Chromosomes in a genome-wise order: evidence for metaphase architecture

Uniparental disomy is a chromosomic disorder in the first place

BACKGROUND

Uniparental disomy (UPD) is well-known to be closely intermingled with imprinting disorders. Besides, UPD can lead to a disease by 'activation' of a recessive gene mutation or due to incomplete (cryptic) trisomic rescue. Corresponding to all common theories how UPD forms, it takes place as a consequence of a "chromosomic problem", like an aneuploidy or a chromosomal rearrangement. Nonetheless, UPD is rarely considered as a cytogenetic, but most often as a molecular genetic problem.

RESULTS

Here a review on the ~ 4900 published UPD-cases is provided, and even though being biased as discussed in the paper, the following insights have been given from that analysis: (1) the rate of maternal to paternal UPD is 2~3 to 1; (2) at most only ~ 0.03% of the available UPD cases are grasped scientifically, yet; (3) frequencies of single whole-chromosome UPDs are non-random, with UPD(16) and UPD(15) being most frequent in clinically healthy and diseased people, respectively; (4) there is a direct correlation of UPD frequency and known frequent first trimester trisomies, except for chromosomes 1, 5, 11 and 18 (which can be explained); (5) heterodisomy is under- and UPD-mosaicism is over-represented in recent reports; and (6) cytogenetics is not considered enough when a UPD is identified.

CONCLUSIONS

As UPD is diagnosed using molecular genetic approaches, and thus by specialists considering chromosomes at best as a whim of nature, most UPD reports lack the chromosomal aspect. Here it is affirmed and substantiated by corresponding data that UPD is a chromosomic disorder in the first place and cytogenetic analyses is indicated in each diagnosed UPD-case.

Mitotic Antipairing of Homologous Chromosomes

Chromosome organization is highly dynamic and plays an essential role during cell function. It was recently found that pairs of the homologous chromosomes are continuously separated at mitosis and display a haploid (1n) chromosome set, or "antipairing," organization in human cells. Here, we provide an introduction to the current knowledge of homologous antipairing in humans and its implications in human disease.

Cytogenetic mechanisms of unisexuality in rock lizards

Darevskia rock lizards is a unique complex taxa, including more than thirty species, seven of which are parthenogenetic. In mixed populations of Darevskia lizards, tri- and tetraploid forms can be found. The most important issues in the theory of reticulate evolution of Darevskia lizards are the origin of parthenogenetic species and their taxonomic position. However, there is little data on how meiosis proceeds in these species. The present work reports the complex results of cytogenetics in a diploid parthenogenetic species – D. unisexualis. Here we detail the meiotic prophase I progression and the specific features оf mitotic chromosomes organization. The stages of meiosis prophase I were investigated by immunocytochemical analysis of preparations obtained from isolated primary oocytes of D. unisexualis in comparison with maternal species D. raddei nairensis. It has been shown that in D. unisexualis at the leptotene-zygotene stages the axial elements and the synaptonemal complex (SC) form typical “bouquets”. At the pachytene-diplotene stage, 18 autosomal SC-bivalents and thickened asynapted sex Z and w univalents were observed. The presence of SYCP1 protein between the lateral elements of autosomal chromosomes proved the formation of assembled SCs. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) on the mitotic metaphase chromosomes of D. unisexualis was carried out using the genomic DNA isolated from the parental species D. raddei nairensis and D. valentini. In the pericentromeric regions of half of the mitotic chromosomes of D. unisexualis, specific regions inherited from maternal species have been found. Following our results, we suggest a model for diploid germ cells formation from diploid oocytes without premeiotic duplication of chromosomes in the oogenesis of diploid parthenogenetic lizards D. unisexualis. Taken as a whole, our findings confirm the hybrid nature of D. unisexualis and shed light on heterozygosity and automixis in diploid parthenogenetic forms.

Leukocyte Nucleus Reveals a Linear Order of Chromosomes Separated in Two Parental Genomes That Favors the Process of Gene Activation

Analysis of trisomy 8 cells and the chromosome-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) signals on the ring-shaped nucleus of a neutrophil reveal that homologue chromosomes orient in diametrical opposition to each other. This positioning results in a separation of the two haploid sets of parental chromosomes organized as two exclusive groups. These two groups impart the nucleus a symmetry that fortifies immune protection by accelerating chemotaxis. The ring form of the nucleus is a legacy of the orientation of chromosomes as a rosette during metaphase and telophase stages. A dual control maintains this spatial order: (1) chromosomes are tethered to the centriole all through the cell cycle, and (2) during their circular orientation in telophase the chromosomes bind to each other with lamins, which reorganize the nuclear membrane of the daughter nuclei, generating an additional anchorage. Here, chromosomes serve as temporary packets to assure proper distribution of the nuclear DNA during mitosis. The remainder time of the cell cycle the chromosomes are chained together across the telomeres, allowing a continuous sequence of genes of the two genomes, maternal and paternal, thus facilitating easy reading of the gene sequence. Exceptions to these orders are either physiological and temporary, or pathological and disease causing.

From Human Cytogenetics to Human Chromosomics

BACKGROUND

The concept of "chromosomics" was introduced by Prof. Uwe Claussen in 2005. Herein, the growing insights into human chromosome structure finally lead to a "chromosomic view" of the three-dimensional constitution and plasticity of genes in interphase nuclei are discussed. This review is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Uwe Claussen (30 April 1945⁻20 July 2008).

RECENT FINDINGS

Chromosomics is the study of chromosomes, their three-dimensional positioning in the interphase nucleus, the consequences from plasticity of chromosomal subregions and gene interactions, the influence of chromatin-modification-mediated events on cells, and even individuals, evolution, and disease. Progress achieved in recent years is summarized, including the detection of chromosome-chromosome-interactions which, if damaged, lead to malfunction and disease. However, chromosomics in the Human Genetics field is not progressing presently, as research interest has shifted from single cell to high throughput, genomic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Chromosomics and its impact were predicted correctly in 2005 by Prof. Claussen. Although some progress was achieved, present reconsiderations of the role of the chromosome and the single cell in Human Genetic research are urgently necessary.

Chromosomes in the DNA era: Perspectives in diagnostics and research

Chromosomes were discovered more than 130 years ago. The implementation of chromosomal investigations in clinical diagnostics was fueled by determining the correct number of human chromosomes to be 46 and the development of specific banding techniques. Subsequent technical improvements in the field of genetic diagnostics, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromosomal microarrays (CMA, array CGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques, partially succeeded in overcoming limitations of banding cytogenetics. Consequently, nowadays, higher diagnostic yields can be achieved if new approaches such as NGS, CMA or FISH are applied in combination with cytogenetics. Nonetheless, high-resolution DNA-focused techniques have dominated clinical diagnostics more recently, rather than a “chromosomic view,” including banding cytogenetics as a precondition for the application of higher resolution methods. Currently, there is a renaissance of this “chromosomic view” in research, understanding chromosomes to be an essential feature of genomic architecture, owing to the discovery of (i) higher order chromosomal sub-compartments, (ii) chromosomal features that influence genomic architecture, gene expression, and evolution, and (iii) 3D and 4D chromatin organization within the nucleus, including the complex way in which chromosomes interact with each other. Interestingly, in many instances research was triggered by specific clinical diagnostic cases or diseases that contributed to new and fascinating insights, not only into disease mechanisms but also into basic principles of chromosome biology. Here we review the role, the intrinsic value, and the perspectives of chromosomes in a molecular genetics-dominated human genetics diagnostic era and make comparison with basic research, where these benefits are well-recognized.

Interchromosomal interactions: A genomic love story of kissing chromosomes

Nuclei require a precise three- and four-dimensional organization of DNA to establish cell-specific gene-expression programs. Underscoring the importance of DNA topology, alterations to the nuclear architecture can perturb gene expression and result in disease states. More recently, it has become clear that not only intrachromosomal interactions, but also interchromosomal interactions, a less studied feature of chromosomes, are required for proper physiological gene-expression programs. Here, we review recent studies with emerging insights into where and why cross-chromosomal communication is relevant. Specifically, we discuss how long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and three-dimensional gene positioning are involved in genome organization and how low-throughput (live-cell imaging) and high-throughput (Hi-C and SPRITE) techniques contribute to understand the fundamental properties of interchromosomal interactions.

Mitotic antipairing of homologous and sex chromosomes via spatial restriction of two haploid sets

Mitotic recombination must be prevented to maintain genetic stability across daughter cells, but the underlying mechanism remains elusive. We report that mammalian cells impede homologous chromosome pairing during mitosis by keeping the two haploid chromosome sets apart, positioning them to either side of a meridional plane defined by the centrosomes. Chromosome oscillation analysis revealed collective genome behavior of noninteracting chromosome sets. Male translocation mice with a maternal-derived supernumerary chromosome display the tracer chromosome exclusively to the haploid set containing the X chromosome. This haploid set-based antipairing motif is shared by multiple cell types, is doubled in tetraploid cells, and is lost in carcinoma cells. The data provide a model of nuclear polarity through the antipairing of homologous chromosomes during mitosis.

Pairing homologous chromosomes is required for recombination. However, in nonmeiotic stages it can lead to detrimental consequences, such as allelic misregulation and genome instability, and is rare in human somatic cells. How mitotic recombination is prevented—and how genetic stability is maintained across daughter cells—is a fundamental, unanswered question. Here, we report that both human and mouse cells impede homologous chromosome pairing by keeping two haploid chromosome sets apart throughout mitosis. Four-dimensional analysis of chromosomes during cell division revealed that a haploid chromosome set resides on either side of a meridional plane, crossing two centrosomes. Simultaneous tracking of chromosome oscillation and the spindle axis, using fluorescent CENP-A and centrin1, respectively, demonstrates collective genome behavior/segregation of two haploid sets throughout mitosis. Using 3D chromosome imaging of a translocation mouse with a supernumerary chromosome, we found that this maternally derived chromosome is positioned by parental origin. These data, taken together, support the identity of haploid sets by parental origin. This haploid set-based antipairing motif is shared by multiple cell types, doubles in tetraploid cells, and is lost in a carcinoma cell line. The data support a mechanism of nuclear polarity that sequesters two haploid sets along a subcellular axis. This topological segregation of haploid sets revisits an old model/paradigm and provides implications for maintaining mitotic fidelity.