|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
© The Rockefeller University Press,
0021-9525/2000//1223 $5.00
The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 150, Number 6,
, 2000 1223-1232
Original Article |
The Reduction of Chromosome Number in Meiosis Is Determined by Properties Built into the Chromosomes
In meiosis I, two chromatids move to each spindle pole. Then, in meiosis II, the two are distributed, one to each future gamete. This requires that meiosis I chromosomes attach to the spindle differently than meiosis II chromosomes and that they regulate chromosome cohesion differently. We investigated whether the information that dictates the division type of the chromosome comes from the whole cell, the spindle, or the chromosome itself. Also, we determined when chromosomes can switch from meiosis I behavior to meiosis II behavior. We used a micromanipulation needle to fuse grasshopper spermatocytes in meiosis I to spermatocytes in meiosis II, and to move chromosomes from one spindle to the other. Chromosomes placed on spindles of a different meiotic division always behaved as they would have on their native spindle; e.g., a meiosis I chromosome attached to a meiosis II spindle in its normal fashion and sister chromatids moved together to the same spindle pole. We also showed that meiosis I chromosomes become competent meiosis II chromosomes in anaphase of meiosis I, but not before. The patterns for attachment to the spindle and regulation of cohesion are built into the chromosome itself. These results suggest that regulation of chromosome cohesion may be linked to differences in the arrangement of kinetochores in the two meiotic divisions.
Key Words: kinetochore arrangement • chromosome cohesion • chromosomes • meiosis • micromanipulation
© 2000 The Rockefeller University Press
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 TopAbstract Introduction Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
The special arrangement of kinetochores and regulation of cohesion in meiosis could arise from peculiarities of the cells, of the spindles, or of the chromosomes themselves. The ideal experiment to choose among these possibilities would be to inject a chromosome from a cell in the first meiotic division, for example, into a cell in the second division—does the chromosome then behave according to chromosome type or according to cell type? We have not succeeded in doing such an experiment, but we have fused a cell in meiosis I with one in meiosis II and have moved chromosomes from one spindle to the other.
One might expect that the critical differences between the two divisions are due to differences in the physiology of the cells or of the spindle (Lima-de-Faria 1958). If whole-cell differences are critical, then one would expect that a fused first and second division cell would be strange or dead. Alternatively, if spindle differences are controlling, then a transferred chromosome would behave according to the spindle to which it newly attached. For instance, a meiosis I chromosome on a meiosis II spindle would attach sister kinetochores to opposite poles and would lose centromere cohesion in anaphase. Finally, if the special properties are built into each chromosome, then the transferred meiosis I chromosome would behave normally, segregating sister kinetochores to the same pole while the nearby meiosis II chromosomes behave in their normal way, segregating sister kinetochores to opposite spindle poles. A few trial experiments showed that chromosomes do indeed attach according to chromosome type, not according to spindle type (Nicklas 1977). A key experiment (a meiosis II chromosome moved to a meiosis I spindle) was done only once, and the results were inconclusive. We have now learned how to do fusions more efficiently and have greatly extended the earlier results. Our new experiments focus not only on kinetochore attachment to the spindle, but also on chromosome cohesion. We resolved a critical ambiguity in the early study in which chromosomes that had already attached to one spindle were detached and moved to a different spindle. Once attached to a spindle, a chromosome is exposed to mitotic forces toward opposite poles, and it might well be imagined that such an attachment, even if brief, would rearrange kinetochores and cohesion sites. For instance, attachment of sister kinetochores to opposite poles in a meiosis II cell might pull the kinetochores so that they face in opposite directions. After such a chromosome is moved to a meiosis I spindle, the opposed kinetochores would preferentially capture microtubules from opposite poles, producing a meiosis II–type attachment. We have eliminated this ambiguity by moving chromosomes to the heterologous spindle before they could attach to their native spindle. We show that the chromosome contains all the information for how it will attach to the spindle and how it will separate in anaphase. Moreover, we show that the chromosome gains this information before nuclear envelope breakdown in meiosis I. We have also determined when a meiosis I chromosome changes so that it behaves like a meiosis II chromosome; the answer is surprisingly soon—by late anaphase of meiosis I.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Cell Observations and Micromanipulation
Cells were observed using phase contrast microscopy. Spermatocytes were fused by using a micromanipulation needle to vigorously massage the junction between adjacent cells. If membrane tearing in one cell was repaired by membrane flow in the adjacent cell, fusion occurred. After fusion, images of cells were recorded on an optical disk recorder (#2021; Panasonic). After fusion, chromosomes were manipulated with a microneedle.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
The results were the same in all 12 experiments in six fused cells. The chromosomes invariably attached and segregated in their normal manner according to chromosome type. However, it was possible that these characteristics of chromosome behavior were impressed on the chromosome as a result of its first spindle attachment. Therefore, we also did experiments in which chromosomes that had never attached to a spindle in one meiotic division were exposed to the unexpected condition of attaching to a spindle of the other meiotic division.
A cell in late prophase of meiosis I was fused with a cell in metaphase II (Fig. 3, 0 min). After nuclear envelope breakdown of the prophase I nucleus, one of the just-condensed meiosis I chromosomes was placed near the meiosis II spindle (Fig. 3 and 60 min, arrows). The meiosis I chromosome attached to the meiosis II spindle just as it normally would to a meiosis I spindle, with each pair of sister kinetochores associating with one spindle pole (Fig. 3, 85 min, arrows); the two pairs of sister kinetochores moved to opposite poles in anaphase (Fig. 3 and 182 min, arrows). Experiments of this type performed in three fused cells yielded identical results.
|
|
Bivalents in late metaphase I cells were induced to orient with sister kinetochores facing opposite poles (a meiosis II type of attachment). This was accomplished by detaching a chromosome from the spindle and repeatedly placing it so its centromeres faced the center of the spindle (Fig. 5A, 0 min, and B, 0 min, arrows). The chromosome would eventually attach to the spindle with one kinetochore facing one pole and the sister kinetochore facing the other (Fig. 5A, 0 min, and B, 0 min, arrows). These chromosomes invariably remained at the spindle equator for a long time after anaphase onset with both kinetochores greatly stretched toward the poles (Fig. 5A, Fig. 6 min, and B, 4 min). Two of the five chromosomes observed eventually separated sister chromatids to opposite poles (Fig. 5 A, 19 min, arrows). Three of the five chromosomes observed did not separate sister chromatids to opposite poles (Fig. 5 B, 17 min, arrows). This shows that chromosomes can exhibit meiosis II attachment characteristics by late metaphase I. However, sister chromatids cannot properly separate from one another in anaphase. Separation is either delayed (Fig. 5 A) or fails completely (B). Such rigorous experiments, in which kinetochores are repeatedly detached from the spindle, might be thought to damage the kinetochores, so that movement in anaphase is abnormal. That is not the case, however. The whole bivalent was manipulated in these experiments so that both pairs of sister kinetochores (one pair on each half-bivalent) were treated equally. In four of the five experiments, only one of the two half-bivalents attached with sister kinetochores to opposite poles (Fig. 5 C, 0 min, arrow). The kinetochores of the other half-bivalent attached to the same spindle pole; they moved normally in anaphase and without delay to that spindle pole (Fig. 5 C, 27 and 32 min, arrowheads). Thus it is the form of the attachment, not the manipulation, that determines how the chromosomes behave in anaphase.
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Cohesion Release.
We found that the pattern of release of chromosome cohesion is also built into the chromosome itself. Our result differs from the single previous observation (Nicklas 1977) of a meiosis II chromosome on a meiosis I spindle, which did not separate properly in anaphase. That result was evidently due to the nonspecific stickiness sometimes seen in cultured spermatocytes. In the present nine experiments, all chromosomes separated cleanly in anaphase (e.g., Fig. 2 and Fig. 4). Also, like attachment, the pattern of cohesion release is built into the prophase chromosome: chromosomes that had not previously met with a spindle separated true to type, behaving as meiosis I (Fig. 3) or meiosis II (Fig. 4) chromosomes on the heterologous spindle.
Most revealing was the behavior of meiosis I chromosomes on a meiosis II spindle. One might easily have expected that in meiosis I cells the signal to start anaphase would be special: "release your arm cohesion only, not your centromere cohesion." Instead, what was seen was that a meiosis I chromosome released only its arm cohesion while the meiosis II chromosomes all around it were losing cohesion at the centromere. Thus, the signal to start anaphase is a generic, cell-wide signal that generates a chromosome-specific response. The molecule responsible for cohesion between centromeres of sister chromatids is not destroyed or removed from bivalents at anaphase I, even in the presence of a meiosis II cytoplasm and on a meiosis II spindle. Either this centromere cohesion molecule is masked from recognition by some chemical modification, or it is inaccessible to degradation or removal due to its position within a folded bivalent.
Candidates for the centromere cohesion molecule are now being identified. In Drosophila, Mei-S332 is essential for maintaining sister chromatid cohesion at centromeres of meiosis I and II chromosomes (Kerrebrock et al. 1992, Kerrebrock et al. 1995; Bickel et al. 1998; Tang et al. 1998). It is present at the centromeres of meiotic chromosomes until anaphase II, at which point it is either removed from the centromeres or destroyed (Moore et al. 1998). In yeast, Rec8 is required to prevent precocious sister chromatid separation in meiosis (Klein et al. 1999; Watanabe and Nurse 1999). The Rec8 molecule is not removed from the centromere region until anaphase II, even though it is removed from chromosome arms at anaphase I (Klein et al. 1999; Watanabe and Nurse 1999). Our work emphasizes the importance of this key question: how are the centromere cohesion molecules modified or masked from the chromosome separation machinery in meiosis I chromosomes so that they are not affected when nearby meiosis II chromosomes are separating at the centromere?
Timing the Changes: Chromosomes Can Attach to the Spindle in the Meiosis II Manner by Metaphase I and Can Separate in the Meiosis II Manner by Anaphase I
The ability to induce attachment to opposite poles in metaphase I is correlated with a change in kinetochore structure. In prophase I bivalents, the kinetochores are not visibly double, but by metaphase I, two sister kinetochores are evident (Müller 1972; Goldstein 1981; Lin and Church 1982). Only at this time is it possible, though with great difficulty, to induce the sister kinetochores to attach to opposite spindle poles, by repeatedly detaching chromosomes from the spindle and placing the kinetochores so that they do not face either pole directly (as in Fig. 5A and Fig. B; 0 min). Univalents (unpaired meiosis I chromosomes) behave similarly. They attach to one spindle pole or the other until metaphase I, but thereafter they frequently reattach. By late metaphase, sister kinetochores often attach to opposite poles, but, like our late metaphase I chromosomes (Fig. 5), they do not separate cleanly and lag in anaphase (e.g., Rebollo and Arana 1995; Gimenez-Abian et al. 1997). Thus, the kinetochores of meiosis I chromosomes become structurally and functionally double by metaphase of the first meiotic division, but centromere cohesion cannot be removed properly.
Remarkably, chromosomes acquire the ability to attach easily in meiosis II as early as anaphase I, and this goes hand-in-hand with the ability to separate sister centromeres cleanly (Fig. 6). The contrast with metaphase I chromosomes (Fig. 5) is striking. It is surprising that meiosis II competence is acquired in anaphase I, before any substantial chromosome decondensation. We expected that the major structural remodeling of the kinetochore and centromere necessary for meiosis II behavior would require decondensation, and then recondensation, before the second meiotic division. Despite the absence of DNA synthesis, there is an interphase-like state between the two meiotic divisions and the chromosomes do decondense. However, our results suggest that no structural rearrangements are required beyond separation of homologous chromosomes from one another in anaphase I, and a subsequent attachment to a spindle. This changes our view of the time and nature of a major step in meiosis. The new question is: what happens to kinetochores, centromeres, and cohesion molecules in the brief interval between metaphase I and anaphase I that converts a somewhat malleable meiosis I chromosome (Fig. 5) into a chromosome that flawlessly executes meiosis II behaviors (Fig. 6)? We do not know, but the close correlation in timing of the changes in kinetochore and cohesion behavior suggests that they are related. A link between the two is supported by the work of Tanaka et al. 1999. They showed that the cohesin Scc1/Mcd1 requires the presence of functional kinetochore components to associate with newly activated centromeres (Tanaka et al. 1999). In addition, Megee et al. 1999 and Megee and Koshland 1999 showed that a centromere must be present on the chromosome for cohesion to be established properly, and for proper binding of Scc1/Mcd1 to the chromosome. The relation between kinetochore behavior and chromosome cohesion was also previously suggested by Orr-Weaver 1999 and Moore and Orr-Weaver 1998. They suggested that cohesion controls kinetochore behavior such that, in meiosis I, each kinetochore's position is constrained by the cohesion molecules so that it and its sister kinetochore must together act as a single kinetochore. The converse is also possible; i.e., the status of the kinetochore may control chromosome cohesion. The kinetochore undergoes a slow maturation between prometaphase I and meiosis II, starting as a single mass, and then becoming visibly double by late metaphase I, and finally becoming functionally double by meiosis II. We suggest that the cohesion molecules may be linked to the kinetochore in such a way that the maturation of the kinetochore makes the cohesion molecules accessible for release or destruction in anaphase II. The maturation of kinetochores and growing accessibility of cohesion molecules may be simply time-dependent processes, which would explain the difference that we see between metaphase I and anaphase I chromosomes. Perhaps the metaphase I chromosomes must spend a fixed period of time in meiosis before sister chromatids can properly separate from one another in anaphase. Our anaphase I chromosomes, because they had to reattach to a new spindle and await another anaphase, spent much longer in meiosis than did the metaphase I chromosomes. Alternatively, anaphase I may be required to trigger the ultimate switch between a meiosis I and a meiosis II chromosome. Further study of the structure of the kinetochore region may give clues as to the link between the regulation of cohesion and kinetochore status.
In conclusion, the reduction of chromosome number in meiosis is explained simply by properties that are built into meiotic chromosomes. Although chromosome structural peculiarities are the immediate cause of the distinctive behavior of chromosome in meiosis, these chromosomal properties must arise from earlier events in the differentiation of meiotic cells. The challenge for the future is to understand how the features of chromosome organization that distinguish chromosomes in the two meiotic divisions arise as a product of cell differentiation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This investigation was supported in part by grant GM-13745 from the Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Institutes of Health.
Submitted: 9 June 2000
Revised: 9 August 2000
Accepted: 11 August 2000
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Bickel S.E. Moore D.P. Lai C. Orr-Weaver T.L. Genetic interactions between mei-S332 and ord in the control of sister-chromatid cohesion, Genetics, 150, 1998, 1467–1476.
Bickel S.E. Orr-Weaver T.L.. Holding chromatids together to ensure they go their separate ways, Bioessays, 18, 1996, 293–300.[Medline]
Gimenez-Abian J.F. Clarke D.J. Garcia de la Vega C. Gimenez-Martin G.. The role of sister chromatid cohesiveness and structure in meiotic behaviour, Chromosoma, 106, 1997, 422–434.[Medline]
Goldstein L.S.. Kinetochore structure and its role in chromosome orientation during the first meiotic division in male D. melanogaster, Cell, 25, 1981, 591–602.[Medline]
Kerrebrock A.W. Miyazaki W.Y. Birnby D. Orr-Weaver T.L.. The Drosophila mei-s332 gene promotes sister-chromatid cohesion in meiosis following kinetochore differentiation, Genetics, 130, 1992, 827–841.[Abstract]
Kerrebrock A.W. Moore D.P. Wu J.S. Orr-Weaver T.L.. Mei-S332, a Drosophila protein required for sister-chromatid cohesion, can localize to meiotic centromere regions, Cell, 83, 1995, 247–256.[Medline]
Klein F. Mahr P. Galova M. Buonomo S.B. Michaelis C. Nairz K. Nasmyth K.. A central role for cohesins in sister chromatid cohesion, formation of axial elements, and recombination during yeast meiosis, Cell, 98, 1999, 91–103.[Medline]
Lima-de-Faria A.. Recent advances in the study of the kinetochore, Int. Rev. Cytol., 7, 1958, 123–157.
Lin H.P. Church K.. Meiosis in Drosophila melanogaster. III. The effect of orientation disruptor (ord) on gonial mitotic and the meiotic divisions in males, Genetics., 102, 1982, 751–770.
Megee P.C. Koshland D.. A functional assay for centromere-associated sister chromatid cohesion, Science., 285, 1999, 254–257.
Megee P.C. Mistrot C. Guacci V. Koshland D.. The centromeric sister chromatid cohesion site directs Mcd1 binding to adjacent sequences, Mol. Cell., 4, 1999, 445–450.[Medline]
Miyazaki W.Y. Orr-Weaver T.L.. Sister-chromatid cohesion in mitosis and meiosis, Annu. Rev. Genet, 28, 1994, 167–187.[Medline]
Moore D.P. Orr-Weaver T.L.. Chromosome segregation during meiosisbuilding an unambivalent bivalent, Curr. Top. Dev. Biol, 37, 1998, 263–299.[Medline]
Moore D.P. Page A.W. Tang T.T. Kerrebrock A.W. Orr-Weaver T.L.. The cohesion protein MEI-S332 localizes to condensed meiotic and mitotic centromeres until sister chromatids separate, J. Cell. Biol, 140, 1998, 1003–1012.
Müller W.. Elektronenmikroskopische Untersuchungen zum Formwechsel der Kinetochoren während der Spermatocytenteilungen von Pales ferruginea (Nematocera), Chromosoma, 38, 1972, 139–172.[Medline]
Nicklas R.B.. Chromosome distributionexperiments on cell hybrids and in vitro, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci, 277, 1977, 267–276.[Medline]
Nicklas R.B. Kubai D.F.. Microtubules, chromosome movement, and reorientation after chromosomes are detached from the spindle by micromanipulation, Chromosoma, 92, 1985, 313–324.[Medline]
Nicklas R.B. Kubai D.F. Hays T.S.. Spindle microtubules and their mechanical associations after micromanipulation in anaphase, J. Cell Biol, 95, 1982, 91–104.
Orr-Weaver T.L.. The ties that bindlocalization of the sister-chromatid cohesin complex on yeast chromosomes, Cell, 99, 1999, 1–4.[Medline]
Rebollo E. Arana P.. A comparative study of orientation at behavior of univalent in living grasshopper spermatocytes, Chromosoma, 104, 1995, 56–67.[Medline]
Suja J.A. Antonio C. Rufas J.S.. Involvement of chromatid cohesiveness at the centromere and chromosome arms in meiotic chromosome segregationa cytological approach, Chromosoma, 101, 1992, 493–501.[Medline]
Tanaka T. Cosma M.P. Wirth K. Nasmyth K.. Identification of cohesin association sites at centromeres and along chromosome arms, Cell, 98, 1999, 847–858.[Medline]
Tang T.T.L. Bickel S.E. Young L.M. Orr-Weaver T.L.. Maintenance of sister-chromatid cohesion at the centromere by the Drosophila MEI-S332 protein, Genes Dev, 12, 1998, 3843–3856.
Watanabe Y. Nurse P.. Cohesin Rec8 is required for reductional chromosome segregation at meiosis, Nature., 400, 1999, 461–464.[Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
