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.     

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.     

Controlling Meiotic Recombinational Repair – Specifying the Roles of ZMMs,Sgs1 and Mus81/Mms4 in Crossover Formation

Crossovers (COs) play a critical role in ensuring proper alignment and segregation of homologous chromosomes during meiosis. How the cell balances recombination between CO vs. noncrossover (NCO) outcomes is not completely understood. Further lacking is what constrains the extent of DNA repair such that multiple events do not arise from a single double-strand break (DSB). Here, by interpreting signatures that result from recombination genome-wide, we find that synaptonemal complex proteins promote crossing over in distinct ways. Our results suggest that Zip3 (RNF212) promotes biased cutting of the double Holliday-junction (dHJ) intermediate whereas surprisingly Msh4 does not. Moreover, detailed examination of conversion tracts in sgs1 and mms4-md mutants reveal distinct aberrant recombination events involving multiple chromatid invasions. In sgs1 mutants, these multiple invasions are generally multichromatid involving 3–4 chromatids; in mms4-md mutants the multiple invasions preferentially resolve into one or two chromatids. Our analysis suggests that Mus81/Mms4 (Eme1), rather than just being a minor resolvase for COs is crucial for both COs and NCOs in preventing chromosome entanglements by removing 3′- flaps to promote second-end capture. Together our results force a reevaluation of how key recombination enzymes collaborate to specify the outcome of meiotic DNA repair.     

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.     

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).     

Meiotic recombination involving heterozygous large insertions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: formation and repair of large, unpaired DNA loops

Meiotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae involves the formation of heteroduplexes, duplexes containing DNA strands derived from two different homologues. If the two strands of DNA differ by an insertion or deletion, the heteroduplex will contain an unpaired DNA loop. We found that unpaired loops as large as 5.6 kb can be accommodated within a heteroduplex. Repair of these loops involved the nucleotide excision repair (NER) enzymes Rad1p and Rad10p and the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins Msh2p and Msh3p, but not several other NER (Rad2p and Rad14p) and MMR (Msh4p, Msh6p, Mlh1p, Pms1p, Mlh2p, Mlh3p) proteins. Heteroduplexes were also formed with DNA strands derived from alleles containing two different large insertions, creating a large "bubble"; repair of this substrate was dependent on Rad1p. Although meiotic recombination events in yeast are initiated by double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs), we showed that DSBs occurring within heterozygous insertions do not stimulate interhomologue recombination.     

Synthesis-dependent strand annealing in meiosis

Recent studies led to the proposal that meiotic gene conversion can result after transient engagement of the donor chromatid and subsequent DNA synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA). Double Holliday junction (dHJ) intermediates were previously proposed to form both reciprocal crossover recombinants (COs) and noncrossover recombinants (NCOs); however, dHJs are now thought to give rise mainly to COs, with SDSA forming most or all NCOs. To test this model in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we constructed a random spore system in which it is possible to identify a subset of NCO recombinants that can readily be accounted for by SDSA, but not by dHJ-mediated recombination. The diagnostic class of recombinants is one in which two markers on opposite sides of a double-strand break site are converted, without conversion of an intervening heterologous insertion located on the donor chromatid. This diagnostic class represents 26% of selected NCO recombinants. Tetrad analysis using the same markers provided additional evidence that SDSA is a major pathway for NCO gene conversion in meiosis.     

Rad51/Dmc1 paralogs and mediators oppose DNA helicases to limit hybrid DNA formation and promote crossovers during meiotic recombination

During meiosis programmed DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are repaired by homologous recombination using the sister chromatid or the homologous chromosome (homolog) as a template. This repair results in crossover (CO) and non-crossover (NCO) recombinants. Only CO formation between homologs provides the physical linkages guiding correct chromosome segregation, which are essential to produce healthy gametes. The factors that determine the CO/NCO decision are still poorly understood. Using Schizosaccharomyces pombe as a model we show that the Rad51/Dmc1-paralog complexes Rad55-Rad57 and Rdl1-Rlp1-Sws1 together with Swi5-Sfr1 play a major role in antagonizing both the FANCM-family DNA helicase/translocase Fml1 and the RecQ-type DNA helicase Rqh1 to limit hybrid DNA formation and promote Mus81-Eme1-dependent COs. A common attribute of these protein complexes is an ability to stabilize the Rad51/Dmc1 nucleoprotein filament, and we propose that it is this property that imposes constraints on which enzymes gain access to the recombination intermediate, thereby controlling the manner in which it is processed and resolved.     

Meiotic recombination in Drosophila Msh6 mutants yields discontinuous gene conversion tracts

Crossovers (COs) generated through meiotic recombination are important for the correct segregation of homologous chromosomes during meiosis. Several models describing the molecular mechanism of meiotic recombination have been proposed. These models differ in the arrangement of heteroduplex DNA (hDNA) in recombination intermediates. Heterologies in hDNA are usually repaired prior to the recovery of recombination products, thereby obscuring information about the arrangement of hDNA. To examine hDNA in meiotic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster, we sought to block hDNA repair by conducting recombination assays in a mutant defective in mismatch repair (MMR). We generated mutations in the MMR gene Msh6 and analyzed recombination between highly polymorphic homologous chromosomes. We found that hDNA often goes unrepaired during meiotic recombination in an Msh6 mutant, leading to high levels of postmeiotic segregation; however, hDNA and gene conversion tracts are frequently discontinuous, with multiple transitions between gene conversion, restoration, and unrepaired hDNA. We suggest that these discontinuities reflect the activity of a short-patch repair system that operates when canonical MMR is defective.     

Eliminating Both Canonical and Short-Patch Mismatch Repair in Drosophila melanogaster Suggests a New Meiotic Recombination Model

In most meiotic systems, recombination is essential to form connections between homologs that ensure their accurate segregation from one another. Meiotic recombination is initiated by DNA double-strand breaks that are repaired using the homologous chromosome as a template. Studies of recombination in budding yeast have led to a model in which most early repair intermediates are disassembled to produce noncrossovers. Selected repair events are stabilized so they can proceed to form double-Holliday junction (dHJ) intermediates, which are subsequently resolved into crossovers. This model is supported in yeast by physical isolation of recombination intermediates, but the extent to which it pertains to animals is unknown. We sought to test this model in Drosophila melanogaster by analyzing patterns of heteroduplex DNA (hDNA) in recombination products. Previous attempts to do this have relied on knocking out the canonical mismatch repair (MMR) pathway, but in both yeast and Drosophila the resulting recombination products are complex and difficult to interpret. We show that, in Drosophila, this complexity results from a secondary, short-patch MMR pathway that requires nucleotide excision repair. Knocking out both canonical and short-patch MMR reveals hDNA patterns that reveal that many noncrossovers arise after both ends of the break have engaged with the homolog. Patterns of hDNA in crossovers could be explained by biased resolution of a dHJ; however, considering the noncrossover and crossover results together suggests a model in which a two-end engagement intermediate with unligated HJs can be disassembled by a helicase to a produce noncrossover or nicked by a nuclease to produce a crossover. While some aspects of this model are similar to the model from budding yeast, production of both noncrossovers and crossovers from a single, late intermediate is a fundamental difference that has important implications for crossover control.     

Caenorhabditis elegans RMI2 functional homolog-2 (RMIF-2) and RMI1 (RMH-1) have both overlapping and distinct meiotic functions within the BTR complex

Homologous recombination is a high-fidelity repair pathway for DNA double-strand breaks employed during both mitotic and meiotic cell divisions. Such repair can lead to genetic exchange, originating from crossover (CO) generation. In mitosis, COs are suppressed to prevent sister chromatid exchange. Here, the BTR complex, consisting of the Bloom helicase (HIM-6 in worms), topoisomerase 3 (TOP-3), and the RMI1 (RMH-1 and RMH-2) and RMI2 scaffolding proteins, is essential for dismantling joint DNA molecules to form non-crossovers (NCOs) via decatenation. In contrast, in meiosis COs are essential for accurate chromosome segregation and the BTR complex plays distinct roles in CO and NCO generation at different steps in meiotic recombination. RMI2 stabilizes the RMI1 scaffolding protein, and lack of RMI2 in mitosis leads to elevated sister chromatid exchange, as observed upon RMI1 knockdown. However, much less is known about the involvement of RMI2 in meiotic recombination. So far, RMI2 homologs have been found in vertebrates and plants, but not in lower organisms such as Drosophila, yeast, or worms. We report the identification of the Caenorhabditis elegans functional homolog of RMI2, which we named RMIF-2. The protein shows a dynamic localization pattern to recombination foci during meiotic prophase I and concentration into recombination foci is mutually dependent on other BTR complex proteins. Comparative analysis of the rmif-2 and rmh-1 phenotypes revealed numerous commonalities, including in regulating CO formation and directing COs toward chromosome arms. Surprisingly, the prevalence of heterologous recombination was several fold lower in the rmif-2 mutant, suggesting that RMIF-2 may be dispensable or less strictly required for some BTR complex-mediated activities during meiosis.     

Repair of double-strand breaks by homologous recombination in mismatch repair-defective mammalian cells

Chromosomal double-strand breaks (DSBs) stimulate homologous recombination by several orders of magnitude in mammalian cells, including murine embryonic stem (ES) cells, but the efficiency of recombination decreases as the heterology between the repair substrates increases (B. Elliott, C. Richardson, J. Winderbaum, J. A. Nickoloff, and M. Jasin, Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:93-101, 1998). We have now examined homologous recombination in mismatch repair (MMR)-defective ES cells to investigate both the frequency of recombination and the outcome of events. Using cells with a targeted mutation in the msh2 gene, we found that the barrier to recombination between diverged substrates is relaxed for both gene targeting and intrachromosomal recombination. Thus, substrates with 1.5% divergence are 10-fold more likely to undergo DSB-promoted recombination in Msh2(-/-) cells than in wild-type cells. Although mutant cells can repair DSBs efficiently, examination of gene conversion tracts in recombinants demonstrates that they cannot efficiently correct mismatched heteroduplex DNA (hDNA) that is formed adjacent to the DSB. As a result, >20-fold more of the recombinants derived from mutant cells have uncorrected tracts compared with recombinants from wild-type cells. The results indicate that gene conversion repair of DSBs in mammalian cells frequently involves mismatch correction of hDNA rather than double-strand gap formation. In cells with MMR defects, therefore, aberrant recombinational repair may be an additional mechanism that contributes to genomic instability and possibly tumorigenesis.     

Heteroduplex DNA Position Defines the Roles of the Sgs1, Srs2, and Mph1 Helicases in Promoting Distinct Recombination Outcomes

The contributions of the Sgs1, Mph1, and Srs2 DNA helicases during mitotic double-strand break (DSB) repair in yeast were investigated using a gap-repair assay. A diverged chromosomal substrate was used as a repair template for the gapped plasmid, allowing mismatch-containing heteroduplex DNA (hDNA) formed during recombination to be monitored. Overall DSB repair efficiencies and the proportions of crossovers (COs) versus noncrossovers (NCOs) were determined in wild-type and helicase-defective strains, allowing the efficiency of CO and NCO production in each background to be calculated. In addition, the products of individual NCO events were sequenced to determine the location of hDNA. Because hDNA position is expected to differ depending on whether a NCO is produced by synthesis-dependent-strand-annealing (SDSA) or through a Holliday junction (HJ)–containing intermediate, its position allows the underlying molecular mechanism to be inferred. Results demonstrate that each helicase reduces the proportion of CO recombinants, but that each does so in a fundamentally different way. Mph1 does not affect the overall efficiency of gap repair, and its loss alters the CO-NCO by promoting SDSA at the expense of HJ–containing intermediates. By contrast, Sgs1 and Srs2 are each required for efficient gap repair, strongly promoting NCO formation and having little effect on CO efficiency. hDNA analyses suggest that all three helicases promote SDSA, and that Sgs1 and Srs2 additionally dismantle HJ–containing intermediates. The hDNA data are consistent with the proposed role of Sgs1 in the dissolution of double HJs, and we propose that Srs2 dismantles nicked HJs.     

Msh2 Blocks an Alternative Mechanism for Non-Homologous Tail Removal during Single-Strand Annealing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Chromosomal translocations are frequently observed in cells exposed to agents that cause DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), such as ionizing radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs, and are often associated with tumors in mammals. Recently, translocation formation in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has been found to occur at high frequencies following the creation of multiple DSBs adjacent to repetitive sequences on non-homologous chromosomes. The genetic control of translocation formation and the chromosome complements of the clones that contain translocations suggest that translocation formation occurs by single-strand annealing (SSA). Among the factors important for translocation formation by SSA is the central mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination (HR) factor, Msh2. Here we describe the effects of several msh2 missense mutations on translocation formation that suggest that Msh2 has separable functions in stabilizing annealed single strands, and removing non-homologous sequences from their ends. Additionally, interactions between the msh2 alleles and a null allele of RAD1, which encodes a subunit of a nuclease critical for the removal of non-homologous tails suggest that Msh2 blocks an alternative mechanism for removing these sequences. These results suggest that Msh2 plays multiple roles in the formation of chromosomal translocations following acute levels of DNA damage.     

Shu1 promotes homolog bias of meiotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Homologous recombination occurs closely between homologous chromatids with highly ordered recombinosomes through RecA homologs and mediators. The present study demonstrates this relationship during the period of “partner choice” in yeast meiotic recombination. We have examined the formation of recombination intermediates in the absence or presence of Shu1, a member of the PCSS complex, which also includes Psy3, Csm2, and Shu2. DNA physical analysis indicates that Shu1 is essential for promoting the establishment of homolog bias during meiotic homologous recombination, and the partner choice is switched by Mek1 kinase activity. Furthermore, Shu1 promotes both crossover (CO) and non-crossover (NCO) pathways of meiotic recombination. The inactivation of Mek1 kinase allows for meiotic recombination to progress efficiently, but is lost in homolog bias where most double-strand breaks (DSBs) are repaired via stable intersister joint molecules. Moreover, the Srs2 helicase deletion cells in the budding yeast show slightly reduced COs and NCOs, and Shu1 promotes homolog bias independent of Srs2. Our findings reveal that Shu1 and Mek1 kinase activity have biochemically distinct roles in partner choice, which in turn enhances the understanding of the mechanism associated with the precondition for homolog bias.     

The Arabidopsis BLAP75/Rmi1 Homologue Plays Crucial Roles in Meiotic Double-Strand Break Repair

In human cells and in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, BLAP75/Rmi1 acts together with BLM/Sgs1 and TopoIIIα/Top3 to maintain genome stability by limiting crossover (CO) formation in favour of NCO events, probably through the dissolution of double Holliday junction intermediates (dHJ). So far, very limited data is available on the involvement of these complexes in meiotic DNA repair. In this paper, we present the first meiotic study of a member of the BLAP75 family through characterisation of the Arabidopsis thaliana homologue. In A. thaliana blap75 mutants, meiotic recombination is initiated, and recombination progresses until the formation of bivalent-like structures, even in the absence of ZMM proteins. However, chromosome fragmentation can be detected as soon as metaphase I and is drastic at anaphase I, while no second meiotic division is observed. Using genetic and imunolocalisation studies, we showed that these defects reflect a role of A. thaliana BLAP75 in meiotic double-strand break (DSB) repair—that it acts after the invasion step mediated by RAD51 and associated proteins and that it is necessary to repair meiotic DSBs onto sister chromatids as well as onto the homologous chromosome. In conclusion, our results show for the first time that BLAP75/Rmi1 is a key protein of the meiotic homologous recombination machinery. In A. thaliana, we found that this protein is dispensable for homologous chromosome recognition and synapsis but necessary for the repair of meiotic DSBs. Furthermore, in the absence of BLAP75, bivalent formation can happen even in the absence of ZMM proteins, showing that in blap75 mutants, recombination intermediates exist that are stable enough to form bivalent structures, even when ZMM are absent.     

The C. elegans DSB-2 Protein Reveals a Regulatory Network that Controls Competence for Meiotic DSB Formation and Promotes Crossover Assurance

For most organisms, chromosome segregation during meiosis relies on deliberate induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and repair of a subset of these DSBs as inter-homolog crossovers (COs). However, timing and levels of DSB formation must be tightly controlled to avoid jeopardizing genome integrity. Here we identify the DSB-2 protein, which is required for efficient DSB formation during C. elegans meiosis but is dispensable for later steps of meiotic recombination. DSB-2 localizes to chromatin during the time of DSB formation, and its disappearance coincides with a decline in RAD-51 foci marking early recombination intermediates and precedes appearance of COSA-1 foci marking CO-designated sites. These and other data suggest that DSB-2 and its paralog DSB-1 promote competence for DSB formation. Further, immunofluorescence analyses of wild-type gonads and various meiotic mutants reveal that association of DSB-2 with chromatin is coordinated with multiple distinct aspects of the meiotic program, including the phosphorylation state of nuclear envelope protein SUN-1 and dependence on RAD-50 to load the RAD-51 recombinase at DSB sites. Moreover, association of DSB-2 with chromatin is prolonged in mutants impaired for either DSB formation or formation of downstream CO intermediates. These and other data suggest that association of DSB-2 with chromatin is an indicator of competence for DSB formation, and that cells respond to a deficit of CO-competent recombination intermediates by prolonging the DSB-competent state. In the context of this model, we propose that formation of sufficient CO-competent intermediates engages a negative feedback response that leads to cessation of DSB formation as part of a major coordinated transition in meiotic prophase progression. The proposed negative feedback regulation of DSB formation simultaneously (1) ensures that sufficient DSBs are made to guarantee CO formation and (2) prevents excessive DSB levels that could have deleterious effects.     

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.     

Roles for mismatch repair family proteins in promoting meiotic crossing over

The mismatch repair (MMR) family complexes Msh4-Msh5 and Mlh1-Mlh3 act with Exo1 and Sgs1-Top3-Rmi1 in a meiotic double strand break repair pathway that results in the asymmetric cleavage of double Holliday junctions (dHJ) to form crossovers. This review discusses how meiotic roles for Msh4-Msh5 and Mlh1-Mlh3 do not fit paradigms established for post-replicative MMR. We also outline models used to explain how these factors promote the formation of meiotic crossovers required for the accurate segregation of chromosome homologs during the Meiosis I division.     

Distribution of Holliday junctions and repair forks during Escherichia coli DNA double-strand break repair

Accurate repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is crucial for cell survival and genome integrity. In Escherichia coli, DSBs are repaired by homologous recombination (HR), using an undamaged sister chromosome as template. The DNA intermediates of this pathway are expected to be branched molecules that may include 4-way structures termed Holliday junctions (HJs), and 3-way structures such as D-loops and repair forks. Using a tool creating a site-specific, repairable DSB on only one of a pair of replicating sister chromosomes, we have determined how these branched DNA intermediates are distributed across a DNA region that is undergoing DSB repair. In cells, where branch migration and cleavage of HJs are limited by inactivation of the RuvABC complex, HJs and repair forks are principally accumulated within a distance of 12 kb from sites of recombination initiation, known as Chi, on each side of the engineered DSB. These branched DNA structures can even be detected in the region of DNA between the Chi sites flanking the DSB, a DNA segment not expected to be engaged in recombination initiation, and potentially degraded by RecBCD nuclease action. This is observed even in the absence of the branch migration and helicase activities of RuvAB, RadA, RecG, RecQ and PriA. The detection of full-length DNA fragments containing HJs in this central region implies that DSB repair can restore the two intact chromosomes, into which HJs can relocate prior to their resolution. The distribution of recombination intermediates across the 12kb region beyond Chi is altered in xonA, recJ and recQ mutants suggesting that, in the RecBCD pathway of DSB repair, exonuclease I stimulates the formation of repair forks and that RecJQ promotes strand-invasion at a distance from the recombination initiation sites.