Literature DB >> 25242031

Centromere strength provides the cell biological basis for meiotic drive and karyotype evolution in mice.

Lukáš Chmátal1, Sofia I Gabriel2, George P Mitsainas3, Jessica Martínez-Vargas4, Jacint Ventura4, Jeremy B Searle5, Richard M Schultz6, Michael A Lampson7.   

Abstract

Mammalian karyotypes (number and structure of chromosomes) can vary dramatically over short evolutionary time frames. There are examples of massive karyotype conversion, from mostly telocentric (centromere terminal) to mostly metacentric (centromere internal), in 10(2)-10(5) years. These changes typically reflect rapid fixation of Robertsonian (Rb) fusions, a common chromosomal rearrangement that joins two telocentric chromosomes at their centromeres to create one metacentric. Fixation of Rb fusions can be explained by meiotic drive: biased chromosome segregation during female meiosis in violation of Mendel's first law. However, there is no mechanistic explanation of why fusions would preferentially segregate to the egg in some populations, leading to fixation and karyotype change, while other populations preferentially eliminate the fusions and maintain a telocentric karyotype. Here we show, using both laboratory models and wild mice, that differences in centromere strength predict the direction of drive. Stronger centromeres, manifested by increased kinetochore protein levels and altered interactions with spindle microtubules, are preferentially retained in the egg. We find that fusions preferentially segregate to the polar body in laboratory mouse strains when the fusion centromeres are weaker than those of telocentrics. Conversely, fusion centromeres are stronger relative to telocentrics in natural house mouse populations that have changed karyotype by accumulating metacentric fusions. Our findings suggest that natural variation in centromere strength explains how the direction of drive can switch between populations. They also provide a cell biological basis of centromere drive and karyotype evolution.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25242031      PMCID: PMC4189972          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.08.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  15 in total

1.  Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice.

Authors:  J Britton-Davidian; J Catalan; M da Graça Ramalhinho; G Ganem; J C Auffray; R Capela; M Biscoito; J B Searle; M da Luz Mathias
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-01-13       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  The centromere paradox: stable inheritance with rapidly evolving DNA.

Authors:  S Henikoff; K Ahmad; H S Malik
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-08-10       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Chromosomes, conflict, and epigenetics: chromosomal speciation revisited.

Authors:  Judith D Brown; Rachel J O'Neill
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Unusually extensive karyotype reorganization in four congeneric Gerbillus species (Muridae: Gerbillinae).

Authors:  V M Aniskin; T Benazzou; L Biltueva; G Dobigny; L Granjon; V Volobouev
Journal:  Cytogenet Genome Res       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.636

5.  Spatio-temporal variation in the structure of a chromosomal polymorphism zone in the house mouse.

Authors:  N Medarde; M J López-Fuster; F Muñoz-Muñoz; J Ventura
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 6.  Molecular architecture of the kinetochore-microtubule interface.

Authors:  Iain M Cheeseman; Arshad Desai
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 94.444

Review 7.  The centromere-drive hypothesis: a simple basis for centromere complexity.

Authors:  Harmit S Malik
Journal:  Prog Mol Subcell Biol       Date:  2009

8.  Female meiosis drives karyotypic evolution in mammals.

Authors:  F Pardo-Manuel de Villena; C Sapienza
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Cytogenetic aspects of phylogeny in the Bovidae. I. G-banding.

Authors:  R A Buckland; H J Evans
Journal:  Cytogenet Cell Genet       Date:  1978

Review 10.  The Robertsonian phenomenon in the house mouse: mutation, meiosis and speciation.

Authors:  Silvia Garagna; Jesus Page; Raul Fernandez-Donoso; Maurizio Zuccotti; Jeremy B Searle
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 4.316

View more
  106 in total

Review 1.  Breaking Symmetry - Asymmetric Histone Inheritance in Stem Cells.

Authors:  Jing Xie; Matthew Wooten; Vuong Tran; Xin Chen
Journal:  Trends Cell Biol       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 20.808

2.  Gene flow despite complex Robertsonian fusions among rock-wallaby (Petrogale) species.

Authors:  Sally Potter; Craig Moritz; Mark D B Eldridge
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  A Pooled Sequencing Approach Identifies a Candidate Meiotic Driver in Drosophila.

Authors:  Kevin H-C Wei; Hemakumar M Reddy; Chandramouli Rathnam; Jimin Lee; Deanna Lin; Shuqing Ji; James M Mason; Andrew G Clark; Daniel A Barbash
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 4.  Genetic conflicts: the usual suspects and beyond.

Authors:  Richard N McLaughlin; Harmit S Malik
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.312

5.  Plk1 protects kinetochore-centromere architecture against microtubule pulling forces.

Authors:  Robert F Lera; Roshan X Norman; Marie Dumont; Alexandra Dennee; Joanne Martin-Koob; Daniele Fachinetti; Mark E Burkard
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 8.807

6.  Holocentromeres in Rhynchospora are associated with genome-wide centromere-specific repeat arrays interspersed among euchromatin.

Authors:  André Marques; Tiago Ribeiro; Pavel Neumann; Jiří Macas; Petr Novák; Veit Schubert; Marco Pellino; Jörg Fuchs; Wei Ma; Markus Kuhlmann; Ronny Brandt; André L L Vanzela; Tomáš Beseda; Hana Šimková; Andrea Pedrosa-Harand; Andreas Houben
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  Centromeres Drive a Hard Bargain.

Authors:  Leah F Rosin; Barbara G Mellone
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 11.639

8.  Asymmetric Centromeres Differentially Coordinate with Mitotic Machinery to Ensure Biased Sister Chromatid Segregation in Germline Stem Cells.

Authors:  Rajesh Ranjan; Jonathan Snedeker; Xin Chen
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 24.633

9.  Expanded Satellite Repeats Amplify a Discrete CENP-A Nucleosome Assembly Site on Chromosomes that Drive in Female Meiosis.

Authors:  Aiko Iwata-Otsubo; Jennine M Dawicki-McKenna; Takashi Akera; Samantha J Falk; Lukáš Chmátal; Karren Yang; Beth A Sullivan; Richard M Schultz; Michael A Lampson; Ben E Black
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Genetic differentiation within and away from the chromosomal rearrangements characterising hybridising chromosomal races of the western house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus).

Authors:  Daniel W Förster; Eleanor P Jones; Fríða Jóhannesdóttir; Sofia I Gabriel; Mabel D Giménez; Thadsin Panithanarak; Heidi C Hauffe; Jeremy B Searle
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.239

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.