The Conserved miR-51 microRNA Family Is Redundantly Required for Embryonic Development and Pharynx Attachment in Caenorhabditis elegans

A major question about cytokinesis concerns the role of the septin proteins, which localize to the division site in all animal and fungal cells but are essential for cytokinesis only in some cell types. For example, in Schizosaccharomyces pombe, four septins localize to the division site, but deletion of the four genes produces only a modest delay in cell separation. To ask if the S. pombe septins function redundantly in cytokinesis, we conducted a synthetic-lethal screen in a septin-deficient strain and identified seven mutations. One mutation affects Cdc4, a myosin light chain that is an essential component of the cytokinetic actomyosin ring. Five others cause frequent cell lysis during cell separation and map to two loci. These mutations and their dosage suppressors define a signaling pathway (including Rho1 and a novel arrestin) for repairing cell-wall damage. The seventh mutation affects the poorly understood RNA-binding protein Scw1 and severely delays cell separation when combined either with a septin mutation or with a mutation affecting the septin-interacting, anillin-like protein Mid2, suggesting that Scw1 functions in a pathway parallel to that of the septins. Taken together, our results suggest that the S. pombe septins participate redundantly in one or more pathways that cooperate with the actomyosin ring during cytokinesis and that a septin defect causes septum defects that can be repaired effectively only when the cell-integrity pathway is intact.THE fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe provides an outstanding model system for studies of cytokinesis (McCollum and Gould 2001; Balasubramanian et al. 2004; Pollard and Wu 2010). As in most animal cells, successful cytokinesis in S. pombe requires an actomyosin ring (AMR). The AMR begins to assemble at the G₂/M transition and involves the type II myosin heavy chains Myo2 and Myp2 and the light chains Cdc4 and Rlc1 (Wu et al. 2003). Myo2 and Cdc4 are essential for cytokinesis under all known conditions, Rlc1 is important at all temperatures but essential only at low temperatures, and Myp2 is essential only under stress conditions. As the AMR constricts, a septum of cell wall is formed between the daughter cells. The primary septum is sandwiched by secondary septa and subsequently digested to allow cell separation (Humbel et al. 2001; Sipiczki 2007). Because of the internal turgor pressure of the cells, the proper assembly and structural integrity of the septal layers are essential for cell survival.Septum formation involves the β-glucan synthases Bgs1/Cps1/Drc1, Bgs3, and Bgs4 (Ishiguro et al. 1997; Le Goff et al. 1999; Liu et al. 1999, 2002; Martín et al. 2003; Cortés et al. 2005) and the α-glucan synthase Ags1/Mok1 (Hochstenbach et al. 1998; Katayama et al. 1999). These synthases are regulated by the Rho GTPases Rho1 and Rho2 and the protein kinase C isoforms Pck1 and Pck2 (Arellano et al. 1996, 1997, 1999; Nakano et al. 1997; Hirata et al. 1998; Calonge et al. 2000; Sayers et al. 2000; Ma et al. 2006; Barba et al. 2008; García et al. 2009b). The Rho GTPases themselves appear to be regulated by both GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) and guanine-nucleotide-exchange factors (GEFs) (Nakano et al. 2001; Calonge et al. 2003; Iwaki et al. 2003; Tajadura et al. 2004; Morrell-Falvey et al. 2005; Mutoh et al. 2005; García et al. 2006, 2009a,b). In addition, septum formation and AMR function appear to be interdependent. In the absence of a normal AMR, cells form aberrant septa and/or deposit septal materials at random locations, whereas a mutant defective in septum formation (bgs1) is also defective in AMR constriction (Gould and Simanis 1997; Le Goff et al. 1999; Liu et al. 1999, 2000). Both AMR constriction and septum formation also depend on the septation initiation network involving the small GTPase Spg1 (McCollum and Gould 2001; Krapp and Simanis 2008). Despite this considerable progress, many questions remain about the mechanisms and regulation of septum formation and its relationships to the function of the AMR.One major question concerns the role(s) of the septins. Proteins of this family are ubiquitous in fungal and animal cells and typically localize to the cell cortex, where they appear to serve as scaffolds and diffusion barriers for other proteins that participate in a wide variety of cellular processes (Longtine et al. 1996; Gladfelter et al. 2001; Hall et al. 2008; Caudron and Barral 2009). Despite the recent progress in elucidating the mechanisms of septin assembly (John et al. 2007; Sirajuddin et al. 2007; Bertin et al. 2008; McMurray and Thorner 2008), the details of septin function remain obscure. However, one prominent role of the septins and associated proteins is in cytokinesis. Septins concentrate at the division site in every cell type that has been examined, and in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Hartwell 1971; Longtine et al. 1996; Lippincott et al. 2001; Dobbelaere and Barral 2004) and at least some Drosophila (Neufeld and Rubin 1994; Adam et al. 2000) and mammalian (Kinoshita et al. 1997; Surka et al. 2002) cell types, the septins are essential for cytokinesis. In S. cerevisiae, the septins are required for formation of the AMR (Bi et al. 1998; Lippincott and Li 1998). However, this cannot be their only role, because the AMR itself is not essential for cytokinesis in this organism (Bi et al. 1998; Korinek et al. 2000; Schmidt et al. 2002). Moreover, there is no evidence that the septins are necessary for AMR formation or function in any other organism. A further complication is that in some cell types, including most Caenorhabditis elegans cells (Nguyen et al. 2000; Maddox et al. 2007) and some Drosophila cells (Adam et al. 2000; Field et al. 2008), the septins do not appear to be essential for cytokinesis even though they localize to the division site.S. pombe has seven septins, four of which (Spn1, Spn2, Spn3, and Spn4) are expressed in vegetative cells and localize to the division site shortly before AMR constriction and septum formation (Longtine et al. 1996; Berlin et al. 2003; Tasto et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003; An et al. 2004; Petit et al. 2005; Pan et al. 2007; Onishi et al. 2010). Spn1 and Spn4 appear to be the core members of the septin complex (An et al. 2004; McMurray and Thorner 2008), and mutants lacking either of these proteins do not assemble the others at the division site. Assembly of a normal septin ring also depends on the anillin-like protein Mid2, which colocalizes with the septins (Berlin et al. 2003; Tasto et al. 2003). Surprisingly, mutants lacking the septins are viable and form seemingly complete septa with approximately normal timing. These mutants do, however, display a variable delay in separation of the daughter cells, suggesting that the septins play some role(s) in the proper completion of the septum or in subsequent processes necessary for cell separation (Longtine et al. 1996; An et al. 2004; Martín-Cuadrado et al. 2005).It is possible that the septins localize to the division site and yet are nonessential for division in some cell types because their role is redundant with that of some other protein(s) or pathway(s). To explore this possibility in S. pombe, we screened for mutations that were lethal in combination with a lack of septins. The results suggest that the septins cooperate with the AMR during cytokinesis and that, in the absence of septin function, the septum is not formed properly, so that an intact system for recognizing and repairing cell-wall damage becomes critical for cell survival.     

Identification of the Major Sex-Determining Region of Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus)

Sex determination in fish is a labile character in evolutionary terms. The sex-determining (SD) master gene can differ even between closely related fish species. This group is an interesting model for studying the evolution of the SD region and the gonadal differentiation pathway. The turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) is a flatfish of great commercial value, where a strong sexual dimorphism exists for growth rate. Following a QTL and marker association approach in five families and a natural population, we identified the main SD region of turbot at the proximal end of linkage group (LG) 5, close to the SmaUSC-E30 marker. The refined map of this region suggested that this marker would be 2.6 cM and 1.4 Mb from the putative SD gene. This region appeared mostly undifferentiated between males and females, and no relevant recombination frequency differences were detected between sexes. Comparative genomics of LG5 marker sequences against five model species showed no similarity of this chromosome to the sex chromosomes of medaka, stickleback, and fugu, but suggested a similarity to a sex-associated QTL from Oreochromis spp. The segregation analysis of the closest markers to the SD region demonstrated a ZW/ZZ model of sex determination in turbot. A small proportion of families did not fit perfectly with this model, which suggests that other minor genetic and/or environmental factors are involved in sex determination in this species.SEX ratio is a central demographic parameter directly related to the reproductive potential of individuals and populations (Penman and Piferrer 2008). The phenotypic sex depends on the processes of both sex determination and sex differentiation. Exogenous factors, such as temperature, hormones, or social behavior, can modify the gonad development pathway in fish (Baroiller and D''Cotta 2001; Piferrer and Guiguen 2008). Both genetic (GSD) and environmental sex determination has been reported in this group (Devlin and Nagahama 2002; Penman and Piferrer 2008), although primary sex determination is genetic in most species (Valenzuela et al. 2003). Among GSD, single, multiple, or polygenic sex-determining (SD) gene systems have been documented (Kallman 1984; Matsuda et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2004; Vandeputte et al. 2007).Sex determination in fish can evolve very rapidly (Woram et al. 2003; Peichel et al. 2004; Ross et al. 2009). Different sex determination mechanisms have been reported between congeneric species and even between populations of the same species (Almeida-Toledo and Foresti 2001; Lee et al. 2004; Mank et al. 2006). The evolution of sex chromosomes involves the suppression of recombination between homologous chromosomes probably to maintain sex-related coadapted gene blocks (Charlesworth et al. 2005; Tripathi et al. 2009). The sex determination pathway appears to be less conserved than other developmental processes (Penman and Piferrer 2008). However, differences are more related to the top of the hierarchy in the developmental pathway, while downstream genes are more conserved (Wilkins 1995; Marín and Baker 1998). As a consequence, the SD master gene in fish can vary among related species (Kondo et al. 2003; Tanaka et al. 2007; Alfaqih et al. 2009). In this sense, fish represent an attractive model for studying the evolution of SD mechanisms and sex chromosomes (Peichel et al. 2004; Kikuchi et al. 2007).A low proportion of fish species have demonstrated sex-associated chromosome heteromorphisms (Almeida-Toledo and Foresti 2001; Devlin and Nagahama 2002; Penman and Piferrer 2008). This is congruent with the rapid evolution of the SD region in fish, and thus in most species the male and female version of this chromosome region appears largely undifferentiated. In spite of this, indirect clues related to progenies of sex/chromosome-manipulated individuals or to segregation of morphologic/molecular sex-associated markers indicate that mechanisms of sex determination in fish are similar to other vertebrates (Penman and Piferrer 2008). With the arrival of genomics, large amounts of different genetic markers and genomic information are available for scanning genomes to look for their association with sex determination. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) (Cnaani et al. 2004; Peichel et al. 2004) or marker association (Felip et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2007) approaches have been used to identify the SD regions in some fish species. Also, microarrays constructed from gonadal ESTs have been applied to detect differentially expressed genes in the process of gonadal differentiation (Baron et al. 2005). Further, the increased genomic resources in model and aquaculture species have allowed the development of both comparative genomics (Woram et al. 2003; Kikuchi et al. 2007; Tripathi et al. 2009) and candidate gene (Shirak et al. 2006; Alfaqih et al. 2009) strategies to identify and characterize the SD region in fish. This has permitted the identification of the SD region in eight fish, including both model and aquaculture species (reviewed in Penman and Piferrer 2008).The turbot is a highly appreciated European aquaculture species, whose harvest is expected to increase from the current 9000 tons to >15,000 tons in 2012 (S. Cabaleiro, personal communication). Females of this species reach commercial size 4–6 months before males do, explaining the interest of the industry in obtaining all-female populations. Although some differences between families can be observed in the production process at farms, sex ratio is usually balanced at ∼1:1. Neither mitotic nor meiotic chromosomes have shown sex-associated heteromorphisms in turbot (Bouza et al. 1994; Cuñado et al. 2001). The proportion of sexes observed in triploid and especially gynogenetic progenies moved Cal et al. (2006a,b) to suggest an XX/XY mechanism in turbot with some additional, either environmental or genetic, factor involved. However, Haffray et al. (2009) have recently claimed a ZZ/ZW mechanism on the basis of the analysis of a large number of progenies from steroid-treated parents. These authors also suggested some (albeit low) influence of temperature in distorting sex proportions after the larval period. Finally, hybridizations between brill (Scophthalmus rhombus) and turbot render monosex progenies, depending on the direction of the cross performed, which suggests different SD mechanisms in these congeneric species (Purdom and ThaCker 1980).In this study, we used the turbot genetic map (Bouza et al. 2007, 2008; Martínez et al. 2008) to look for sex-associated QTL in this species. The identification of a major QTL in a specific linkage group (LG) in the five families analyzed prompted us to refine the genetic map at this LG and to perform a comparative genomics approach against model fish species for a precise location and characterization of the putative SD region. Also, sex-associated QTL markers were screened in a large natural population to provide additional support to our findings and to obtain population parameters at sex-related markers that could aid in interpreting the evolution of this genomic region.     

Patterns and Processes of Genome-Wide Divergence Between North American and African Drosophila melanogaster

Genomic tools and analyses are now being widely used to understand genome-wide patterns and processes associated with speciation and adaptation. In this article, we apply a genomics approach to the model organism Drosophila melanogaster. This species originated in Africa and subsequently spread and adapted to temperate environments of Eurasia and the New World, leading some populations to evolve reproductive isolation, especially between cosmopolitan and Zimbabwean populations. We used tiling arrays to identify highly differentiated regions within and between North America (the United States and Caribbean) and Africa (Cameroon and Zimbabwe) across 63% of the D. melanogaster genome and then sequenced representative fragments to study their genetic divergence. Consistent with previous findings, our results showed that most differentiation was between populations living in Africa vs. outside of Africa (i.e., “out-of-Africa” divergence), with all other geographic differences being less substantial (e.g., between cosmopolitan and Zimbabwean races). The X chromosome was much more strongly differentiated than the autosomes between North American and African populations (i.e., greater X divergence). Overall differentiation was positively associated with recombination rates across chromosomes, with a sharp reduction in regions near centromeres. Fragments surrounding these high F_ST sites showed reduced haplotype diversity and increased frequency of rare and derived alleles in North American populations compared to African populations. Nevertheless, despite sharp deviation from neutrality in North American strains, a small set of bottleneck/expansion demographic models was consistent with patterns of variation at the majority of our high F_ST fragments. Although North American populations were more genetically variable compared to Europe, our simulation results were generally consistent with those previously based on European samples. These findings support the hypothesis that most differentiation between North America and Africa was likely driven by the sorting of African standing genetic variation into the New World via Europe. Finally, a few exceptional loci were identified, highlighting the need to use an appropriate demographic null model to identify possible cases of selective sweeps in species with complex demographic histories.THE study of genetic differentiation between populations and species has recently been empowered by the use of genomic techniques and analysis (e.g., Noor and Feder 2006; Stinchcombe and Hoekstra 2008). In the past decade, genetic studies of adaptation and speciation have taken advantage of emerging molecular techniques to scan the genomes of diverging populations for highly differentiated genetic regions (e.g., Wilding et al. 2001; Emelianov et al. 2003; Beaumont and Balding 2004; Campbell and Bernatchez 2004; Scotti-Saintagne et al. 2004; Achere et al. 2005; Turner et al. 2005; Vasemagi et al. 2005; Bonin et al. 2006, 2007; Murray and Hare 2006; Savolainen et al. 2006; Yatabe et al. 2007; Nosil et al. 2008, 2009; Turner et al. 2008a,b; Kulathinal et al. 2009). As a result, genome scans can identify candidate regions that may be associated with adaptive evolution between diverging populations and, more broadly, are able to describe genome-wide patterns and processes of population differentiation (Begun et al. 2007; Stinchcombe and Hoekstra 2008).Genome scans in well-studied genetic model species such as Drosophila melanogaster gain particular power because differentiated loci are mapped to a well-annotated genome. Moreover, the evolutionary history of D. melanogaster is rich with adaptive and demographic events with many parallels to human evolution. Most notable is the historical out-of-Africa migration and subsequent adaptation to temperate ecological environments of Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia. This has resulted in widespread genetic and phenotypic divergence between African and non-African populations (e.g., David and Capy 1988; Begun and Aquadro 1993; Capy et al. 1994; Colegrave et al. 2000; Rouault et al. 2001; Takahashi et al. 2001; Caracristi and Schlötterer 2003; Baudry et al. 2004; Pool and Aquadro 2006; Schmidt et al. 2008; Yukilevich and True 2008a,b). Further, certain populations in Africa and in the Caribbean vary in their degree of reproductive isolation from populations in more temperate regions (Wu et al. 1995; Hollocher et al. 1997; Yukilevich and True 2008a,b). In particular, the Zimbabwe and nearby populations of southern Africa are strongly sexually isolated from all other populations, designating them as a distinct behavioral race (Wu et al. 1995).D. melanogaster has received a great deal of attention from the population geneticists in studying patterns of sequence variation across African and non-African populations. Many snapshots have been taken of random microsatellite and SNP variants spread across X and autosomes, and these have generated several important conclusions. Polymorphism patterns in European populations are characterized by reduced levels of nucleotide and haplotype diversity, an excess of high frequency-derived polymorphisms, and elevated levels of linkage disequilibrium relative to African populations (e.g., Begun and Aquadro 1993; Andolfatto 2001; Glinka et al. 2003; Haddrill et al. 2005; Ometto et al. 2005; Thornton and Andolfatto 2006; Hutter et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2007). These results have been generally interpreted as compatible with population size reduction/bottlenecks followed by recent population expansions. On the other hand, African populations are generally assumed either to have been relatively constant in size over time or to have experienced population size expansions. They generally show higher levels of nucleotide and haplotype diversity, an excess of rare variants, and a deficit of high frequency-derived alleles (Glinka et al. 2003; Ometto et al. 2005; Pool and Aquadro 2006; Hutter et al. 2007; but see Haddrill et al. 2005 for evidence of bottlenecks in Africa).Previous work also shows that the ratio of X-linked to autosomal polymorphism deviates from neutral expectations in opposite directions in African and European populations with more variation on the X than expected in Africa and less variation on the X than expected in Europe (Andolfatto 2001; Kauer et al. 2002; Hutter et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2007). The deviation from neutrality in the ratio of X-autosome polymorphism may be explained by positive selection being more prevalent on the X in Europe and/or by a combination of bottlenecks and male-biased sex ratios in Europe and female-biased sex ratios in Africa (Charlesworth 2001; Hutter et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2007). The selective explanation stems from the argument that, under the hitchhiking selection model, X-linked loci are likely to be more affected by selective sweeps than autosomal loci (Maynard Smith and Haigh 1974; Charlesworth et al. 1987; Vicoso and Charlesworth 2006, 2009).The relative contribution of selective and demographic processes in shaping patterns of genomic variation and differentiation is highly debated (Wall et al. 2002; Glinka et al. 2003; Haddrill et al. 2005; Ometto et al. 2005; Schöfl and Schlötterer 2004; Thornton and Andolfatto 2006; Hutter et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2007; Shapiro et al. 2007; Stephan and Li 2007; Hahn 2008; Macpherson et al. 2008; Noor and Bennett 2009; Sella et al. 2009). This is especially the case in D. melanogaster because derived non-African populations have likely experienced a complex set of demographic events during their migration out of Africa (e.g., Thornton and Andolfatto 2006; Singh et al. 2007; Stephan and Li 2007), making population genetics signatures of demography and selection difficult to tease apart (e.g., Macpherson et al. 2008). Thus it is still unclear what role selection has played in shaping overall patterns of genomic variation and differentiation relative to demographic processes in this species.While there is a long tradition in studying arbitrarily or opportunistically chosen sequences in D. melanogaster, genomic scans that focus particularly on highly differentiated sites across the genome have received much less attention. Such sites are arguably the best candidates to resolve the debate on which processes have shaped genomic differentiation within species (e.g., Przeworski 2002). Recently, a genome-wide scan of cosmopolitan populations in the United States and in Australia was performed to investigate clinal genomic differentiation on the two continents (Turner et al. 2008a). Many single feature polymorphisms differentiating Northern and Southern Hemisphere populations were identified. Among the most differentiated loci in common between continents, 80% were differentiated in the same orientation relative to the Equator, implicating selection as the likely explanation (Turner et al. 2008a). Larger regions of genomic differentiation within and between African and non-African populations have also been discovered, some of them possibly being driven by divergent selection (e.g., Dopman and Hartl 2007; Emerson et al. 2008; Turner et al. 2008a, Aguade 2009). Despite this recent progress, we still know relatively little about large-scale patterns of genomic differentiation in this species, especially between African and non-African populations, and whether most of this differentiation is consistent with demographic processes alone or if it requires selective explanations.In this work, we explicitly focus on identifying differentiated sites across the genome between U.S., Caribbean, West African, and Zimbabwean populations. This allows us to address several fundamental questions related to genomic evolution in D. melanogaster, such as the following: (1) Do genome-wide patterns of differentiation reflect patterns of reproductive isolation? (2) Is genomic differentiation random across and within chromosomes or are some regions overrepresented? (3) What are the population genetics properties of differentiated sites and their surrounding sequences? (4) Can demographic historical processes alone explain most of the observed differentiation on a genome-wide level or is it necessary to involve selection in their explanation?In general, our findings revealed that most genomic differentiation within D. melanogaster shows an out-of-Africa genetic signature. These results are inconsistent with the notion that most genomic differentiation occurs between cosmopolitan and Zimbabwean reproductively isolated races. Further, we found that the X is more differentiated between North American and African populations and more strongly deviates from pure neutrality in North American populations relative to autosomes. Nevertheless, our article shows that much of this deviation from neutrality is broadly consistent with several demographic null models, with a few notable exceptions. Athough this does not exclude selection as a possible alternative mechanism for the observed patterns, it supports the idea that most differentiation in D. melanogaster was likely driven by the sorting of African standing genetic variation into the New World.     

Mek1 Suppression of Meiotic Double-Strand Break Repair Is Specific to Sister Chromatids,Chromosome Autonomous and Independent of Rec8 Cohesin Complexes

During meiosis, recombination is directed to occur between homologous chromosomes to create connections necessary for proper segregation at meiosis I. Partner choice is determined at the time of strand invasion and is mediated by two recombinases: Rad51 and the meiosis-specific Dmc1. In budding yeast, interhomolog bias is created in part by the activity of a meiosis-specific kinase, Mek1, which is localized to the protein cores of condensed sister chromatids. Analysis of meiotic double-strand break (DSB) repair in haploid and disomic haploid strains reveals that Mek1 suppresses meiotic intersister DSB repair by working directly on sister chromatids. Rec8 cohesin complexes are not required, however, either for suppression of intersister DSB repair or for the repair itself. Regulation of DSB repair in meiosis is chromosome autonomous such that unrepaired breaks on haploid chromosomes do not prevent interhomolog repair between disomic homologs. The pattern of DSB repair in haploids containing Dmc1 and/or Rad51 indicates that Mek1 acts on Rad51-specific recombination processes.IN eukaryotes, meiosis is a specialized type of cell division that produces the gametes required for sexual reproduction. In meiosis, one round of DNA replication is followed by two rounds of chromosome segregation, termed meiosis I and II. As a result of the two divisions, four haploid cells are produced, each containing half the number of chromosomes as the diploid parent. Proper segregation at meiosis I requires connections between homologous chromosomes that are created by a combination of sister chromatid cohesion and recombination (Petronczki et al. 2003). In vegetative cells, cohesion is mediated by multisubunit ring-shaped complexes that are removed by proteolysis of the kleisin subunit, Mcd1/Scc1 (Onn et al. 2008). In meiotic cells, introduction of a meiosis-specific kleisin subunit, Rec8, allows for a two-step removal of cohesion with loss of arm cohesion at anaphase I and centromere cohesion at anaphase II (Klein et al. 1999). Missegregation of chromosomes during meiosis causes abnormal chromosome numbers in gametes that may lead to infertility and genetic disorders such as trisomy 21 or Down''s syndrome.In mitotically dividing budding yeast cells, recombination is mediated by an evolutionarily conserved RecA-like recombinase, Rad51, and occurs preferentially between sister chromatids (Kadyk and Hartwell 1992). In contrast, recombination during meiosis is initiated by the deliberate formation of double-strand breaks (DSBs) by an evolutionarily conserved, topoisomerase-like protein, Spo11, and occurs preferentially between homologous chromosomes (Jackson and Fink 1985; Schwacha and Kleckner 1997; Keeney 2001). After DSB formation, the 5′ ends on either side of the breaks are resected, resulting in 3′ single stranded (ss) tails. Rad51, and the meiosis-specific recombinase Dmc1, bind to the 3′ ssDNA tails to form protein/DNA filaments that promote strand invasion of homologous chromosomes. DNA synthesis and ligation result in the formation of double Holliday junctions, which are then preferentially resolved into crossovers (Allers and Lichten 2001; Hunter 2007).The precise roles that the Rad51 and Dmc1 recombinase activities play in meiotic recombination have been unclear because experiments have indicated both overlapping and distinct functions for the two proteins (Sheridan and Bishop 2006; Hunter 2007). While both rad51Δ and dmc1Δ mutants reduce interhomolog recombination, other studies suggest that Rad51, in complex with the accessory protein Rad54, is involved primarily in intersister DSB repair. In contrast, Dmc1, in conjunction with the accessory protein Rdh54/Tid1 (a paralog of Rad54), effects DSB repair in meiotic cells by invasion of nonsister chromatids (Dresser et al. 1997; Schwacha and Kleckner 1997; Shinohara et al. 1997a,b; Arbel et al. 1999; Bishop et al. 1999; Hayase et al. 2004; Sheridan and Bishop 2006).The preference for recombination to occur between homologous chromosomes during meiosis is created in part by Dmc1. DSBs accumulate in dmc1Δ diploids due to a failure in strand invasion (Bishop et al. 1992; Hunter and Kleckner 2001). In the efficiently sporulating SK1 strain background, these unrepaired breaks trigger the meiotic recombination checkpoint, resulting in prophase arrest (Lydall et al. 1996; Roeder and Bailis 2000). In dmc1Δ mutants, Rad51 is present at DSBs, yet there is no strand invasion of sister chromatids (Bishop 1994; Shinohara et al. 1997a). These results suggest that in addition to Dmc1 promoting interhomolog strand invasion, Rad51 activity must also be suppressed.Recent studies have shown that during meiosis Rad51 recombinase activity is inhibited by two different mechanisms that decrease the formation of Rad51/Rad54 complexes: (1) binding of the meiosis-specific Hed1 protein to Rad51, thereby excluding interaction with Rad54, and (2) reduction in the affinity of Rad54 for Rad51 due to phosphorylation of Rad54 by Mek1 (Tsubouchi and Roeder 2006; Busygina et al. 2008; Niu et al. 2009). Mek1 is a meiosis-specific kinase that is activated in response to DSBs (Niu et al. 2005, 2007; Carballo et al. 2008). In addition to phosphorylating Rad54, Mek1 phosphorylation of an as yet undetermined substrate is required to suppress Rad51/Rad54-mediated strand invasion of sister chromatids (Niu et al. 2009).To dissect the mechanism by which Mek1 suppresses meiotic intersister DSB repair, we took advantage of the ability of yeast cells to undergo haploid meiosis. The lack of homologous chromosomes in haploid cells makes it possible to examine sister-chromatid-specific events in the absence of interhomolog recombination. De Massy et al. (1994) previously observed a delay in DSB repair in haploid cells and proposed that this delay was due to a constraint in using sister chromatids. We have shown that this delay is dependent on MEK1 and utilized the haploid system to determine various biological parameters required to suppress meiotic intersister DSB repair. Our results indicate that Rad51 and Dmc1 recombinase activities have distinct roles during meiosis and that interhomolog bias is established specifically on sister chromatids through regulation of Rad51, not Dmc1. rec8Δ diploids exhibit defects in meiotic DSB repair (Klein et al. 1999; Brar et al. 2009). Given that cohesin complexes are specific for sister chromatids, we investigated the role of REC8 in intersister DSB repair and found it is required neither for suppressing intersister DSB repair during meiosis nor for the repair itself.     

Phenotypic Consequences of Aneuploidy in Arabidopsis thaliana

Aneuploid cells are characterized by incomplete chromosome sets. The resulting imbalance in gene dosage has phenotypic consequences that are specific to each karyotype. Even in the case of Down syndrome, the most viable and studied form of human aneuploidy, the mechanisms underlying the connected phenotypes remain mostly unclear. Because of their tolerance to aneuploidy, plants provide a powerful system for a genome-wide investigation of aneuploid syndromes, an approach that is not feasible in animal systems. Indeed, in many plant species, populations of aneuploid individuals can be easily obtained from triploid individuals. We phenotyped a population of Arabidopsis thaliana aneuploid individuals containing 25 different karyotypes. Even in this highly heterogeneous population, we demonstrate that certain traits are strongly associated with the dosage of specific chromosome types and that chromosomal effects can be additive. Further, we identified subtle developmental phenotypes expressed in the diploid progeny of aneuploid parent(s) but not in euploid controls from diploid lineages. These results indicate long-term phenotypic consequences of aneuploidy that can persist after chromosomal balance has been restored. We verified the diploid nature of these individuals by whole-genome sequencing and discuss the possibility that trans-generational phenotypic effects stem from epigenetic modifications passed from aneuploid parents to their diploid progeny.THE genome of aneuploid individuals contains incomplete chromosome sets. The balance between chromosome types, and the genes they encode, is compromised, resulting in altered expression of many genes, including genes with dosage-sensitive effects on phenotypes. In humans, only a few types of aneuploid karyotypes are viable (Hassold and Hunt 2001), highlighting the deleterious effect of chromosome imbalance. The most commonly known viable form of aneuploidy in humans is Down syndrome, which results from a trisomy of chromosome 21 in an otherwise diploid background. Down syndrome patients exhibit many specific phenotypes, sometimes visible only in a subset of patients (Antonarakis et al. 2004). For phenotypes found in all Down syndrome patients, the penetrance of each phenotype varies between patients (Antonarakis et al. 2004). Despite the increasing amount of information available about the human genome and the availability of a mouse model for Down syndrome (O''Doherty et al. 2005), the genes responsible for most of the phenotypes associated with Down syndrome are still unknown (Patterson 2007; Korbel et al. 2009; Patterson 2009). Recently, detailed phenotypic analyses of as many as 30 aneuploid patients have allowed the identification of susceptibility regions for several specific phenotypes (Patterson 2007, 2009; Korbel et al. 2009; Lyle et al. 2009), but the specific genes remain to be identified. Understanding the physiology of aneuploidy is not only relevant to those individuals with aneuploid genomes but also to understanding cancer since most cancerous cells are aneuploid (Matzke et al. 2003; Pihan and Doxsey 2003; Storchova and Pellman 2004; Holland and Cleveland 2009; Williams and Amon 2009) or the consequences of copy number variation and dosage sensitivity (Dear 2009; Henrichsen et al. 2009).Plants are more tolerant of aneuploidy than animals (Matzke et al. 2003) for reasons that remain unclear. Since the discovery of the Datura trisomic “chromosome mutants” by Blakeslee (1921, 1922), viable trisomics of each chromosome type have been described in numerous species. Trisomics exhibit phenotypes specific to the identity of the triplicated chromosome (Blakeslee 1922; Khush 1973; Koornneef and Van der Veen 1983; Singh 2003). More complex aneuploids, i.e., individuals carrying more than one additional chromosome, can be viable as well and have been observed in many plants species, especially among the progeny of triploid individuals (McClintock 1929; Levan 1942; Johnsson 1945; Khush 1973). Some species appear to be more tolerant of complex aneuploidies than others, suggesting a genetic basis for aneuploidy tolerance (Satina and Blakeslee 1938; Khush 1973; Ramsey and Schemske 2002; Henry et al. 2009). Aneuploid individuals frequently appear spontaneously within polyploid plant populations, presumably due to a failure to equally partition the multiple chromosome sets at meiosis (Randolph 1935; Doyle 1986). These aneuploids exhibit few or subtle phenotypic abnormalities and can often compete with their euploid progenitors (Ramsey and Schemske 1998). Plants therefore provide an excellent opportunity for a genome-wide investigation of aneuploid syndromes: sample size is not limited, phenotypes can be described and assessed in detail, and plant aneuploid populations provide a complex mixture of viable karyotypes.In this article, we report our investigation of the relationship between phenotype and karyotype in populations of aneuploid Arabidopsis thaliana plants. All simple trisomics of A. thaliana have been previously isolated and phenotypically characterized (Steinitz-Sears 1962; Lee-Chen and Steinitz-Sears 1967; Steinitz-Sears and Lee-Chen 1970; Koornneef and Van der Veen 1983), demonstrating that they are tolerated in A. thaliana. We previously reported that aneuploid swarms—populations of aneuploid individuals of varying aneuploid karyotypes—could be obtained from the progeny of triploid A. thaliana individuals (Henry et al. 2005, 2009). Using a combination of a quantitative PCR-based method and flow cytometry, we were able to derive the full aneuploid karyotype of each of these individuals (Henry et al. 2006). We further crossed triploid A. thaliana to diploid or tetraploid individuals and demonstrated that at least 44 of the 60 possible aneuploid karyotypes that could result from these crosses (aneuploid individuals carrying between 11 and 19 chromosomes) were viable and successfully produced adult plants. Taken together, these populations and methods make it possible to explore the basis of aneuploid syndromes in A. thaliana. In this study, we were able to phenotypically characterize at least one individual from 25 different aneuploid karyotypes falling between diploidy and tetraploidy. We demonstrated that specific phenotypes are affected by the dosage of specific chromosome types. The effect of the dosage of specific chromosome types on traits was additive and could be used to predict the observed phenotype. The availability of multiple generations of aneuploid and euploid individuals allowed us to investigate potential long-term effects of aneuploidy as well as parent-of-origin effects on aneuploid phenotypes.     

Genetic Modifiers of dFMR1 Encode RNA Granule Components in Drosophila

Mechanisms of neuronal mRNA localization and translation are of considerable biological interest. Spatially regulated mRNA translation contributes to cell-fate decisions and axon guidance during development, as well as to long-term synaptic plasticity in adulthood. The Fragile-X Mental Retardation protein (FMRP/dFMR1) is one of the best-studied neuronal translational control molecules and here we describe the identification and early characterization of proteins likely to function in the dFMR1 pathway. Induction of the dFMR1 in sevenless-expressing cells of the Drosophila eye causes a disorganized (rough) eye through a mechanism that requires residues necessary for dFMR1/FMRP''s translational repressor function. Several mutations in dco, orb2, pAbp, rm62, and smD3 genes dominantly suppress the sev-dfmr1 rough-eye phenotype, suggesting that they are required for dFMR1-mediated processes. The encoded proteins localize to dFMR1-containing neuronal mRNPs in neurites of cultured neurons, and/or have an effect on dendritic branching predicted for bona fide neuronal translational repressors. Genetic mosaic analyses indicate that dco, orb2, rm62, smD3, and dfmr1 are dispensable for translational repression of hid, a microRNA target gene, known to be repressed in wing discs by the bantam miRNA. Thus, the encoded proteins may function as miRNA- and/or mRNA-specific translational regulators in vivo.THE subcellular localization and regulated translation of stored mRNAs contributes to cellular asymmetry and subcellular specialization (Lecuyer et al. 2007; Martin and Ephrussi 2009). In mature neurons, local protein synthesis at active synapses may contribute to synapse-specific plasticity that underlies persistent forms of memory (Casadio et al. 1999; Ashraf et al. 2006; Sutton and Schuman 2006; Richter and Klann 2009). During this process, synaptic activity causes local translation of mRNAs normally stored in translationally repressed synaptic mRNPs (Sutton and Schuman 2006; Richter and Klann 2009). While specific neuronal translational repressors and microRNAs have been implicated in this process, their involvement in local translation that underlies memory, as well as the underlying mechanisms, are generally not well understood (Schratt et al. 2006; Keleman et al. 2007; Kwak et al. 2008; Li et al. 2008; Richter and Klann 2009). Furthermore, it remains possible that there are neuron-specific, mRNA-specific, and stimulus-pattern specific pathways for neuronal translational control (Raab-Graham et al. 2006; Giorgi et al. 2007).The Fragile-X Mental Retardation protein (FMRP) is among the best studied of neuronal translational repressors, in part due to its association with human neurodevelopmental disease (Pieretti et al. 1991; Mazroui et al. 2002; Gao 2008). Consistent with function in synaptic translation required for memory formation, mutations in FMRP are associated with increased synaptic translation, enhanced LTD, increased synapse growth, and also with enhanced long-term memory (Zhang et al. 2001; Huber et al. 2002; Bolduc et al. 2008; Dictenberg et al. 2008).FMRP co-immunoprecipitates with components of the RNAi and miRNA machinery and appears to be required for aspects of miRNA function in neurons (Caudy et al. 2002; Ishizuka et al. 2002; Jin et al. 2004b; Gao 2008). In addition, FMRP associates with neuronal polyribosomes as well as with Staufen-containing ribonucleoprotein (mRNP) granules easily observed in neurites of cultured neurons (Feng et al. 1997; Krichevsky and Kosik 2001; Mazroui et al. 2002; Kanai et al. 2004; Barbee et al. 2006; Bramham and Wells 2007; Bassell and Warren 2008; Dictenberg et al. 2008). FMRP-containing neuronal mRNPs contain not only several ubiquitous translational control molecules, but also CaMKII and Arc mRNAs, whose translation is locally controlled at synapses (Rook et al. 2000; Krichevsky and Kosik 2001; Kanai et al. 2004; Barbee et al. 2006). Thus, FMRP-containing RNA particles are probably translationally repressed and transported along microtubules from the neuronal cell body to synaptic sites in dendrites where local synaptic activity can induce their translation (Kiebler and Bassell 2006; Dictenberg et al. 2008).The functions of FMRP/dFMR1 in mRNA localization as well as miRNA-dependent and independent forms of translational control is likely to require several other regulatory proteins. To identify such proteins, we used a previously designed and validated genetic screen (Wan et al. 2000; Jin et al. 2004a; Zarnescu et al. 2005). The overexpression of dFMR1 in the fly eye causes a “rough-eye” phenotype through a mechanism that requires (a) key residues in dFMR1 that mediate translational repression in vitro; (b) Ago1, a known components of the miRNA pathway; and (c) a DEAD-box helicase called Me31B, which is a highly conserved protein from yeast (Dhh1p) to humans (Rck54/DDX6) functioning in translational repression and present on neuritic mRNPs (Wan et al. 2000; Laggerbauer et al. 2001; Jin et al. 2004a; Coller and Parker 2005; Barbee et al. 2006; Chu and Rana 2006). To identify other Me31B-like translational repressors and neuronal granule components, we screened mutations in 43 candidate proteins for their ability to modify dFMR1 induced rough-eye phenotype. We describe the results of this genetic screen and follow up experiments to address the potential cellular functions of five genes identified as suppressors of sev-dfmr1.     

Polymorphic Genes of Major Effect: Consequences for Variation,Selection and Evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana

The importance of genes of major effect for evolutionary trajectories within and among natural populations has long been the subject of intense debate. For example, if allelic variation at a major-effect locus fundamentally alters the structure of quantitative trait variation, then fixation of a single locus can have rapid and profound effects on the rate or direction of subsequent evolutionary change. Using an Arabidopsis thaliana RIL mapping population, we compare G-matrix structure between lines possessing different alleles at ERECTA, a locus known to affect ecologically relevant variation in plant architecture. We find that the allele present at ERECTA significantly alters G-matrix structure—in particular the genetic correlations between branch number and flowering time traits—and may also modulate the strength of natural selection on these traits. Despite these differences, however, when we extend our analysis to determine how evolution might differ depending on the ERECTA allele, we find that predicted responses to selection are similar. To compare responses to selection between allele classes, we developed a resampling strategy that incorporates uncertainty in estimates of selection that can also be used for statistical comparisons of G matrices.THE structure of the genetic variation that underlies phenotypic traits has important consequences for understanding the evolution of quantitative traits (Fisher 1930; Lande 1979; Bulmer 1980; Kimura 1983; Orr 1998; Agrawal et al. 2001). Despite the infinitesimal model''s allure and theoretical tractability (see Orr and Coyne 1992; Orr 1998, 2005a,b for reviews of its influence), evidence has accumulated from several sources (artificial selection experiments, experimental evolution, and QTL mapping) to suggest that genes of major effect often contribute to quantitative traits. Thus, the frequency and role of genes of major effect in evolutionary quantitative genetics have been a subject of intense debate and investigation for close to 80 years (Fisher 1930; Kimura 1983; Orr 1998, 2005a,b). Beyond the conceptual implications, the prevalence of major-effect loci also affects our ability to determine the genetic basis of adaptations and species differences (e.g., Bradshaw et al. 1995, 1998).Although the existence of genes of major effect is no longer in doubt, we still lack basic empirical data on how segregating variation at such genes affects key components of evolutionary process (but see Carrière and Roff 1995). In other words, How does polymorphism at genes of major effect alter patterns of genetic variation and covariation, natural selection, and the likely response to selection? The lack of data stems, in part, from the methods used to detect genes of major effect: experimental evolution (e.g., Bull et al. 1997; Zeyl 2005) and QTL analysis (see Erickson et al. 2004 for a review) often detect such genes retrospectively after they have become fixed in experimental populations or the species pairs used to generate the mapping population. The consequences of polymorphism at these genes on patterns of variation, covariation, selection, and the response to selection—which can be transient (Agrawal et al. 2001)—are thus often unobserved.A partial exception to the absence of data on the effects of major genes comes from artificial selection experiments, in which a substantial evolutionary response to selection in the phenotype after a plateau is often interpreted as evidence for the fixation of a major-effect locus (Frankham et al. 1968; Yoo 1980a,b; Frankham 1980; Shrimpton and Robertson 1988a,b; Caballero et al. 1991; Keightley 1998; see Mackay 1990 and Hill and Caballero 1992 for reviews). However, many of these experiments report only data on the selected phenotype (e.g., bristle number) or, alternatively, the selected phenotype and some measure of fitness (e.g., Frankham et al. 1968, Yoo 1980b; Caballero et al. 1991; Mackay et al. 1994; Fry et al. 1995; Nuzhdin et al. 1995; Zur Lage et al. 1997), making it difficult to infer how a mutation will affect variation, covariation, selection, and evolutionary responses for a suite of traits that might affect fitness themselves. One approach is to document how variation at individual genes of major effect affects the genetic variance–covariance matrix (“G matrix”; Lande 1979), which represents the additive genetic variance and covariance between traits.Although direct evidence for variation at major-effect genes altering patterns of genetic variation, covariation, and selection is rare, there is abundant evidence for the genetic mechanisms that could produce these dynamics. A gene of major effect could have these consequences due to any of at least three genetic mechanisms: (1) pleiotropy, where a gene of major effect influences several traits, including potentially fitness, simultaneously, (2) physical linkage or linkage disequilibrium (LD), in which a gene of major effect is either physically linked or in LD with other genes that influence other traits under selection, and (3) epistasis, in which the allele present at a major-effect gene alters the phenotypic effect of other loci and potentially phenotypes under selection. Evidence for these three evolutionary genetic mechanisms leading to changes in suites of traits comes from a variety of sources, including mutation accumulation experiments (Clark et al. 1995; Fernandez and Lopez-Fanjul 1996), mutation induction experiments (Keightley and Ohnishi 1998), artificial selection experiments (Long et al. 1995), and transposable element insertions (Rollmann et al. 2006). For pleiotropy in particular, major-effect genes that have consequences on several phenotypic traits are well known from the domestication and livestock breeding literature [e.g., myostatin mutations in Belgian blue cattle and whippets (Arthur 1995; Grobet et al. 1997; Mosher et al. 2007), halothane genes in pigs (Christian and Rothschild 1991; Fujii et al. 1991), and Booroola and Inverdale genes in sheep (Amer et al. 1999; Visscher et al. 2000)]. While these data suggest that variation at major-effect genes could—and probably does—influence variation, covariation, and selection on quantitative traits, data on the magnitude of these consequences remain lacking.Recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations are a promising tool for investigating the influence of major-effect loci. During advancement of the lines from F₂''s to RILs, alternate alleles at major-effect genes (and most of the rest of the genome) will be made homozygous, simplifying comparisons among genotypic classes. Because of the high homozygosity, individuals within RILs are nearly genetically identical, facilitating phenotyping of many genotypes under a range of environments. In addition, because of recombination, alternative alleles are randomized across genetic backgrounds—facilitating robust comparisons between sets of lines differing at a major-effect locus.Here we investigate how polymorphism at an artificially induced mutation, the erecta locus in Arabidopsis thaliana, affects the magnitude of these important evolutionary genetic parameters under ecologically realistic field conditions. We use the Landsberg erecta (Ler) × Columbia (Col) RIL population of A. thaliana to examine how variation at a gene of major effect influences genetic variation, covariation, and selection on quantitative traits in a field setting. The Ler × Col RIL population is particularly suitable, because it segregates for an artificially induced mutation at the erecta locus, which has been shown to influence a wide variety of plant traits. The Ler × Col population thus allows a powerful test of the effects of segregating variation at a gene—chosen a priori—with numerous pleiotropic effects. The ERECTA gene is a leucine-rich receptor-like kinase (LRR-RLK) (Torii et al. 1996) and has been shown to affect plant growth rates (El-Lithy et al. 2004), stomatal patterning and transpiration efficiency (Masle et al. 2005; Shpak et al. 2005), bacterial pathogen resistance (Godiard et al. 2003), inflorescence and floral organ size and shape (Douglas et al. 2002; Shpak et al. 2003, 2004), and leaf polarity (Xu et al. 2003; Qi et al. 2004).Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) Is variation at erecta significantly associated with changes to the G matrix? (2) Is variation at erecta associated with changes in natural selection on genetically variable traits? And (3) is variation at erecta associated with significantly different projected evolutionary responses to selection?