1
|
Synaptonemal Complex-Deficient Drosophila melanogaster Females Exhibit Rare DSB Repair Events, Recurrent Copy-Number Variation, and an Increased Rate of de Novo Transposable Element Movement. G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS 2020; 10:525-537. [PMID: 31882405 PMCID: PMC7003089 DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Genetic stability depends on the maintenance of a variety of chromosome structures and the precise repair of DNA breaks. During meiosis, programmed double-strand breaks (DSBs) made in prophase I are normally repaired as gene conversions or crossovers. DSBs can also be made by other mechanisms, such as the movement of transposable elements (TEs), which must also be resolved. Incorrect repair of these DNA lesions can lead to mutations, copy-number changes, translocations, and/or aneuploid gametes. In Drosophila melanogaster, as in most organisms, meiotic DSB repair occurs in the presence of a rapidly evolving multiprotein structure called the synaptonemal complex (SC). Here, whole-genome sequencing is used to investigate the fate of meiotic DSBs in D. melanogaster mutant females lacking functional SC, to assay for de novo CNV formation, and to examine the role of the SC in transposable element movement in flies. The data indicate that, in the absence of SC, copy-number variation still occurs and meiotic DSB repair by gene conversion occurs infrequently. Remarkably, an 856-kilobase de novo CNV was observed in two unrelated individuals of different genetic backgrounds and was identical to a CNV recovered in a previous wild-type study, suggesting that recurrent formation of large CNVs occurs in Drosophila. In addition, the rate of novel TE insertion was markedly higher than wild type in one of two SC mutants tested, suggesting that SC proteins may contribute to the regulation of TE movement and insertion in the genome. Overall, this study provides novel insight into the role that the SC plays in genome stability and provides clues as to why the sequence, but not structure, of SC proteins is rapidly evolving.
Collapse
|
2
|
The cellular basis of hybrid dysgenesis and Stellate regulation in Drosophila. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2015; 34:88-94. [PMID: 26451497 PMCID: PMC4674331 DOI: 10.1016/j.gde.2015.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2015] [Revised: 09/05/2015] [Accepted: 09/07/2015] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
During normal tissue development, the accumulation of unrepaired cellular and genomic damage can impair growth and ultimately leads to death. To preserve cellular integrity, cells employ a number of defense mechanisms including molecular checkpoints, during which development is halted while dedicated pathways attempt repair. This process is most critical in germline tissues where cellular damage directly threatens an organism's reproductive capacity and offspring viability. In the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, germline development has been extensively studied for over a century and the breadth of our knowledge has flourished in the genomics age. Intriguingly, several peculiar phenomena that trigger catastrophic germline damage described decades ago, still endure only a partial understanding of the underlying molecular causes. A deeper reexamination using new molecular and genetic tools may greatly benefit our understanding of host system biology. Among these, and the focus of this concise review, are hybrid dysgenesis and an intragenomic conflict that pits the X and Y sex chromosomes against each other.
Collapse
|
3
|
Klenov MS, Lavrov SA, Stolyarenko AD, Ryazansky SS, Aravin AA, Tuschl T, Gvozdev VA. Repeat-associated siRNAs cause chromatin silencing of retrotransposons in the Drosophila melanogaster germline. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:5430-8. [PMID: 17702759 PMCID: PMC2018648 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkm576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2007] [Revised: 07/15/2007] [Accepted: 07/15/2007] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Silencing of genomic repeats, including transposable elements, in Drosophila melanogaster is mediated by repeat-associated short interfering RNAs (rasiRNAs) interacting with proteins of the Piwi subfamily. rasiRNA-based silencing is thought to be mechanistically distinct from both the RNA interference and microRNA pathways. We show that the amount of rasiRNAs of a wide range of retroelements is drastically reduced in ovaries and testes of flies carrying a mutation in the spn-E gene. To address the mechanism of rasiRNA-dependent silencing of retrotransposons, we monitored their chromatin state in ovaries and somatic tissues. This revealed that the spn-E mutation causes chromatin opening of retroelements in ovaries, resulting in an increase in histone H3 K4 dimethylation and a decrease in histone H3 K9 di/trimethylation. The strongest chromatin changes have been detected for telomeric HeT-A elements that correlates with the most dramatic increase of their transcript level, compared to other mobile elements. The spn-E mutation also causes depletion of HP1 content in the chromatin of transposable elements, especially along HeT-A arrays. We also show that mutations in the genes controlling the rasiRNA pathway cause no derepression of the same retrotransposons in somatic tissues. Our results provide evidence that germinal Piwi-associated short RNAs induce chromatin modifications of their targets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikhail S. Klenov
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Sergey A. Lavrov
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Anastasia D. Stolyarenko
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Sergey S. Ryazansky
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Alexei A. Aravin
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Thomas Tuschl
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | - Vladimir A. Gvozdev
- Department of Molecular Genetics of Cell, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 123182, Russia and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of RNA Molecular Biology, the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Box 186, New York, New York 10021, USA
| |
Collapse
|