Cytological Studies of Human Meiosis: Sex-Specific Differences in Recombination Originate at,or Prior to,Establishment of Double-Strand Breaks

Meiotic recombination is sexually dimorphic in most mammalian species, including humans, but the basis for the male:female differences remains unclear. In the present study, we used cytological methodology to directly compare recombination levels between human males and females, and to examine possible sex-specific differences in upstream events of double-strand break (DSB) formation and synaptic initiation. Specifically, we utilized the DNA mismatch repair protein MLH1 as a marker of recombination events, the RecA homologue RAD51 as a surrogate for DSBs, and the synaptonemal complex proteins SYCP3 and/or SYCP1 to examine synapsis between homologs. Consistent with linkage studies, genome-wide recombination levels were higher in females than in males, and the placement of exchanges varied between the sexes. Subsequent analyses of DSBs and synaptic initiation sites indicated similar male:female differences, providing strong evidence that sex-specific differences in recombination rates are established at or before the formation of meiotic DSBs. We then asked whether these differences might be linked to variation in the organization of the meiotic axis and/or axis-associated DNA and, indeed, we observed striking male:female differences in synaptonemal complex (SC) length and DNA loop size. Taken together, our observations suggest that sex specific differences in recombination in humans may derive from chromatin differences established prior to the onset of the recombination pathway.     

COSA-1 reveals robust homeostasis and separable licensing and reinforcement steps governing meiotic crossovers

Crossovers (COs) between homologous chromosomes ensure their faithful segregation during meiosis. We identify C.?elegans COSA-1, a cyclin-related protein conserved in metazoa, as a key component required to convert meiotic double-strand breaks (DSBs) into COs. During late meiotic prophase, COSA-1 localizes to foci that correspond to the single CO site on each homolog pair and indicate sites of eventual concentration of other conserved CO proteins. Chromosomes gain and lose competence to load CO proteins during meiotic progression, with competence to load COSA-1 requiring prior licensing. Our data further suggest a self-reinforcing mechanism maintaining CO designation. Modeling of a nonlinear dose-response relationship between IR-induced DSBs and COSA-1 foci reveals efficient conversion of DSBs into COs when DSBs are limiting and a robust capacity to limit cytologically differentiated CO sites when DSBs are in excess. COSA-1 foci serve as a unique live cell readout for investigating CO formation and CO interference.     

Separable Roles for a Caenorhabditis elegans RMI1 Homolog in Promoting and Antagonizing Meiotic Crossovers Ensure Faithful Chromosome Inheritance

During the first meiotic division, crossovers (COs) between homologous chromosomes ensure their correct segregation. COs are produced by homologous recombination (HR)-mediated repair of programmed DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). As more DSBs are induced than COs, mechanisms are required to establish a regulated number of COs and to repair remaining intermediates as non-crossovers (NCOs). We show that the Caenorhabditis elegans RMI1 homolog-1 (RMH-1) functions during meiosis to promote both CO and NCO HR at appropriate chromosomal sites. RMH-1 accumulates at CO sites, dependent on known pro-CO factors, and acts to promote CO designation and enforce the CO outcome of HR-intermediate resolution. RMH-1 also localizes at NCO sites and functions in parallel with SMC-5 to antagonize excess HR-based connections between chromosomes. Moreover, RMH-1 also has a major role in channeling DSBs into an NCO HR outcome near the centers of chromosomes, thereby ensuring that COs form predominantly at off-center positions.     

Fast and Precise: How to Measure Meiotic Crossovers in Arabidopsis

During meiosis, homologous chromosomes (homologs) pair and undergo genetic recombination via assembly and disassembly of the synaptonemal complex. Meiotic recombination is initiated by excess formation of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), among which a subset are repaired by reciprocal genetic exchange, called crossovers (COs). COs generate genetic variations across generations, profoundly affecting genetic diversity and breeding. At least one CO between homologs is essential for the first meiotic chromosome segregation, but generally only one and fewer than three inter-homolog COs occur in plants. CO frequency and distribution are biased along chromosomes, suppressed in centromeres, and controlled by pro-CO, anti-CO, and epigenetic factors. Accurate and high-throughput detection of COs is important for our understanding of CO formation and chromosome behavior. Here, we review advanced approaches that enable precise measurement of the location, frequency, and genomic landscapes of COs in plants, with a focus on Arabidopsis thaliana.     

New and old ways to control meiotic recombination

The unique segregation of homologs, rather than sister chromatids, at the first meiotic division requires the formation of crossovers (COs) between homologs by meiotic recombination in most species. Crossovers do not form at random along chromosomes. Rather, their formation is carefully controlled, both at the stage of formation of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) that can initiate COs and during the repair of these DSBs. Here, we review control of DSB formation and two recently recognized controls of DSB repair: CO homeostasis and CO invariance. Crossover homeostasis maintains a constant number of COs per cell when the total number of DSBs in a cell is experimentally or stochastically reduced. Crossover invariance maintains a constant CO density (COs per kb of DNA) across much of the genome despite strong DSB hotspots in some intervals. These recently uncovered phenomena show that CO control is even more complex than previously suspected.     

Mammalian CNTD1 is critical for meiotic crossover maturation and deselection of excess precrossover sites

Meiotic crossovers (COs) are crucial for ensuring accurate homologous chromosome segregation during meiosis I. Because the double-strand breaks (DSBs) that initiate meiotic recombination greatly outnumber eventual COs, this process requires exquisite regulation to narrow down the pool of DSB intermediates that may form COs. In this paper, we identify a cyclin-related protein, CNTD1, as a critical mediator of this process. Disruption of Cntd1 results in failure to localize CO-specific factors MutLγ and HEI10 at designated CO sites and also leads to prolonged high levels of pre-CO intermediates marked by MutSγ and RNF212. These data show that maturation of COs is intimately coupled to deselection of excess pre-CO sites to yield a limited number of COs and that CNTD1 coordinates these processes by regulating the association between the RING finger proteins HEI10 and RNF212 and components of the CO machinery.     

C. elegans germ cells switch between distinct modes of double-strand break repair during meiotic prophase progression

Chromosome inheritance during sexual reproduction relies on deliberate induction of double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) and repair of a subset of these breaks as interhomolog crossovers (COs). Here we provide a direct demonstration, based on our analysis of rad-50 mutants, that the meiotic program in Caenorhabditis elegans involves both acquisition and loss of a specialized mode of double-strand break repair (DSBR). In premeiotic germ cells, RAD-50 is not required to load strand-exchange protein RAD-51 at sites of spontaneous or ionizing radiation (IR)-induced DSBs. A specialized meiotic DSBR mode is engaged at the onset of meiotic prophase, coincident with assembly of meiotic chromosome axis structures. This meiotic DSBR mode is characterized both by dependence on RAD-50 for rapid accumulation of RAD-51 at DSB sites and by competence for converting DSBs into interhomolog COs. At the mid-pachytene to late pachytene transition, germ cells undergo an abrupt release from the meiotic DSBR mode, characterized by reversion to RAD-50-independent loading of RAD-51 and loss of competence to convert DSBs into interhomolog COs. This transition in DSBR mode is dependent on MAP kinase-triggered prophase progression and coincides temporally with a major remodeling of chromosome architecture. We propose that at least two developmentally programmed switches in DSBR mode, likely conferred by changes in chromosome architecture, operate in the C. elegans germ line to allow formation of meiotic crossovers without jeopardizing genomic integrity. Our data further suggest that meiotic cohesin component REC-8 may play a role in limiting the activity of SPO-11 in generating meiotic DSBs and that RAD-50 may function in counteracting this inhibition.     

Playing hide and seek with mammalian meiotic crossover hotspots

Crossovers (COs) are essential for meiosis and contribute to genome diversity by promoting the reassociation of alleles, and thus improve the efficiency of selection. COs are not randomly distributed but are found at specific regions, or CO hotspots. Recent results have revealed the historical recombination rates and the distribution of hotspots across the human genome. Surprisingly, CO hotspots are highly dynamic, as shown by differences in activity between individuals, populations and closely related species. We propose a role for DNA methylation in preventing the formation of COs, a regulation that might explain, in part, the correlation between recombination rates and GC content in mammals.     

Imposition of crossover interference through the nonrandom distribution of synapsis initiation complexes

Meiotic crossovers (COs) are nonrandomly distributed along chromosomes such that two COs seldom occur close together, a phenomenon known as CO interference. We have used genetic and cytological methods to investigate interference mechanisms in budding yeast. Assembly of the synaptonemal complex (SC) initiates at a few sites along each chromosome, triggered by a complex of proteins (including Zip2 and Zip3) called the synapsis initiation complex (SIC). We found that SICs, like COs, display interference, supporting the hypothesis that COs occur at synapsis initiation sites. Unexpectedly, we found that SICs show interference in mutants in which CO interference is abolished; one explanation is that these same mutations eliminate the subset of COs that normally occur at SICs. Since SICs are assembled in advance of SC and they are properly positioned even in the absence of SC formation, these data clearly demonstrate an aspect of interference that is independent of synapsis.     

Synapsis and recombination in inversion heterozygotes

Inversion heterozygotes are expected to suffer from reduced fertility and a high incidence of chromosomally unbalanced gametes due to recombination within the inverted region. Non-homologous synapsis of the inverted regions can prevent recombination there and diminish the deleterious effects of inversion heterozygosity. The choice between non-homologous and homologous synapsis depends on the size of inversion, its genetic content, its location in relation to the centromere and telomere, and genetic background. In addition, there is a class of inversions in which homologous synapsis is gradually replaced by non-homologous synapsis during meiotic progression. This process is called synaptic adjustment. The degree of synaptic adjustment depends critically on the presence and location of the COs (crossovers) within the inversion loop. Only bivalents without COs within the loop and those with COs in the middle of the inversion can be completely adjusted and became linear.     

Genome-wide analysis of heteroduplex DNA in mismatch repair-deficient yeast cells reveals novel properties of meiotic recombination pathways

Meiotic DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) initiate crossover (CO) recombination, which is necessary for accurate chromosome segregation, but DSBs may also repair as non-crossovers (NCOs). Multiple recombination pathways with specific intermediates are expected to lead to COs and NCOs. We revisited the mechanisms of meiotic DSB repair and the regulation of CO formation, by conducting a genome-wide analysis of strand-transfer intermediates associated with recombination events. We performed this analysis in a SK1 × S288C Saccharomyces cerevisiae hybrid lacking the mismatch repair (MMR) protein Msh2, to allow efficient detection of heteroduplex DNAs (hDNAs). First, we observed that the anti-recombinogenic activity of MMR is responsible for a 20% drop in CO number, suggesting that in MMR-proficient cells some DSBs are repaired using the sister chromatid as a template when polymorphisms are present. Second, we observed that a large fraction of NCOs were associated with trans-hDNA tracts constrained to a single chromatid. This unexpected finding is compatible with dissolution of double Holliday junctions (dHJs) during repair, and it suggests the existence of a novel control point for CO formation at the level of the dHJ intermediate, in addition to the previously described control point before the dHJ formation step. Finally, we observed that COs are associated with complex hDNA patterns, confirming that the canonical double-strand break repair model is not sufficient to explain the formation of most COs. We propose that multiple factors contribute to the complexity of recombination intermediates. These factors include repair of nicks and double-stranded gaps, template switches between non-sister and sister chromatids, and HJ branch migration. Finally, the good correlation between the strand transfer properties observed in the absence of and in the presence of Msh2 suggests that the intermediates detected in the absence of Msh2 reflect normal intermediates.     

Reduced Crossover Interference and Increased ZMM-Independent Recombination in the Absence of Tel1/ATM

Meiotic recombination involves the repair of double-strand break (DSB) precursors as crossovers (COs) or noncrossovers (NCOs). The proper number and distribution of COs is critical for successful chromosome segregation and formation of viable gametes. In budding yeast the majority of COs occurs through a pathway dependent on the ZMM proteins (Zip2-Zip3-Zip4-Spo16, Msh4-Msh5, Mer3), which form foci at CO-committed sites. Here we show that the DNA-damage-response kinase Tel1/ATM limits ZMM-independent recombination. By whole-genome mapping of recombination products, we find that lack of Tel1 results in higher recombination and reduced CO interference. Yet the number of Zip3 foci in tel1Δ cells is similar to wild type, and these foci show normal interference. Analysis of recombination in a tel1Δ zip3Δ double mutant indicates that COs are less dependent on Zip3 in the absence of Tel1. Together these results reveal that in the absence of Tel1, a significant proportion of COs occurs through a non-ZMM-dependent pathway, contributing to a CO landscape with poor interference. We also see a significant change in the distribution of all detectable recombination products in the absence of Tel1, Sgs1, Zip3, or Msh4, providing evidence for altered DSB distribution. These results support the previous finding that DSB interference depends on Tel1, and further suggest an additional level of DSB interference created through local repression of DSBs around CO-designated sites.     

Differential Association of the Conserved SUMO Ligase Zip3 with Meiotic Double-Strand Break Sites Reveals Regional Variations in the Outcome of Meiotic Recombination

During the first meiotic prophase, programmed DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are distributed non randomly at hotspots along chromosomes, to initiate recombination. In all organisms, more DSBs are formed than crossovers (CO), the repair product that creates a physical link between homologs and allows their correct segregation. It is not known whether all DSB hotspots are also CO hotspots or if the CO/DSB ratio varies with the chromosomal location. Here, we investigated the variations in the CO/DSB ratio by mapping genome-wide the binding sites of the Zip3 protein during budding yeast meiosis. We show that Zip3 associates with DSB sites that are engaged in repair by CO, and Zip3 enrichment at DSBs reflects the DSB tendency to be repaired by CO. Moreover, the relative amount of Zip3 per DSB varies with the chromosomal location, and specific chromosomal features are associated with high or low Zip3 per DSB. This work shows that DSB hotspots are not necessarily CO hotspots and suggests that different categories of DSB sites may fulfill different functions.     

Phosphorylation of Ku dictates DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathway choice in S phase

Multiple DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair pathways are active in S phase of the cell cycle; however, DSBs are primarily repaired by homologous recombination (HR) in this cell cycle phase. As the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) factor, Ku70/80 (Ku), is quickly recruited to DSBs in S phase, we hypothesized that an orchestrated mechanism modulates pathway choice between HR and NHEJ via displacement of the Ku heterodimer from DSBs to allow HR. Here, we provide evidence that phosphorylation at a cluster of sites in the junction of the pillar and bridge regions of Ku70 mediates the dissociation of Ku from DSBs. Mimicking phosphorylation at these sites reduces Ku''s affinity for DSB ends, suggesting that phosphorylation of Ku70 induces a conformational change responsible for the dissociation of the Ku heterodimer from DNA ends. Ablating phosphorylation of Ku70 leads to the sustained retention of Ku at DSBs, resulting in a significant decrease in DNA end resection and HR, specifically in S phase. This decrease in HR is specific as these phosphorylation sites are not required for NHEJ. Our results demonstrate that the phosphorylation-mediated dissociation of Ku70/80 from DSBs frees DNA ends, allowing the initiation of HR in S phase and providing a mechanism of DSB repair pathway choice in mammalian cells.     

Mouse PRDM9 DNA-binding specificity determines sites of histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation for initiation of meiotic recombination

Meiotic recombination generates reciprocal exchanges between homologous chromosomes (also called crossovers, COs) that are essential for proper chromosome segregation during meiosis and are a major source of genome diversity by generating new allele combinations. COs have two striking properties: they occur at specific sites, called hotspots, and these sites evolve rapidly. In mammals, the Prdm9 gene, which encodes a meiosis-specific histone H3 methyltransferase, has recently been identified as a determinant of CO hotspots. Here, using transgenic mice, we show that the sole modification of PRDM9 zinc fingers leads to changes in hotspot activity, histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) levels, and chromosome-wide distribution of COs. We further demonstrate by an in vitro assay that the PRDM9 variant associated with hotspot activity binds specifically to DNA sequences located at the center of the three hotspots tested. Remarkably, we show that mutations in cis located at hotspot centers and associated with a decrease of hotspot activity affect PRDM9 binding. Taken together, these results provide the direct demonstration that Prdm9 is a master regulator of hotspot localization through the DNA binding specificity of its zinc finger array and that binding of PRDM9 at hotspots promotes local H3K4me3 enrichment.     

Meiotic versus mitotic recombination: two different routes for double-strand break repair: the different functions of meiotic versus mitotic DSB repair are reflected in different pathway usage and different outcomes

Studies in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have validated the major features of the double-strand break repair (DSBR) model as an accurate representation of the pathway through which meiotic crossovers (COs) are produced. This success has led to this model being invoked to explain double-strand break (DSB) repair in other contexts. However, most non-crossover (NCO) recombinants generated during S. cerevisiae meiosis do not arise via a DSBR pathway. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that DSBR is a minor pathway for recombinational repair of DSBs that occur in mitotically-proliferating cells and that the synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA) model appears to describe mitotic DSB repair more accurately. Fundamental dissimilarities between meiotic and mitotic recombination are not unexpected, since meiotic recombination serves a very different purpose (accurate chromosome segregation, which requires COs) than mitotic recombination (repair of DNA damage, which typically generates NCOs).     

A novel single‐cell method provides direct evidence of persistent DNA damage in senescent cells and aged mammalian tissues

The DNA damage response (DDR) arrests cell cycle progression until DNA lesions, like DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs), are repaired. The presence of DSBs in cells is usually detected by indirect techniques that rely on the accumulation of proteins at DSBs, as part of the DDR. Such detection may be biased, as some factors and their modifications may not reflect physical DNA damage. The dependency on DDR markers of DSB detection tools has left questions unanswered. In particular, it is known that senescent cells display persistent DDR foci, that we and others have proposed to be persistent DSBs, resistant to endogenous DNA repair activities. Others have proposed that these peculiar DDR foci might not be sites of damaged DNA per se but instead stable chromatin modifications, termed DNA‐SCARS. Here, we developed a method, named ‘DNA damage in situ ligation followed by proximity ligation assay’ (DI‐PLA) for the detection and imaging of DSBs in cells. DI‐PLA is based on the capture of free DNA ends in fixed cells in situ, by ligation to biotinylated double‐stranded DNA oligonucleotides, which are next recognized by antibiotin anti‐bodies. Detection is enhanced by PLA with a partner DDR marker at the DSB. We validated DI‐PLA by demonstrating its ability to detect DSBs induced by various genotoxic insults in cultured cells and tissues. Most importantly, by DI‐PLA, we demonstrated that both senescent cells in culture and tissues from aged mammals retain true unrepaired DSBs associated with DDR markers.     

Preaching about the converted: how meiotic gene conversion influences genomic diversity

Meiotic crossover (CO) recombination involves a reciprocal exchange between homologous chromosomes. COs are often associated with gene conversion at the exchange site where genetic information is unidirectionally transferred from one chromosome to the other. COs and independent assortment of homologous chromosomes contribute significantly to the promotion of genomic diversity. What has not been appreciated is the contribution of another product of meiotic recombination, noncrossovers (NCOs), which result in gene conversion without exchange of flanking markers. Here, we review our comprehensive analysis of recombination at a highly polymorphic mouse hotspot. We found that NCOs make up ～90% of recombination events. Preferential recombination initiation on one chromosome allowed us to estimate the contribution of CO and NCO gene conversion to transmission distortion, a deviation from Mendelian inheritance in the population. While NCO gene conversion tracts are shorter, and thus have a more punctate effect, their higher frequency translates into an approximately two-fold greater contribution than COs to gene conversion-based allelic shuffling and transmission distortion. We discuss the potential impact of mammalian NCO characteristics on evolution and genomic diversity.