCI failure to kill all the cells in the same germinal epithelium, so this could still explain the complete pachytene block. This isn't a major point...this phenotype is clearly different to the TOPBP1 KO, but a broader discussion of possibilities in the discussion would help. I raise this in the context of both the cytology and 10X analysis:

a) The assessment that sex body formation is normal is based on cytology in Supp 8 and 9, but a more rigorous approach would be to assess condensation of the XY pair in stage-matched spread cells (maybe they have that data already) by measuring distances between the X and Y centromere, or looking at stage IV of the seminiferous cycle, where all cells should have oval sex bodies but sex body mutants have persistent elongated XY pairs (see work of Namekawa and Turner). The authors do actually mention that gH2AX spreading is defective in many cells....and if this is true, condensation to form a sex body would almost certainly not have taken place in those cells.

b) Regarding the 10X data, the finding that expression of some XY genes is elevated and others are not is also consistent with a "partial" phenotype (some cells have normal XY bodies and MSCI, others fail in both). In Fig 6E, X expression looks to be elevated in B5 vs wt at all stages...if this were a maintenance issue, shouldn't it be equal to that in wt and then elevate later?

2. How is the quantitation showing impaired localization of select markers (e.g. SETX) normalized? How do we know that the antibody staining simply didn't work as well on the mutant slides?

3. Is testis TOPBP1 protein expression reduced in the B5 mutant?

4. 10X analysis: how were the genes on the y-axis in Supp 24 arranged? Is this by location on the X chromosome?

5. The final analyses in Fig 7: X-genes are subdivided based on their behavior (up, down, unchanged). What isn't clear to me is whether the authors have considered the fact that there are global changes in gene expression during meiosis (very low in lep , zyg and early pach, then ramps up hugely from mid pach). In other words, is this normalized to autosomal gene expression?

6. Again regarding the 10X analysis, my prediction would be that not ALL X and Y gene would increase in pach if MSCI were ablated...we should remember that XY genes have been subject to MSCI for some 160 million years of evolution, and this will mean that many enhancers that originally drove their expression prior to the evolution of MSCI will now be lost. This has been our experience: many XY genes aren't elevated at pach even in mutants in which MSCI is totally defective. I'd urge the authors to consider this possibility when they use XY gene expression patterns to diagnose the severity or timing of the MSCI phenotype. This could be a discussion point.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This paper described the role of BRCT repeat 5 in TOPBP1, a DNA damage response protein, in the maintenance of meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). By analyzing a Topbp1 mutant mouse with amino acid substitutions in BRCT repeat 5, the authors found reduced phosphorylation of a DNA/RNA helicase, Sentaxin, and decreased localization of the protein to the X-Y sex body in pachynema. Moreover, the authors also found decreased repression of several genes on the sex chromosomes in the male mice.

Strengths:
The works including phospho-proteomics and single-cell RNA sequencing with lots of data have been done with great care and most of the results are convincing.

Weaknesses:
One concern is that, although the Topbp1 mutant spermatocytes show very severe defects after the stage of late pachynema, the defect in the gene silencing in the sex body is relatively weak. It is a bit difficult to explain how such a weak misregulation of the gene silencing in mice causes the complete loss of cells in the late stage of spermatogenesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work presented by Ascencao and coworkers aims to deepen into the process of sex chromosome inactivation during meiosis (MSCI) as a critical factor in the regulation of meiosis progression in male mammals. For this purpose, they have generated a transgenic mouse model in which a specific domain of TOPBP1 protein has been mutated, hampering the binding of a number of protein partners and interfering with the regulatory cascade initiated by ATR. Through the use of immunolocalization of an impressive number of markers of MSCI, phosphoproteomics and single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq), the authors are able to show that despite a proper morphological formation of the sex body and the incorporation of most canonical MSCI makers, sex chromosome-liked genes are reactivated at some point during pachytene and this triggers meiosis progression breakdown, likely due to a defective phosphorylation of the helicase SETX.

The manuscript presents a clear advance in the understanding of MSCI and meiosis progression with two main strengths. First, the generation of a mouse model with a very uncommon phenotype. Second, the use of a vast methodological approach. The results are well presented and illustrated. Nevertheless, the discussion could be still a bit tuned by the inclusion of some ideas, and perhaps speculations, that have not been considered.