RESUMEN
A distinguishing feature of meiotic DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), compared to DSBs in somatic cells, is the fact that they are induced in a programmed and specifically orchestrated manner, which includes chromatin remodeling prior to DSB induction. In addition, the meiotic homologous recombination (HR) repair process that follows, is different from HR repair of accidental DSBs in somatic cells. For instance, meiotic HR involves preferred use of the homolog instead of the sister chromatid as a repair template and subsequent formation of crossovers and non-crossovers in a tightly regulated manner. An important outcome of this distinct repair pathway is the pairing of homologous chromosomes. Central to the initial steps in homology recognition during meiotic HR is the cooperation between the strand exchange proteins (recombinases) RAD51 and its meiosis-specific paralog DMC1. Despite our understanding of their enzymatic activity, details on the regulation of their assembly and subsequent molecular organization at meiotic DSBs in mammals have remained largely enigmatic. In this review, we summarize recent mouse data on recombinase regulation via meiosis-specific factors. Also, we reflect on bulk "omics" studies of initial meiotic DSB processing, compare these with studies using super-resolution microscopy in single cells, at single DSB sites, and explore the implications of these findings for our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying meiotic HR regulation.
RESUMEN
We investigated genome folding across the eukaryotic tree of life. We find two types of three-dimensional (3D) genome architectures at the chromosome scale. Each type appears and disappears repeatedly during eukaryotic evolution. The type of genome architecture that an organism exhibits correlates with the absence of condensin II subunits. Moreover, condensin II depletion converts the architecture of the human genome to a state resembling that seen in organisms such as fungi or mosquitoes. In this state, centromeres cluster together at nucleoli, and heterochromatin domains merge. We propose a physical model in which lengthwise compaction of chromosomes by condensin II during mitosis determines chromosome-scale genome architecture, with effects that are retained during the subsequent interphase. This mechanism likely has been conserved since the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes.
Asunto(s)
Adenosina Trifosfatasas/genética , Adenosina Trifosfatasas/fisiología , Evolución Biológica , Cromosomas/ultraestructura , Proteínas de Unión al ADN/genética , Proteínas de Unión al ADN/fisiología , Eucariontes/genética , Genoma , Complejos Multiproteicos/genética , Complejos Multiproteicos/fisiología , Adenosina Trifosfatasas/química , Algoritmos , Animales , Nucléolo Celular/ultraestructura , Núcleo Celular/ultraestructura , Centrómero/ultraestructura , Cromosomas/química , Cromosomas Humanos/química , Cromosomas Humanos/ultraestructura , Proteínas de Unión al ADN/química , Genoma Humano , Genómica , Heterocromatina/ultraestructura , Humanos , Interfase , Mitosis , Modelos Biológicos , Complejos Multiproteicos/química , Telómero/ultraestructuraRESUMEN
Aurora B kinase is essential for faithful chromosome segregation during mitosis. During (pro)metaphase, Aurora B is concentrated at the inner centromere by the kinases Haspin and Bub1. However, how Haspin and Bub1 collaborate to control Aurora B activity at centromeres remains unclear. Here, we show that either Haspin or Bub1 activity is sufficient to recruit Aurora B to a distinct chromosomal locus. Moreover, we identified a small, Bub1 kinase-dependent Aurora B pool that supported faithful chromosome segregation in otherwise unchallenged cells. Joined inhibition of Haspin and Bub1 activities fully abolished Aurora B accumulation at centromeres. While this impaired the correction of erroneous KT-MT attachments, it did not compromise the mitotic checkpoint, nor the phosphorylation of the Aurora B kinetochore substrates Hec1, Dsn1, and Knl1. This suggests that Aurora B substrates at the kinetochore are not phosphorylated by centromere-localized pools of Aurora B, and calls for a reevaluation of the current spatial models for how tension affects Aurora B-dependent kinetochore phosphorylation.