Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2023 Feb 27;12:e79408. doi: 10.7554/eLife.79408

Coarsening dynamics can explain meiotic crossover patterning in both the presence and absence of the synaptonemal complex

John A Fozard 1, Chris Morgan 2,, Martin Howard 1,
Editors: Akira Shinohara3, Detlef Weigel4
PMCID: PMC10036115  PMID: 36847348

Abstract

The shuffling of genetic material facilitated by meiotic crossovers is a critical driver of genetic variation. Therefore, the number and positions of crossover events must be carefully controlled. In Arabidopsis, an obligate crossover and repression of nearby crossovers on each chromosome pair are abolished in mutants that lack the synaptonemal complex (SC), a conserved protein scaffold. We use mathematical modelling and quantitative super-resolution microscopy to explore and mechanistically explain meiotic crossover pattering in Arabidopsis lines with full, incomplete, or abolished synapsis. For zyp1 mutants, which lack an SC, we develop a coarsening model in which crossover precursors globally compete for a limited pool of the pro-crossover factor HEI10, with dynamic HEI10 exchange mediated through the nucleoplasm. We demonstrate that this model is capable of quantitatively reproducing and predicting zyp1 experimental crossover patterning and HEI10 foci intensity data. Additionally, we find that a model combining both SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening can explain crossover patterning in wild-type Arabidopsis and in pch2 mutants, which display partial synapsis. Together, our results reveal that regulation of crossover patterning in wild-type Arabidopsis and SC-defective mutants likely acts through the same underlying coarsening mechanism, differing only in the spatial compartments through which the pro-crossover factor diffuses.

Research organism: A. thaliana

Introduction

During meiotic prophase I, pairs of threadlike homologous chromosomes are tethered together through the formation of a protein scaffold called the synaptonemal complex (SC) (Page and Hawley, 2004). Prior to SC formation, programmed double-strand breaks (DSBs) form along the length of the chromosomal DNA (Gray and Cohen, 2016; Hunter, 2015). DSBs are then repaired via the formation of recombination intermediate (RI) DNA joint-molecules as either non-crossovers (NCOs) or crossovers (COs) (Gray and Cohen, 2016; Hunter, 2015). In most species, the number of RIs repaired as NCOs vastly outnumbers those repaired as COs (Gray and Cohen, 2016; Hunter, 2015). Importantly, nearby pairs of COs on the same chromosome are less likely to occur than more distant pairs, but each pair of chromosomes always receives at least one CO. These phenomena are known as ‘crossover interference’ and ‘crossover assurance’, respectively (Jones and Franklin, 2006; Otto and Payseur, 2019; Sturtevant, 1915; von Diezmann and Rog, 2021; Zickler and Kleckner, 2016).

Recently, we introduced a mechanistic coarsening model that quantitatively explains CO interference, CO assurance, and other CO patterning features in wild-type Arabidopsis thaliana (Morgan et al., 2021). In our SC-mediated coarsening model, the pro-CO protein HEI10 (Chelysheva et al., 2012; Ziolkowski et al., 2017) can diffuse along synapsed homolog bivalents and can reversibly bind into immobile clusters at RI sites. Conservation of the total amount of HEI10 on individual bivalents, along with an unbinding escape rate from RIs that decreases as more HEI10 locally accumulates, causes the system to coarsen. By the end of the pachytene substage of prophase I, significant amounts of HEI10 are retained at only a small number of predominantly distantly spaced RIs, each with high levels of HEI10, which are then designated to become COs (Morgan et al., 2021). A similar model was subsequently proposed to underlie CO patterning in Caenorhabditis elegans (Zhang et al., 2021), suggesting that this molecular coarsening paradigm represents a conserved feature of meiotic CO control.

The coarsening model fundamentally relies on the retention of HEI10 molecules on synapsed bivalent chromosomes, and redistribution of HEI10 molecules by diffusion along the bivalents. Work in C. elegans points to the SC acting as a conduit, or channel, through which HEI10 molecules can diffuse, promoting coarsening along individual bivalents. Consistently, in C. elegans, the SC is known to have liquid-crystal-like properties that can spatially compartmentalise pro-CO proteins (Rog et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Furthermore, innovative live-cell imaging experiments have recently directly demonstrated that ZHP-3, a HEI10 ortholog, can diffuse along the SC (Stauffer et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). In Arabidopsis, it was also recently shown that CO interference and assurance are abolished in plants lacking the SC transverse filament protein, ZYP1 (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; France et al., 2021). These observations suggest that the SC plays a direct role in mediating crossover patterning dynamics.

In this work, we therefore develop a new coarsening model for crossover interference in the absence of an SC and use it to explore the regulation of crossover number and position in Arabidopsis zyp1 mutants with abolished synapsis. In this new model, due to the lack of an SC, HEI10 molecules are no longer restricted to diffuse along individual bivalents. Instead, HEI10 is assumed to diffuse through a communal nucleoplasm, generating competition for HEI10 between RIs located on different bivalents. Similarly, in C. elegans, it has previously been suggested that the SC functions to prevent exchange of recombination proteins between RIs via the nucleoplasm (Rog et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). Other studies have also recently proposed that nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening can explain CO patterning in Arabidopsis mutants with abolished synapsis, although the dynamics of this process have not been explicitly modelled (Durand et al., 2022; Lloyd, 2023). Using our model, we provide a mechanistic explanation for why zyp1 mutants without synapsis lose both CO interference and assurance. Intriguingly, we also reveal and explain an additional layer of crossover control, where zyp1 mutants lose positional effects that are determined by CO interference along individual chromosome pairs, but still exhibit constraints on total crossover number per-cell. Importantly, we also find that a model combining nucleoplasm-mediated and SC-mediated coarsening is still fully capable of explaining CO patterning in wild-type Arabidopsis, as well as in pch2 mutants, which display incomplete synapsis (Lambing et al., 2015). Overall, our results demonstrate a critical role for the SC in controlling and constraining the dynamic coarsening of HEI10 molecules.

Results

A nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model for crossover patterning without the SC

The SC likely acts as a conduit for HEI10 diffusion along synapsed pachytene bivalents (Morgan et al., 2021; Rog et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). Without an SC, we postulated that HEI10 diffusion could instead occur through the nucleoplasm, with little or no movement along chromosomes, as has also previously been suggested from work in C. elegans (Zhang et al., 2021). We therefore investigated this hypothesis by developing a new coarsening model for crossover interference without an SC. This ‘nucleoplasmic coarsening’ model incorporates the processes shown in Figure 1A and B on the five pairs of homologous chromosomes in each cell, whose lengths are drawn from the experimentally measured length distributions, and with randomly positioned RIs (‘Materials and methods’).

Figure 1. Mathematical model for HEI10 dynamics in a zyp1 synaptonemal complex (SC) mutant.

(A) Each cell contains Q = 5 chromosome pairs (purple line pairs). Recombination intermediates (RIs) (yellow stars) are placed randomly along the chromosome pairs immersed in the nucleoplasm (P). (B) HEI10 (red) is able to move from the nucleoplasmic pool into the RI compartments (rate α) and escape (rate β) from the RI compartments back into the pool. Cq,n is the HEI10 molecule number at the nth RI on the qth chromosome pair, which has length Lq. (C) Differential equations governing nucleoplasmic pool (P) and RI HEI10 (C) amounts, together with functional form of escape rate function βC, sigmoidal smoothing function Hs(s), and initial conditions for RI and nucleoplasmic HEI10 amounts. This sigmoidal smoothing function effectively switches off nucleoplasmic recycling for RIs with insufficient HEI10, without introducing a discontinuity in the system of equations, which would complicate numerical simulation. NT is a Normal distribution, truncated at 3 standard deviations away from its mean. (D) Graph showing RI escape rate function βC. (E) Default simulation parameter values. (F) Form of end-bias function f. (G) Description of terms appearing in model equations.

Figure 1—source data 1. Default simulation parameter values for nucleoplasmic coarsening model.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Form of end-bias function f from nucleoplasmic coarsening model (Figure 1F) and from the synaptonemal complex (SC)-mediated coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021).

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

Note that the extra HEI10 loading in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model (up to 25% on the most distal 60% of each chromosome pair) is lower and more spread than that used in the SC-mediated coarsening model (up to 100% on the most distal 20%). Here, x/L is relative position along chromosome pair, with xe = 0.3 (left) and xe = 0.1 (right), specifying starting position of end bias, where fe = 1.25 (left) and fe = 2 (right).

In this model, HEI10 is able to move from the nucleoplasmic pool to the HEI10 clusters at each of the RIs. It can also escape from the RI clusters back into the nucleoplasmic pool, at a rate which depends on the amount of HEI10 within that RI cluster. Similar to previous work (Morgan et al., 2021), this rate is chosen to have the form shown in Figure 1C and D, decreasing as the amount of HEI10 within the RI compartment increases. Again, as in our earlier model (Morgan et al., 2021), if the total amount of HEI10 is sufficiently high then a uniform steady state becomes unstable and the system progressively coarsens, with RIs with more HEI10 growing at the expense of those with less. Eventually, the majority of the HEI10 will accumulate into a single focus per cell, but the limited duration of pachytene means that this process does not complete, and instead there are a number of RIs with significant levels of HEI10 at the end of the simulation. Full details of the simulated model can be found in Figure 1A–G and ‘Materials and methods’, including minor differences in how the model was simulated (in the initial distribution of HEI10, dynamics at small HEI10 foci and criteria for HEI10 focus/CO calling) compared to our earlier work (Morgan et al., 2021).

Nucleoplasmic coarsening model explains CO number distribution in zyp1 mutants

To determine whether the nucleoplasmic coarsening model was capable of explaining CO patterning in Arabidopsis mutants without synapsis, we first manually adjusted model parameter values to fit simulation outputs to existing experimental data on CO frequency from Arabidopsis zyp1a zyp1b null mutants, which lack an SC. These data include total CO number and number of homologs without a CO (Figure 2A and B).

Figure 2. Analysis of crossover (CO) number in zyp1 mutant.

(A, B) Experimental data from zyp1 null mutant plants (top) and nucleoplasmic coarsening model simulations (bottom). Results from simulating the model for 10,000 cells are shown. (A) Distribution of total CO number per cell. Experimental data is from pooled MLH1 foci counts from Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021. Sample mean (µ), estimated variance (S2), and sample size (N) inset. Green dots (joined by a line) show a Poisson distribution with the same mean. (B) Distribution of univalent number per cell. Experimental data is from univalent counts in metaphase I chromosomes from Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021. Again data from 10,000 simulated cells. (C) Simulation outputs showing the distribution of total CO numbers on the five individual chromosomes pairs. Green dots and lines again show Poisson distributions with same means as simulated data, with sample mean (µ) and estimated variance (S2) inset. Chromosome mean lengths (μi) and standard deviations (σi) shown above each histogram. Simulation output from 10,000 cells. (D) Traces of HEI10 focus intensity against time, for all recombination intermediates (RIs) within a single simulated cell. Coloured lines indicate HEI10 amounts at each RI, in arbitrary units (a.u.). All simulation parameters are listed in Figure 1E.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. zyp1 total crossover (CO) number per cell simulation without nonuniform initial loading.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

zyp1 nucleoplasmic coarsening model simulation showing the distribution of total CO number per cell, where the model has uniform initial loading (no end bias). Results from simulating the model for 10,000 cells are shown. Sample mean (µ) and estimated variance (S2) inset. Green dots (joined by a line) show a Poisson distribution with the same mean.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. zyp1+HEI10 over-expression total crossover (CO) number per cell.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(A) Experimental distribution of total CO number per cell. Experimental data is from MLH1 foci counts from Durand et al., 2022. Sample mean (µ), estimated variance (S2), and sample size (N) inset. (B, C) zyp1+HEI10 over-expression nucleoplasmic coarsening model simulation outputs showing the distribution of total CO number per cell. Results shown from simulating the model for 10,000 cells with the same relative noise level as in the zyp1 mutant (σF = 263) (B) and with (C) additional noise in cellular HEI10 levels (σF = 862). Sample mean (µ) and estimated variance (S2) inset. Green dots (joined by a line) show a Poisson distribution with the same mean.

By counting the number of MLH1 foci in late-prophase I cells in seven different Col-0 zyp1 null mutant lines, it was previously found that there was an ~50% increase in the predominant class I COs in these mutants compared with wild-type (data from Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021, shown in Figure 2A). Also, by analysing DAPI-stained metaphase I cells, it was found that ~11% of metaphase I cells contained a pair of univalent chromosomes, which form when homologs fail to form a single CO, indicating an absence of CO assurance (data from Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021, shown in Figure 2B). Importantly, we found that the nucleoplasmic coarsening model was capable of recapitulating the increase in CO number and the increased univalent frequency observed in zyp1 mutants (Figure 2A and B). The number of COs per cell was slightly less dispersed, with a lower sample variance, within our model than in the experimental data. This reduction is likely because the experimental data is pooled from multiple different mutant lines, each of which has a slightly different mean number of COs per cell, thereby generating a broader distribution (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021). The expected frequency of univalents is also slightly higher in our simulation outputs than in the experimental data, but this is again expected as chiasma number in metaphase I cells (that were used for the experimental analysis) are influenced by both class I and class II CO numbers, whereas the nucleoplasmic coarsening model only simulates CO patterning via the (dominant) class I pathway. Assuming approximately two additional class II COs per cell (Mercier et al., 2005) are distributed randomly among the five chromosome pairs, in a simple estimation we would expect the univalent frequency in our model output to be reduced by a factor of (0.8)2 = 0.64 (from 19% of cells to 12% of cells containing one or more univalent). However, univalents are more likely to be associated with the shorter chromosomes as they have fewer RIs. This was recently experimentally demonstrated, with chromosome 4 (the shortest Arabidopsis chromosome) exhibiting the highest frequency of aneuploidy in zyp1 mutants (Durand et al., 2022). This effect slightly reduces how much the addition of class II crossovers decreases the frequency of cells with one or more univalent. In our simulations, we thus find a value of ~13%, similar to but slightly higher than previous observations (~11%) (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021).

Using the nucleoplasmic coarsening model, we were also able to simulate the distribution of crossovers on each of the five Arabidopsis chromosomes (Figure 2C). Consistent with previous genetic analyses, we found that the average number of crossovers per chromosome pair is positively correlated with their physical size (Durand et al., 2022). We also found that the distribution of the number of crossovers on each chromosome is close to a Poisson distribution, with nearly equal mean and variance. Processes that occur at a constant probability per unit space or time, when integrated over a fixed interval, have a Poisson distribution (Haldane, 1931). Hence, as expected, CO interference along each chromosome is not present in this model. These findings are consistent with a previous genetic analysis, which found that the distribution of CO numbers on individual chromosomes did not deviate from a Poisson distribution (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021).

Paradoxically, while the distribution of CO numbers on individual chromosomes in our simulations closely followed a Poisson distribution, the total number of COs per cell did not. Applying a test for underdispersion (Cameron and Trivedi, 1990), the distribution of simulated CO numbers was found to be significantly underdispersed relative to a Poisson distribution (z = −276.85, p<0.001, see also Figure 2A). Compellingly, we found that a sub-Poissonian distribution of total CO numbers per cell was also found in the experimental data from Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; Figure 2A; test for underdispersion z = −6.5757, p<0.001, although this experimental underdispersion was not previously highlighted. In the model, the total number of crossovers in each cell is regulated through global competition for a limited pool of HEI10. This, combined with regulation of cell-to-cell total HEI10 amounts (‘Materials and methods’), leads to underdispersion despite the fact that there is little or no control on the number of crossovers on each chromosome pair. This underdispersion persists in the model even with altered initial conditions (eliminating non-uniform initial HEI10 loading, ‘Materials and methods’, Figure 2—figure supplement 1).

We also found that the coarsening dynamics within the nucleoplasmic coarsening model were capable of producing the experimentally observed final CO numbers within the limited ~10 hr duration of the pachytene substage of prophase I in Arabidopsis (Prusicki et al., 2019; Figure 2D). Overall, we find that the nucleoplasmic coarsening model fits well with prior data on CO numbers in SC mutants, giving strong support to the hypothesis of nucleoplasmic HEI10 exchange.

Nucleoplasmic coarsening model explains CO number distribution in zyp1 HEI10 over-expressing mutants

To further test the ability of the nucleoplasmic coarsening model to explain CO patterning in mutants without synapsis, we also sought to fit the model to recent experimental data examining the combined effect of zyp1 loss of function and HEI10 over-expression (Durand et al., 2022). Again, by counting the number of MLH1 foci in late-prophase cells, it was found that combining the zyp1 mutation with HEI10 over-expression leads to an average of 45.0 (σ2 = 64) class I COs per cell in male Col-0 meiocytes (Durand et al., 2022; Figure 2—figure supplement 2A). This represents an increase in class I COs to approximately 3.5 times the number in wild-type. Unlike in the sole zyp1 mutant, there was no evidence of a sub-Poissonian distribution of COs per cell within the zyp1+HEI10 over-expression lines (test for underdispersion; z = 1.0843, p=0.86).

Increasing the total HEI10 within our nucleoplasmic coarsening model to 3.5 times its original amount (applied to both the mean and standard-deviation of the distribution of total cellular HEI10) gave approximately the same increase in CO number (to mean CO number 47.4, shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 2B), but did not generate the observed increase in variance (σ2 = 14), which was significantly smaller than the experimental observations (Levene’s test for equality of variances F(1,10034) = 68.602, p<0.001). To obtain increased variance in CO number, we increased the standard deviation in the total cellular HEI10 levels, increasing by approximately an order of magnitude (‘Materials and methods’). With this additional noise, which we attribute to presence of the HEI10 transgene, we were able to recapitulate this experimentally observed increase in CO number and variance, with simulation outputs giving an average of 46.9 COs per cell (σ2 = 63, shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 2C), this variance not being significantly different (F(1,10034) = 0.0982, p=0.754).

Super-resolution imaging of HEI10 in SC-defective zyp1 mutant cells

As described above, previous studies have used HEI10 and MLH1 focus counts per cell, alongside genetic analyses, to examine the effects of SC absence on CO frequency in Arabidopsis. However, the material positioning of recombination sites (in units of microns) along prophase I chromosomes has not yet been cytologically investigated in zyp1 mutants. This is particularly important because, as argued in Zickler and Kleckner, 2016, the optimal metric for measuring CO interference is microns of axis length. Additionally, as shown previously, correlations between HEI10 focal intensity and foci number or position can be detected that provide strong experimental support for the coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021).

We therefore used super-resolution microscopy and a bespoke image analysis pipeline to quantify the position and intensity of late-HEI10 foci (that are known to mark the positions of class I COs; Chelysheva et al., 2012), along late-prophase I chromosomes in wild-type and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 SC null mutant lines (previously characterised in France et al., 2021; Figure 3A and B). Late-prophase I cells from wild-type and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 plants were stained for the cohesin component SMC3 (Lam et al., 2005), and HEI10 (Chelysheva et al., 2012), which label the meiotic axis and putative CO sites, respectively, and imaged using 3D-SIM microscopy. In total, we imaged 10 cells from 4 wild-type plants and 14 cells from 4 zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 plants, which provided sufficient data to quantitatively compare with model simulations. By tracing along the linear SMC3 signals, using the SNT plugin to FIJI (Arshadi et al., 2021), we were able to segment the 10 axial elements in each cell (Figure 3A and B, top-right panels). In accordance with previous studies, we found that axial elements of homologous chromosomes were tightly juxtaposed along their entire lengths in wild-type cells, whilst in the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line the axes were only loosely paired along their lengths (Figure 3A and B, bottom rows), with the majority of HEI10 foci being clearly located between the two homologous axes at an equivalent position along their length (Figure 3A and B, right-hand boxes; Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; France et al., 2021). Once the paths of segmented axes had been extracted from the images, we were then able to use an automated image analysis pipeline to assign HEI10 foci to specific positions along individual axes based on their local proximity to those regions (‘Materials and methods’). Additionally, 3D-SIM analysis of early pachytene cells in both the wild-type and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 lines revealed a greater number of less bright HEI10 foci than were observed in late-prophase I cells, which was consistent with expectations (Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Figure 3. 3D-SIM imaging of late-prophase I cells.

Maximum intensity projections of 3D image stacks from wild-type (A) and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 mutants (B), labelled for SMC3 (green) and HEI10 (red) (scale bars = 5 µm). 3D models of segmented axial elements (with each chromosome axis labelled in a different colour), generated using the SNT plugin to FIJI, are also shown. Each nucleus contains five pairs of axes (bottom row, A, B), with individual axes in each pair having equivalent lengths and pairing tightly (A) or roughly (B) in 3D space. Zoomed-in regions (right-hand panels) from merged images (yellow dashed boxes) show the localisation of late-HEI10 foci between closely paired axes (scale bars = 0.2 µm).

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. 3D-SIM imaging of early pachytene cells.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Maximum intensity projections of 3D image stacks from wild-type (A) and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 mutants (B), labelled for HEI10 (red), SMC3 (green) and DAPI (blue). Scale bars = 5 µm.

Nucleoplasmic coarsening model successfully predicts HEI10 foci patterning and intensities in zyp1 mutants

Using the experimental cytology and image analysis described above, we were able to construct cytological late-HEI10 foci maps from both wild-type and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 SC null mutant plants (Figure 4A). In the wild-type, we found an average of 9.0 late-HEI10 foci per cell, while in the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line we found an average of 18.7 late-HEI10 foci per cell, which was broadly consistent with previous cytological analyses of CO numbers in similar lines (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; France et al., 2021).

Figure 4. Analysis of late-HEI10 focus patterning and intensity data in wild-type and zyp1 mutant.

(A–C) Experimental data from wild-type plants (left), zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 plants (middle), and from nucleoplasmic coarsening model simulation outputs (right). Model outputs from simulating 10,000 cells are shown. (A) Late-HEI10 focus positions along chromosome pairs, relative to the length of the chromosome pair. Experimental data are replicated and made symmetric about chromosome midpoints (N = 161,322 simulated foci). (B) Distribution of spacing between adjacent late-HEI10 foci, in µm (N = 113,278 simulated spaces between foci). (C) Violin plots of late-HEI10 foci intensities against the number of late-HEI10 foci on that chromosome pair. Focus intensities are relative to the mean intensity of all (on-chromosome) HEI10 foci within the same cell. Red lines show simple linear regression best fits, treating the number of foci on the chromosome as a continuous independent variable. For wild-type plants, slope = –0.1944, R2 = 0.188, F(1,88) = 20.36, p<0.001. For zyp1 mutant plants, slope = 0.0028, R2 < 0.001, F(1,260) = 0.04538, p=0.831. For simulated data, slope = 0.0004, R2 < 0.001, F(1,161320) = 0.7838, p=0.376. Simulation parameters are again as listed in Figure 1E, with simulated data from 10,000 cells (50,000 chromosome pairs).

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. A combined synaptonemal complex (SC)- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(A) Schematic representation of the combined coarsening model. (B) HEI10 (red) is able to move from the nucleoplasmic pool into the recombination intermediate (RI) compartments (rate α), and escape (rate β) from the RI compartments back into the nucleoplasm. HEI10 can also move from SC compartments into the RI compartments (rate α^) and escape back onto the SC (rate β^). HEI10 on the SC has concentration cq(x,t) , and is able to diffuse along the SC with one-dimensional diffusion coefficient D. Cq,n is the HEI10 molecule number at the nth RI on the qth chromosome pair, which has length Lq. (C) Differential equations and initial/boundary conditions governing simulations. (D) Default simulation parameter values for various scenarios: WT, original SC-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters (as implemented in ‘Materials and methods’), WT+nuc, combined SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters. (E) Description of terms appearing in model equations.
Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Default simulation parameter values for various scenarios: WT, original synaptonemal complex (SC)-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters (as implemented in ‘Materials and methods’), WT+nuc, combined SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters.
Figure 4—figure supplement 2. The combined synaptonemal complex (SC)- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model can explain crossover patterning in wild-type and HEI10 over-expressor lines.

Figure 4—figure supplement 2.

Columns show simulated results from the original SC-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters (WT, as implemented in ‘Materials and methods’), the combined SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters (WT+nuc), the original SC-mediated coarsening model with HEI10 over-expressor parameters (OX, as implemented in ‘Materials and methods’), and the combined SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model with HEI10 over-expressor parameters (OX+nuc). Results from simulating the model for 1000 cells are shown. Above simulations of WT and OX cases agree well with previously published experimental data (Morgan et al., 2021). Number of late-HEI10 foci per cell, green dots (joined by a line) show a Poisson distribution with the same mean, (A), number of late-HEI10 foci per SC (5000 simulated SC), (B), sample mean (µ) and estimated variance (S2) inset (A, B), spacing between successive late-HEI10 foci (C), relative positions of late-HEI10 foci along SC (D), relative positions of single late-HEI10 foci (WT, WT+nuc) and double late-HEI10 foci (OX, OX+nuc) (E), and relative positions of double late-HEI10 foci (WT, WT+nuc) and triple late-HEI10 foci (OX, OX+nuc) (F). Parameters are as listed in Figure 4—figure supplement 1D, with parameters μF and σF controlling initial cellular HEI10 levels increased to 4.5× the WT values in the HEI10 over-expressor simulations.

When analysing the relative distribution of all late-HEI10 foci along chromosome pairs, we found that in the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line the distribution of late-HEI10 foci was shifted towards more distal positions, nearer the chromosome ends, when compared with the wild-type, which was also consistent with previous genetic analysis of zyp1 null mutants (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; Figure 4A). Importantly, nucleoplasmic coarsening model fits were capable of recapitulating this distribution, with a preference for forming COs in more distal regions (Figure 4A). Such increases are a direct consequence of the additional initial HEI10 loading applied to RIs near chromosome ends (Figure 1F), which was a parameter that was included to improve the fit in the original coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021). Without the inclusion of this parameter, we would expect a flat distribution with no preference for forming COs in more distal regions. Note that the extra loading here (up to 25% on the most distal 60% of each chromosome pair) is lower and more spread than that used in the original model (up to 100% on the most distal 20%) (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). The increased end loading of HEI10 was included in the original model because the dynamics of SC-mediated coarsening naturally decrease the likelihood of RIs close to chromosome ends forming COs. As there is an absence of SC-mediated coarsening in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model, each RI is equally capable of forming a CO regardless of its position. Thus, even though there is less pronounced HEI10 end loading in our nucleoplasmic coarsening model compared with our original model (25% vs. 100%), this lower end-bias still causes a relative increase in distally positioned COs under nucleoplasmic coarsening conditions compared with SC-mediated coarsening conditions. In the original coarsening model, we hypothesised this end bias results from preferential synapsis near the chromosome ends. In the absence of an SC, there is obviously no synapsis, which explains why the amount of end loading required within our nucleoplasmic-coarsening simulations is lower. However, the preferential pairing of telomeres (to form the meiotic bouquet) (Varas et al., 2015), which presumably still happens in the absence of an SC, may explain why a smaller end bias for HEI10 loading persists.

We also examined the spacing between adjacent late-HEI10 foci on the same chromosome pair. In the wild-type, we found a scarcity of closely spaced crossovers, with a greater frequency of distantly spaced COs, reflecting the action of CO interference (Figure 4B). This was consistent with our previous analysis of wild-type CO patterning (albeit noisier due to the smaller sample size in this study) (Morgan et al., 2021). In the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line, however, we found a very high frequency of closely spaced crossovers, with a diminishing number of distantly spaced COs (Figure 4B). This behaviour reflects an absence of CO interference and provides strong cytological support for previous conclusions drawn from genetic experiments in zyp1 null mutants (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021). In this instance, the nucleoplasmic coarsening model was fully capable of predicting this pattern of closely spaced COs, without additional parameterisation, validating the model and reflecting an absence of CO interference (Figure 4B). Note that we use the term ‘predicting’ here and below to define instances where the model simulations were capable of explaining data that was not used to explicitly fit the model.

In addition to the late-HEI10 focus positioning data, we were also able to extract fluorescence intensity measurements from each HEI10 focus in our imaging data. In wild-type Arabidopsis, we previously showed that the normalised intensity of individual late HEI10 foci is negatively correlated with the number of foci per bivalent, which is consistent with an SC-mediated coarsening process (Morgan et al., 2021). Here, we again identified such a correlation in wild-type plants (Figure 4C). However, we did not find such a negative correlation in zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 mutants (Figure 4C). This would be expected from a nucleoplasmic coarsening model as, in this scenario, HEI10 is equally capable of diffusing through the nucleoplasm from any one RI to any other RI, regardless of whether the other RI is located on the same chromosome pair or a different chromosome pair (see Figure 1A and B). Indeed, simulations of the nucleoplasmic coarsening model again predicted these findings without the need for additional parameterisation and produced comparable results to the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line (Figure 4C).

Combining synaptonemal complex- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening models

Although it appears likely that the SC acts as a conduit to promote HEI10 diffusion (Morgan et al., 2021; Rog et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018), it remains unclear whether, in wild-type cells, the SC is capable of irreversibly compartmentalising the diffusion of HEI10, such that there is little or no recycling of SC-bound HEI10 back into the nucleoplasm. To address this question, we sought to combine our original SC-mediated coarsening model, which assumes there is no recycling of SC-bound HEI10 molecules back into the nucleoplasm (Morgan et al., 2021), with the nucleoplasmic coarsening model (‘Materials and methods’, Figure 4—figure supplement 1). We then tested whether this combined model was still capable of robustly reproducing the experimental CO patterning results we previously obtained from wild-type and HEI10 over-expressing Arabidopsis (Morgan et al., 2021; Figure 4—figure supplement 2).

We used a combined version of the coarsening model, where the rates of absorption and escape between the RI and the SC were set to be 90% of those in the original SC-mediated coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021), and the exchange rates between the RI and nucleoplasm were set to be 10% of those in the above nucleoplasmic coarsening model. We found that this combined model was still fully capable of explaining the CO number and CO spacing distributions previously observed in wild-type Arabidopsis (Figure 4—figure supplement 2). Importantly, with this combined coarsening ratio, we still observed only a very small proportion (<0.2%) of bivalents with zero COs forming in our simulations and, hence, CO assurance is retained. This analysis demonstrates that a scenario where the SC preferentially promotes retention and diffusion of HEI10 along the SC, but without completely blocking HEI10 exchange between the SC and nucleoplasm, is still fully compatible with the coarsening model for CO patterning. Additionally, by increasing total HEI10 concentration (both along the SC and at RIs) within our combined coarsening model simulations by 4.5-fold, we were able the reproduce CO number and CO spacing results previously obtained from HEI10 over-expressor lines (Figure 4—figure supplement 2; Morgan et al., 2021).

The combined coarsening model explains CO patterning in mutants with partial synapsis

As well as investigating coarsening in wild-type plants, HEI10 over-expressors and in mutants that completely lack an SC, we also sought to determine whether the combined coarsening model could explain CO patterning in mutants that exhibit partial, but incomplete, synapsis. In Arabidopsis, closely spaced crossovers have been observed in a number of mutants that exhibit partial synapsis, such as axr1, pss1, and asy1 (Duroc et al., 2014; Jahns et al., 2014; Lambing et al., 2020; Pochon et al., 2022). Intuitively, this common observation could be explained by the coarsening model. In the presence of partial synapsis, the HEI10 protein would still preferentially load and diffuse along the SC, similar to the wild-type situation. However, as the total length of SC available for HEI10 loading would be less than wild-type, but the total nuclear concentration of HEI10 protein would presumably be the same as wild-type, we anticipate that a higher concentration of HEI10 would be loaded per micron of SC length. This situation is then similar to that found in a HEI10 over-expressor line, which has a greater frequency of closely-spaced COs than wild-type, as previously explained by the coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021).

To test this theory, we investigated the patterning of late-HEI10 foci in an Arabidopsis pch2 mutant. PCH2 is a conserved AAA+ATPase, with many known meiotic functions (Bhalla, 2023; Lambing et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2020). In Arabidopsis, loss of PCH2 has been shown to compromise SC polymerisation, generating a greater number of closely spaced COs, with no known effect on meiotic DSB number (Lambing et al., 2015). Once again, we used 3D-SIM microscopy to assess and quantitatively evaluate the positions of HEI10 foci in late-pachytene pch2-1 mutants (Figure 5A). In total, we imaged 39 cells from three pch2-1 plants. We found that late-HEI10 foci in pch2-1 mutants were exclusively associated with the short SC segments that form. On average, pch2-1 cells contained 14 (std. dev. ± 3) SC segments with an average length of 5.1 (std. dev. ± 4.4) µm. We therefore mapped the position of HEI10 foci along these short SC segments using our bespoke image analysis pipeline and quantified the number and position of late-HEI10 per SC segment within each nucleus (Figure 5B–F, left-hand plots). We detected 11.1 (σ2 = 3.2) late-HEI10 foci per cell (Figure 5B), with an average of 0.79 (σ2 = 0.48) late-HEI10 foci per SC segment (Figure 5C). We also found that all late-HEI10 foci were reasonably evenly distributed along SC segments (Figure 5D) and closely spaced late-HEI10 foci were frequently detected (Figure 5E). Also, the longer SC segments tended to have more late-HEI10 foci (Figure 5F), and the relative intensity of single late-HEI10 foci (i.e. foci on SC segments that possess only a single focus) was positively correlated with SC segment length (Figure 5G). The maximum length of an SC segment with zero late-HEI10 foci within our experimental sample was 9.6 µm, suggesting that ~10 µm is the minimum SC segment length required for CO assurance in pch2-1 mutants.

Figure 5. Late-HEI10 focus patterning and intensity data in pch2-1.

(A) Maximum intensity projections of 3D image stacks from pch2-1 mutants labelled for HEI10, ZYP1, and SMC3. A 3D model of segmented synaptonemal complex (SC) segments (with each segment labelled in a different colour), generated using the SNT plugin to FIJI, is also shown. (B–G) Experimental data and combined coarsening model simulations showing; (B) late-HEI10 focus number per cell (1000 simulated cells), green dots (joined by a line) show a Poisson distribution with the same mean, (C) late-HEI10 focus number per SC segment (13870 simulated segments), (B, C) sample mean (µ) and estimated variance (S2) inset, (D) positioning of all late-HEI10 foci along SC segments relative to total segment length (11,009 simulated foci), (E) spacing between neighbouring late-HEI10 foci on the same SC segment (2590 spaces between simulated foci), (F) SC segment length versus number of late-HEI10 foci per SC segment (same number of observations as in C), and (G) single late-HEI10 focus intensity (relative to the mean intensity of all HEI10 foci within the same cell) versus SC segment length, with a random sample of simulation output to match experimental dataset size.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Model for pch2 simulations.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(A, B) Schematic of combined nucleoplasmic- and synaptonemal complex (SC)-mediated coarsening model used for pch2 simulations, where dynamics occur on patches of SC, rather than whole chromosomes. (C) Parameters for pch2 simulations that are different from those in Figure 4—figure supplement 1D. See ‘Materials and methods’ for more details.
Figure 5—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Parameters for pch2 simulations that are different from those in Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1.

To determine whether the combined coarsening model was capable of recapitulating the patterning effects observed in pch2-1 mutants, we ran simulations using the same number and length distribution of SC segments per cell as in pch2-1 mutants (‘Materials and methods’). This arrangement differed from wild-type simulations where only five SC segments (corresponding to the five fully synapsed bivalents) were simulated for each cell. Thus, each SC segment was effectively treated as a discrete bivalent within our simulations (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). As no HEI10 foci were detected outside SC segments, no RIs were placed there, and these parts of the chromosomes were not included in our simulations.

In pch2-1 simulations, the total length of the SC per cell is shorter (roughly one-quarter in length) than in wild-type, but the HEI10 amount is equivalent to that in wild-type simulations. This resulted in an overall higher (roughly four times) concentration of HEI10 per µm of SC and at RIs. This is akin to the situation in our HEI10 over-expressor simu lations with SC-mediated coarsening (Morgan et al., 2021). However, as with HEI10 over-expressor simulations, this approximately fourfold increase in HEI10 concentration per µm of SC led to a smaller relative increase in the number of COs per unit length because SC-mediated coarsening dynamics proceed more rapidly when the RIs with high levels of HEI10 are closer together, as diffusion between them is easier. More rapid dynamics lead to relatively fewer COs, as coarsening proceeds further in the same time period, with HEI10 accumulating in a smaller number of bright foci. We therefore reduced the rates of HEI10 exchange between the RI and SC in order to slow the coarsening process, with an uptake rate of 20% and an escape rate of 15% of the rates in the original SC-mediated coarsening model. Changes to SC structure in the synaptic segments that occur in pch2 mutants, versus wild-type SC, could account for these modified exchange rates. These changes were combined with nucleoplasmic recycling at a rate of 10% of that in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model. These simulations were then able to qualitatively reproduce the patterning effects observed in our experimental data (Figure 5B–G, right-hand plots), although we note that agreement between experimental data and model outputs was slightly less good for pch2-1 than for the zyp1 mutant. Specifically, using the pch2-1 parameter values we could generate an average of 11.0 (σ2 = 5.2) COs per cell and 0.8 (σ2 = 0.6) COs per SC segment, which is similar to the mean and variance values in our imaging data (Figure 5B and C). We also found that about 40% of simulated segments had no COs, which is similar to the proportion in our experimental data. In our simulations, zero CO segments occur as a consequence of segments lacking any RIs (occurring for about 22% of simulated segments) or due to insufficient HEI10 amounts being present at RIs on those SC segments at the end of the simulations (18% of simulated segments) either because of low initial HEI10 loading and/or HEI10 loss via nucleoplasmic recycling. Crossover assurance was retained for longer segments, with ~99.5% of segments longer than 10 µm having one or more crossover. Additionally, we recapitulated the relatively flat distribution of COs within SC segments (albeit with a slight peak in more central positions in simulation outputs that is not present in the experimental data, Figure 5D), as well as reproducing the spacing between adjacent COs (Figure 5E), and the positive correlations between both CO number (Figure 5F) and single late-HEI10 focus relative intensity (Figure 5G) and SC length.

Discussion

It was recently shown that the SC, a highly conserved and prominent feature of meiotic prophase I, is required to promote CO interference and CO assurance in A. thaliana (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; France et al., 2021). However, the mechanistic details of precisely how the SC plays a role in mediating interference remained obscure. Here, using a combination of modelling and super-resolution microscopy, we have shown that CO patterning in the absence of an SC is consistent with a coarsening model for CO interference. Previously, we introduced a mechanistic, mathematical coarsening model that could explain CO patterning in wild-type Arabidopsis, as well as in HEI10 over- and under-expressor lines (Morgan et al., 2021). Here, we make just one major change to the model for SC mutants: that HEI10 can now exchange through a nucleoplasmic pool rather than being restricted to individual chromosomes, as in the wild-type. With this biologically plausible modification, the coarsening model is now also capable of explaining why zyp1 mutants lack CO assurance and CO interference in Arabidopsis. Additionally, the model successfully predicts previously unexplored observations in zyp1 SC mutants, including the pattern of closely spaced COs and the absence of an anticorrelation between HEI10 focal intensity and focus number per chromosome pair. A similar function of the SC, in preventing the diffusion of recombination proteins via the nucleoplasm, has been proposed in C. elegans (Rog et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). However, unlike in C. elegans where successful CO formation depends upon SC formation (Colaiácovo et al., 2003), in Arabidopsis SC formation and CO formation can be uncoupled (Capilla-Pérez et al., 2021; France et al., 2021), making Arabidopsis an excellent system for demonstrating the effects of nucleoplasmic coarsening. Overall, our work highlights the critical role of the SC in controlling the spatial compartment through which HEI10 diffuses.

Recently, a study in Arabidopsis also successfully utilised the mathematical coarsening model (originally derived in Morgan et al., 2021) to explain genetic CO patterning data from wild-type and HEI10 over-expressing Arabidopsis (Durand et al., 2022). The authors also hypothesised that nucleoplasmic coarsening could explain CO patterning in zyp1 mutants, and in zyp1 mutant and HEI10 over-expressing lines that form extremely high numbers of COs. However, unlike in this work, the dynamics of nucleoplasmic coarsening were not explicitly modelled (Durand et al., 2022).

Interestingly, while Arabidopsis zyp1 mutants lose CO interference, they still display a non-random (sub-Poissonian) distribution of COs per cell. In wild-type cells, CO interference operating along individual chromosomes regulates total CO numbers along each chromosome. In turn, the combined effect of interference operating along all chromosome pairs within a cell causes global regulation of the total number of COs within a cell, with the variance in total CO number per cell being close to the sum of the per chromosome variances. In some species, COs have been shown to co-vary, meaning a high CO number on one chromosome generally corresponds with high CO numbers on other chromosomes within the same cell. This leads to a broader distribution of CO numbers per cell than might be expected (Wang et al., 2019). However, recent results suggest that CO co-variation is not present in Arabidopsis (Durand et al., 2022). zyp1 mutants lose CO interference but retain per-cell constraints on total CO numbers, as evidenced by the Poissonian and sub-Poissonian distributions of total CO numbers on individual chromosome pairs and in individual cells, respectively. In other words, in the zyp1 mutant, COs designated on different RIs are spatially independent from one another but their numbers are not independent. As noted in Crismani et al., 2021, an explanation for why CO numbers are relatively low (but still higher that wild-type) in SC mutants could be due to the influence of a limiting trans-acting factor, such as HEI10. Similarly, in our modified coarsening model, the limited nucleoplasmic pool of HEI10 explains why the distribution of total CO numbers per cell remains sub-Poissonian. Importantly, caution should be exercised when interpreting sub-Poissonian or Poissonian distributions of total CO number per cell as signs of functional or non-functional CO interference, respectively. As we show here, a sub-Poissonian distribution is perfectly compatible with non-functional CO interference.

Importantly, as well as explaining CO patterning in mutants without synapsis, we have shown that a version of the coarsening model that incorporates both nucleoplasmic and SC-mediated coarsening is still fully capable of explaining CO patterning in wild-type and HEI10 over-expressing Arabidopsis. This builds on a previous version of the coarsening model, where HEI10 diffusion was restricted exclusively to the SC (Morgan et al., 2021). We anticipate that this new, combined coarsening model likely better reflects the biological reality of the coarsening process, with the SC promoting and enhancing the diffusion of HEI10 along individual bivalents but with some exchange of HEI10 molecules between the SC and the nucleoplasm. This leakage is incorporated here as exchange between RIs and the nucleoplasm, but it is straightforward to also include direct exchange between the SC and the nucleoplasm in the framework of this model.

The complex interplay between SC-mediated and nucleoplasmic coarsening can also provide a potential mechanistic explanation for other crossover phenomena, such as the interchromosomal effect (Miller, 2020; Termolino et al., 2019). The interchromosomal effect describes the observation that when one pair of homologs experiences a reduction in crossover frequency (due to a structural variation, such as an inversion) this is accompanied by a corresponding increase in crossover frequency on the other, structurally normal, homolog pairs (Miller, 2020; Termolino et al., 2019). In this scenario, RIs may be inhibited from occurring normally at the sites of structural variations, leading to a lower level of HEI10 in those regions. In turn, this could lead to a redistribution of the limited pool of HEI10 to the other chromosomes, thus increasing the likelihood of those chromosomes receiving extra COs.

Additionally, we have shown that HEI10 coarsening can explain aspects of CO patterning in pch2 mutants that exhibit partial, but incomplete, synapsis (Lambing et al., 2015). In this scenario, available HEI10 molecules could still load onto the SC and undergo coarsening, similar to the situation in the wild-type. However, if a wild-type level of HEI10 protein is loaded onto shorter stretches of SC, this results in an increased concentration of HEI10 per micron of SC and, akin to the situation in an otherwise wild-type HEI10 over-expressor (Morgan et al., 2021), an increase in closely spaced COs within those stretches. An abundance of closely spaced COs have also been reported in other Arabidopsis mutants that exhibit partial synapsis, such as axr1, pss1, and asy1 (Duroc et al., 2014; Jahns et al., 2014; Lambing et al., 2020; Pochon et al., 2022), suggesting that the coarsening model could explain CO patterning in a variety of synaptic mutants.

Together, the results we present here further reinforce the ability of the coarsening paradigm to explain numerous aspects of CO control in both wild-type and mutant Arabidopsis lines. These aspects include CO placement, CO frequency, CO assurance, CO interference, CO homeostasis, heterochiasmy, meiotic duration, interchromosomal effects, and diverse HEI10 focal intensity measurements. Given the conserved nature of HEI10 (Agarwal and Roeder, 2000; Chelysheva et al., 2012; Jantsch et al., 2004; Lake et al., 2015; Qiao et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2013), and the discovery of similar coarsening mechanisms in C. elegans (Zhang et al., 2021), it is likely that similar mechanisms regulate these same crossover patterning phenomena in a wide variety of sexually reproducing eukaryotes.

Materials and methods

Key resources table.

Reagent type (species) or resource Designation Source or reference Identifiers Additional information
Gene (Arabidopsis) ZYP1A TAIR AT1G22260
Gene (Arabidopsis) ZYP1B TAIR AT1G22275
Gene (Arabidopsis) PCH2 TAIR AT4G24710
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis) zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 France et al., 2021 Supplied by Dr James Higgins, University of Leicester
Strain, strain background (Arabidopsis) pch2-1 Syngenta Arabidopsis Insertion Library (SAIL) SAIL_1187_C06
Antibody Anti-HEI10
(rabbit polyclonal)
Lambing et al., 2015 Supplied by Prof Chris Franklin, University of Birmingham
(1:500 dilution)
Antibody Anti-SMC3 (rat polyclonal) Ferdous et al., 2012 Supplied by Prof Chris Franklin, University of Birmingham
(1:500 dilution)
Antibody Anti-ZYP1 (guinea-pig polyclonal) France et al., 2021 Supplied by Prof Chris Franklin, University of Birmingham
(1:500 dilution)
Antibody Alexa Fluor 555 goat anti-rabbit (goat polyclonal) Thermo Fisher RRID:AB_2535849 (1:200 dilution)
Antibody Alexa Fluor plus 488 goat anti-rat (goat polyclonal) Thermo Fisher RRID:AB_2896330 (1:200 dilution)
Antibody Alexa Fluor 647 goat anti-guinea-pig (goat polyclonal) Thermo Fisher RRID:AB_2735091 (1:200 dilution)
Sequence-based reagent PCH2_1_FV Lambing et al., 2015 PCR primers CAGTGCAAATAGCCGTCGCTGAG
Sequence-based reagent PCH2_1_RV Lambing et al., 2015 PCR primers CTCACATGGTCCTTCTTCAATGAGC
Sequence-based reagent Sail LB2 Lambing et al., 2015 PCR primers GCTTCCTATTATATCTTCCCAAATTACCAATACA
Sequence-based reagent zyp1_ns_1 France et al., 2021 PCR primers CTCGCATTTGCTGGTTTAAAGAGTC
Sequence-based reagent zyp1b_sp_1 France et al., 2021 PCR primers TGCGTATATTGCTAGGTTTATATTG
Sequence-based reagent salk_lb2 France et al., 2021 PCR primers GTGCTTTACGGCACCTCGAC
Sequence-based reagent zyp1a_sp_1 France et al., 2021 PCR primers GAATAGTTAGCAGATTCATATTTCAC
Peptide, recombinant protein HindIII-HF NEB R3104S
Chemical compound, drug Cytohelicase Sigma-Aldrich C8274
Chemical compound, drug Polyvinylpyrrolidone Sigma-Aldrich PVP40
Software, algorithm FIJI Schindelin et al., 2012 2.1.0/1.53f51
Software, algorithm Zen Black Zeiss 14.0.12.201
Software, algorithm Python Python RRID:SCR_008394 https://www.python.org/
Software, algorithm R R Project for Statistical
Computing
RRID:SCR_001905 http://www.r-project.org/
Software, algorithm Julia Julia RRID:SCR_021666 https://julialang.org/

Plant materials

A. thaliana lines used in this study were wild-type Col-0, pch2-1 (SAIL_1187_C06) and the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 null-mutant (previously characterised in France et al., 2021). The zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 line contains a CRISPR/Cas9 derived 14 base-pair deletion in exon 3 of ZYP1A and a T-DNA insertion in exon 3 of ZYP1B. Plants were grown in controlled environment rooms with 16 hr of light (125 mMol cool white) at 20°C and 8 hr of darkness at 16°C.

Immunocytology

Immunocytology of spread A. thaliana pachytene cells was performed as described previously (Morgan et al., 2021; Morgan and Wegel, 2020). In brief, staged anthers were dissected from Arabidopsis floral buds and macerated in a 10 µl drop of digestion medium (0.4% cytohelicase, 1.5% sucrose, 1% polyvinylpyrolidone in sterile water) on a No. 1.5H coverslip (Marienfeld). Coverslips were then incubated in a moist chamber at 37°C for 4 min before adding 10 µl of 2% lipsol solution followed by 20 µl of 4% paraformaldehyde (pH 8). Coverslips were dried for 3 hr in the fumehood and then blocked in blocking buffer (0.3% BSA in 1× PBS) for 15 min. 50 µl of primary antibody, diluted in blocking buffer, was added to the coverslips and they were then incubated overnight in a moist chamber at 4°C. 50 µl of secondary antibody, diluted in blocking buffer, was added to the coverslips, and they were then incubated in a moist chamber at 37°C for 2 hr. Coverslips were then incubated in 10 µl DAPI (10 µg/ml) for 5 min before adding 7 µl of Vectashield and mounting them on a glass slide. Coverslips were washed for 3 × 5 min in 1× PBS 0.1% Triton before and after each incubation step. The following primary antibodies were used at 1:500 dilutions: anti-SMC3 (rat) (Ferdous et al., 2012), anti-HEI10 (rabbit) (Lambing et al., 2015), and anti-ZYP1 (guinea-pig) (France et al., 2021). The following secondary antibodies were used at 1:200 dilutions: anti-rat Alexa Fluor Plus 488 (Thermo Fisher A48262), anti-rabbit Alexa Fluor 555 (Thermo Fisher A21428), and anti-guinea-pig Alexa Fluor 647 (Thermo Fisher A21450). Immunostained cells were imaged using 3D structured illumination microscopy (3D-SIM) on a Zeiss Elyra PS1 microscope equipped with an EM-CCD camera, a Plan-Apochromat ×63, NA 1.40 oil objective and 405, 488, 561, and 642  nm solid-state laser diodes. Cells were imaged with three stripe angles and five phases and z-stacks were captured at an interval size of 0.0909  μm. An immersion oil with a refractive index of 1.515 was used that was optimised for the green/red (SMC3/HEI10) channels of our system. For optimal image quality and to minimise the introduction of reconstruction artefacts, microscope laser power and camera gain values were manually adjusted for each cell. Bleaching and contrast of raw images was assessed using the SIMcheck plugin to FIJI (Ball et al., 2015).

Image analysis

For wild-type and zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 nuclei, individual axes were traced and segmented in three-dimensions from 3D-SIM z-stacks using the SNT plugin to FIJI (Arshadi et al., 2021). Traces were made using the linear SMC3 signal, which localises along the meiotic axis, and 3D-skeletons of each axis-traced path were generated using SNT. For zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 nuclei, each axial element was traced end-to-end to generate 10 complete skeleton traces for each nucleus. For wild-type nuclei, due to the proximity of the two parallel SMC3 signals, a single trace was used to segment the paths of each pair of synapsed axial elements, generating five complete skeleton traces for each nucleus. Foci were detected within images using the FociPicker3D FIJI plugin (Du et al., 2011). Uniform background intensity thresholds and minimum pixel size values were manually optimised within a range of 6,000–20,000 and 5–20, respectively, with otherwise default parameters. Further analysis was performed using custom Python scripts. For zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 nuclei, foci were assigned to the chromosome pair for which the average of the two distances from the closest points on each of the axes was smallest, provided this was less than a threshold distance (0.5 µm). If this was not the case, then the foci was assigned to the closest chromosome pair, provided that it was nearer to one of the two axes than a smaller threshold (0.3 µm). Foci satisfying neither of these two criterion were considered as off target signal and ignored. For wild-type nuclei, each focus was assigned to the closest trace, provided that it was nearer than a threshold (0.5 μm). Again, foci not satisfying this criterion were considered as off target signal and ignored. Relative positions along chromosome pairs were calculated by dividing the distance along the traced axis (measured in terms of voxels) by the total length of the trace. Foci intensities were calculated using the mean intensity within a sphere of radius 0.1985 µm (five voxels in the x and y planes), centred at the foci peak, and the median intensity of the image (used as an estimate of the background fluorescence) was subtracted. All intensity values used were normalised by dividing the foci intensity by the mean of the intensities of all foci within the same cell (only considering foci associated with a chromosome pair). Simple linear regression was performed using the Python statsmodels package.

For pch2-1 nuclei, segments of synapsis were traced and segmented in three-dimensions from 3D-SIM z-stacks using the SNT plugin to FIJI (Arshadi et al., 2021). Traces were made using the linear ZYP1 signal, which localises along the SC, and 3D skeletons of each SC-traced path were generated using SNT. Each SC segment was traced end-to-end to generate between 8 and 21 complete skeleton traces for each nucleus. Individual traces varied from 0.4 to 28.4 μm in length. Again, foci were detected within images using the FociPicker3D FIJI plugin (Du et al., 2011). Uniform background intensity thresholds and minimum pixel size values were manually optimised within a range of 10,000–15,000 and 10–20, respectively, with otherwise default parameters. Further analysis was performed using custom Python scripts. All subsequent analyses proceeded as for wild-type nuclei.

Mathematical models

Nucleoplasmic coarsening model

In each cell, Q=5 chromosome pairs are simulated. The qth chromosome pair is taken to have a length Lq , sampled from the (per-chromosome) normal distribution NT(μq,σq2,3,3) truncated at 3 standard deviations from the mean (to ensure positive chromosome lengths). We use the same values as in our earlier work (Morgan et al., 2021), fitted to experimentally measured wild-type chromosome length distributions: μ1=37.5,μ2=40.4,μ3=45.7,μ4=53.8,μ5=59.8, and σ1=4.93,σ2=5.06,σ3=5.86,σ4=7.18,σ5=7.13, with all these parameters having units of μm. We chose to retain these original values as they were broadly consistent with the experimental chromosome lengths measured in this study, but were calculated from a greater sample size.

RIs are placed randomly along each of the chromosome pairs, with a probability density ρ per µm. To implement this, for each simulated chromosome pair with length L, a random number is generated from a Poisson process with mean ρL, and then this number of RIs is placed uniformly at random along that chromosome pair. We note that this procedure differs slightly from the method used in our original SC coarsening model, where floorρL crossovers were placed on a chromosome with length L. Simulation outputs with this original rule (not shown) differ only slightly.

The pro-crossover factor HEI10 is present in a nucleoplasmic pool, with amount P, and at compartments at each of the RIs, with amounts Cq,n , 1qQ=5, 1nNq for nth RI on the qth chromosome pair. HEI10 is able to move between the nucleoplasmic pool to each of the RI compartments at rate α, and to escape from the RI compartments back into the pool at a rate β(Cq,n), which depends on the amount of HEI10 within each individual RI compartment. Figure 1D shows the functional form of this rate in more detail, from which we see that it is a strictly decreasing function of the RI HEI10 amount Cq,n . As in our SC interference model, we take

βCq,n=βC1+Cq,n/KCγ.

The system of ordinary differential equations governing HEI10 amounts is

dCq,ndt=(αPβ(Cq,n)Cq,n)Hs(Cq,nKH),1qQ,1nNq,
dPdt=q=1Qn=1NqHsCq,n-KHβCq,nCq,n-αP.

Compared to our earlier model (Morgan et al., 2021), we also incorporated a further modulation to the HEI10 exchange rates between the nucleoplasm and RIs through the multiplicative smoothing function Hs . For HEI10 levels in an RI well below a threshold KH , the smoothing function becomes close to zero, while for levels well above, the function saturates to one, with a smooth crossover in between. This feature ensures that RIs with HE10 levels well below the threshold become disconnected, with their HEI10 effectively disappearing from the rest of the system. This reflects the experimental observation that smaller HEI10 foci are not detected in late-pachytene nuclei (Morgan et al., 2021), with RIs that lack sufficient HEI10 presumably being channelled into a non-crossover or class II repair pathway. We implement this through the smooth cutoff function Hs :

Hss=121+tanhKss

which multiplies the HEI10 exchange rates between the RIs and nucleoplasm. Overall, this system conserves the total amount of HEI10 within each cell (the nucleoplasmic pool plus all RI compartments), rather than within each SC, which was the case for our earlier SC-mediated coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021).

Unlike in our previous SC-mediated coarsening model, where the total HEI10 amount in each cell depended on the total length of SC and the total number of RIs (which are relatively constant from cell to cell), we adopted an alternative approach for controlling cellular HEI10 amount in our simulations. This change was necessary due to the absence of an SC in the nucleoplasmic-coarsening model and is likely more realistic, with cellular HEI10 protein amount being controlled independently of SC formation, as we now describe.

The initial total amount of HEI10 within each cell, F, is sampled from a truncated normal distribution

F=NT(μF,σF2,3,3),

where the mean μF and standard deviation σF are taken to be the mean and standard deviation of the total amounts of HEI10 within each cell in the original SC-mediated coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021). This initial cellular level of HEI10 is divided between the RIs and the nucleoplasmic pool, at constant proportions RRI and RP , respectively, with RRI+RP=1.

The total amount of RI HEI10 is then randomly divided between each RI, where, for each RI, a random weighting C^q,n is generated from

C^q,n=f(xq,nLq)Xq,n,Xq,n=NT(1,σC2,3,3),1qQ,1nNq,

where NT again denotes a truncated normal distribution and xq,n is the position of the nth RI on the qth chromosome pair. The piecewise function fx/L , included to account for the increased frequency of crossovers towards the end of each chromosome, is defined as

f(ξ)={1+ (fe1) (1  ξ/xe) 11+(fe1)(ξ1+xe)/xe          0ξxe,xeξ1xe,1xeξ1.

The total initial amount of HEI10 at all RIs, RRIF, is then loaded at the RIs in proportion to these weights, namely

Cq,n(t=0)=RRIFC^q,nq=1Qn=1NqC^q,n.

The remaining HEI10 is placed in the nucleoplasmic pool, with initial amount P(t=0)=RPF, which has the same average as the average amount of HEI10 loaded onto all the SCs in the original SC-mediated coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021).

This system is simulated for a duration T=10hr, a duration of pachytene equivalent to that used in our original model (Prusicki et al., 2019). Numerical simulations are performed using the Rodas5 solver (di Marzo, 1992) of the DifferentialEquations.jl Julia package (Rackauckas and Nie, 2017), with a non-negativity constraint on HEI10 amounts. The initial conditions for the simulation are random, but the evolution of the system is deterministic. Multiple simulations (10,000) with different random initial conditions are performed to determine the distribution of crossover numbers, positions, and intensities. At the end of each simulation, RIs are designated as crossover sites according to a modified rule (see ‘Modified CO criterion’ below).

All parameters were chosen to be the same as those as in the original SC coarsening model (Morgan et al., 2021), except for the RI HEI10 absorption rate α, and the (maximum) escape rate βC , which was multiplied by a factor of 0.06 (Figure 1E). These changes reflect that HEI10 is now being exchanged with the nucleoplasmic pool rather than locally on the synaptonemal complex.

For simulations of the zyp1 HEI10 over-expressor line, a 3.5-fold change in HEI10 levels was used, but a larger fold change was chosen for the standard deviation σF of total cellular HEI10 amounts, in order to generate greater cell–cell variability, with an increase from 3.5 × 75 a.u. = 263 a.u. to 862 a.u. We also verified that increasing the noise to this degree in the original model of Morgan et al., 2021 (as implemented below) for wild-type and HEI10 over-expressing lines did not make a substantial difference to model predictions for the number of COs per SC or the positioning of COs. We note that the above 3.5-fold change in HEI10 levels resulted in roughly the same relative change in CO number, unlike for SC-mediated coarsening where 4.5 times the level of HEI10 only resulted in approximate doubling of the number of COs (Morgan et al., 2021). This reduced change reflects the reduced sensitivity of the SC-mediated coarsening to changes in HEI10 levels compared to nucleoplasmic-mediated coarsening (for these choices of parameter values).

SC-mediated coarsening model

This model is as described in our earlier work, but with the introduction of the smooth cutoff function preventing recycling at RIs with low levels of HEI10, with slightly different initial conditions, and with a new rule for determining which RIs are crossovers at the end of the simulation. Again, Q=5 chromosomes are simulated in each cell, these having SCs with lengths Lq generated randomly as in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model. HEI10 is present on each of the SCs with concentration cqx,t per unit length and is able to diffuse along them with (one-dimensional) diffusion coefficient D. RI numbers and positions are generated as in the nucleoplasmic model. Again, we note that this is slightly different to the rule used in Morgan et al., 2021, but that this change has limited effect on model outputs. The variables Cq,n represent the amount of HEI10 associated with the nth RI on the qth SC. However, RIs are not able to exchange HEI10 with the nucleoplasm, but instead exchange HEI10 with the relevant SC, with uptake rate α^ and escape rate β^(Cq,n) , this escape rate taking the same functional form as in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model but with the new parameter β^C . This gives the system of equations

dCq,ndt=(α^cq(xq,n)β^(Cq,n)Cq,n)Hs(Cq,nKH),1qQ,1nNq,
 cqt=D2cqx2+n=1Nq(β^(Cq,n)Cq,nα^cq (xq,n))Hs(Cq,nKH)δ(xxq,n),
1qQ,0xLq,
cqx=0,atx=0andx=Lq,
cq=c0att=0.

Initial conditions for total cellular HEI10 levels are as in the nucleoplasmic model. Initial RI HEI10 amounts are as in the nucleoplasmic model, but with different parameters (see Figure 4—figure supplement 1) in the non-uniform loading function fξ . However, instead of being placed in the nucleoplasmic pool, the remaining HEI10 is placed uniformly on the SCs, giving

cq(t=0)=c0=RSCFq=1QLq,

where RSC=1-RRI . Note that these initial conditions differ from those used in Morgan et al., 2021, but when the new rule for determining crossovers is used, they give very similar results in terms of crossover number and location. This model was used to produce the simulation output shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 2 (WT, OX), using the parameters shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1D (WT column), except for the over-expressor OX case, where the parameters μF and σF controlling initial cellular HEI10 levels were increased to 4.5× their WT values.

Combined coarsening model

The combined model includes all the above rules in the nucleoplasmic and SC-mediated coarsening models, with HEI10 being present in RI, SC and nucleoplasm compartments. The governing equations are a combination of those in the two other models; explicitly

dCq,ndt=(αPβ(Cq,n)Cq,n+α^cq (xq,n)β^(Cq,n)Cq,n)Hs(Cq,nKH),
1qQ,1nNq,
 cqt=D2cqx2+n=1Nq(β^(Cq,n)Cq,nα^cq(xq,n))Hs(Cq,nKH)δ(xxq,n),
1qQ,0xLq,
dPdt=q=1Qn=1NqβCq,nCq,n-αPHsCq,n-KH.

Initial and boundary conditions for wild-type or HEI10 over-expressor plants are as in the SC-mediated coarsening model above. No HEI10 is placed initially in the nucleoplasm. Each SC is discretised into m = 2000 compartments, and the spatial derivatives approximated by finite differences. This model was used to generate the simulation output shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 2 (WT+nuc, OX+nuc), using the parameters shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1D (WT+nuc column), except for the over-expressor OX+nuc case, where the parameters μF and σF controlling initial cellular HEI10 levels were increased to 4.5× their WT values.

For the pch2-1 mutant, we have a variable number of SC segments within the cell, which are here treated as distinct SCs. The number of SC segments is drawn randomly from a Poisson distribution with mean 13.92 (close to that measured experimentally), while the length of each SC segment is drawn from a Gamma distribution with parameters Lα=1.693, Lθ=2.984 μm, so having mean LαLθ5.1μm and variance LαLθ215.1μm2. This distribution has probability distribution function

fΓ(x;Lα,Lθ)=xLα1ex/LθΓ(Lα)LθLα, x>0,

where Γx is the Gamma function and was fitted to experimental measurements of SC segment length. This statistical model for SC segment lengths introduced substantially greater variation in total cellular SC length than in the other simulations, which motivated our new rule for the assignment of initial HEI10 amounts. Initial and boundary conditions are the same here as for the SC-mediated coarsening model above (although there are a larger number of SCs here).

Owing to this large number of SCs, all of which are coupled with each other through the nucleoplasm, for efficient simulation each SC segment is spatially discretised into m=200 portions, fewer than the number (m=2000) used for each SC in the SC-mediated coarsening model above.

The smooth cutoff function Hs is included so that RIs with low levels of HEI10 are unable to interact with the nucleoplasmic pool. This is necessary as otherwise these RIs provide an additional route for the transfer of HEI10 between two RIs on the same SC: HEI10 can diffuse along the SC from an RI losing HEI10 to a nearby RI with low levels of HEI10, escape into the nucleoplasm, be reabsorbed at another RI with low levels of HE10, and then diffuse along the SC to an RI gaining HEI10. This route causes the dynamics to progress too quickly.

The parameterisation of this combined model used for the pch2-1 mutant has substantially smaller values for the rates of exchange of HEI10 between RIs and SCs (α^ and β^C) than in the original SC-mediated coarsening model (Figure 5—figure supplement 1C). These were chosen to better fit the experimental data, which shows a less pronounced spatial pattern than the wild-type data. Nucleoplasmic recycling was also set at a rate of 10% of that in the nucleoplasmic coarsening model. This model was used to generate the simulation output shown in Figure 5.

SC-mediated coarsening model analysis

In the SC-mediated coarsening model, as the timescale for diffusion along the SC (~L2/D , which is at most (60 µm)2/1.1 µm2 s-1 ≈ 3300 s) is small compared with the duration of pachytene (36,000 s), the HEI10 concentration adopts a piecewise linear profile along each SC, with discontinuities in its slope at each RI. When there are just two RIs with HEI10 amounts C1 and C2 , separated by a distance Δx=x2x1 , we have that

dC1dt=α^c(x1)β^(C1)C1=J,dC2dt=α^c(x2)β^(C2)C2=J,

where the net flux of HEI10 from C1 to C2 , J, is given by

J=Dcx1-cx2x.

On eliminating cx1 and cx2 , the concentrations of HEI10 on the SC at the two RIs, we find that

ddt(C2C1)=β^(C1)C1β^(C2)C21+α^Δx2D.

We can see from this equation that closely spaced pairs of RIs, with small Δx, coarsen more quickly than those further apart. This effect generates spatial patterns in CO positioning, even in the absence of non-uniform initial HEI10 loading. However, this difference in coarsening rate is only significant if α^Δx2D is not small compared with 1. In the limit where α^Δx2D is small, the spatial patterns in CO positioning vanish, other than those spatial biases from non-uniform initial HEI10 loading.

With KC=1 and for C1,C21 and α^Δx2D1, which is the case for our original SC-mediated coarsening parameters, this can be approximated further as

ddt(C2C1)=2Dβ^cα^Δx(C11γC21γ).

From this equation, we find that coarsening proceeds faster for larger diffusion coefficients, larger escape rates from RIs to the SC, and slower for larger uptake rates from the SC to RIs, more widely spaced RIs, and when HEI10 levels are greater (as γ>1). When more than two RIs are participating in coarsening, a more complex system of equations is obtained, but again containing the model parameters in the same combination Dβ^cα^. As a consequence of this, it is difficult from simulation outputs to independently identify the parameters α^ , β^C, and D, with many parameter sets being potentially compatible with our original findings.

Modified crossover criterion

In our original simulations (Morgan et al., 2021) of SC-mediated coarsening in wild-type A. thaliana, we used a per-SC criterion to decide which RIs at the end of the simulation should be designated as crossovers. This criterion was chosen to be a threshold of 40% of the maximum HEI10 amount at those RIs on the same SC. However, this criterion needed to be changed to study nucleoplasmic-mediated coarsening, and a simple absolute threshold would require substantial reparameterisation of the HEI10 model.

Instead, we designed a new per-cell criterion. RIs were designated as crossovers if they contained an amount of HEI10 more than 60% of the mean amount of HEI10 at an RI in that cell, where this mean excluded RIs with less HEI10 than an absolute threshold of 1 a.u. A per-cell threshold based on the mean amount rather than the maximum amount was used because of the substantial variation in maximum HEI10 level found in simulations of the pch-1 mutant. All simulation outputs in this article use this adjusted threshold. We found that this made only a limited change to the results of simulating SC-mediated coarsening in WT and HEI10 over-expressing cells.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge James Higgins for providing the zyp1a-2/zyp1b-1 mutant seeds, Chris Franklin for supplying the SMC3, HEI10, and ZYP1 antibodies, Eva Wegel for microscopy support, and members of the M Howard and X Feng labs for fruitful discussions on this topic. This work was supported by a BBSRC Discovery Fellowship (BB/V005774/1) awarded to CM and by BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme GEN (BB/P013511/1) to MH.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Chris Morgan, Email: chris.morgan@jic.ac.uk.

Martin Howard, Email: martin.howard@jic.ac.uk.

Akira Shinohara, Osaka University, Japan.

Detlef Weigel, Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen, Germany.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/V005774/1 to Chris Morgan.

  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P013511/1 to Martin Howard.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

MDAR checklist

Data availability

Imaging data associated with this study are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19650249.v1, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19665810.v1 and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21989732. Custom Python scripts for data analysis are available at https://github.com/jfozard/hei10_zyp1, (copy archived at Fozard, 2023).

The following datasets were generated:

Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. ZYP1 data. figshare.

Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. Col-o (for zyp1 comparison) figshare.

Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2023. pch2 data. figshare.

References

  1. Agarwal S, Roeder GS. Zip3 provides a link between recombination enzymes and synaptonemal complex proteins. Cell. 2000;102:245–255. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)00029-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arshadi C, Günther U, Eddison M, Harrington KIS, Ferreira TA. Snt: a unifying toolbox for quantification of neuronal anatomy. Nature Methods. 2021;18:374–377. doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01105-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball G, Demmerle J, Kaufmann R, Davis I, Dobbie IM, Schermelleh L. SIMcheck: a toolbox for successful super-resolution structured illumination microscopy. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:15915. doi: 10.1038/srep15915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhalla N. PCH-2 and meiotic hormads: a module for evolutionary innovation in meiosis? Current Topics in Developmental Biology. 2023;151:317–344. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2022.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression-Based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics. 1990;46:347–364. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(90)90014-K. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Capilla-Pérez L, Durand S, Hurel A, Lian Q, Chambon A, Taochy C, Solier V, Grelon M, Mercier R. The synaptonemal complex imposes crossover interference and heterochiasmy in arabidopsis. PNAS. 2021;118:e2023613118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023613118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chelysheva L, Vezon D, Chambon A, Gendrot G, Pereira L, Lemhemdi A, Vrielynck N, Le Guin S, Novatchkova M, Grelon M. The arabidopsis hei10 is a new zmm protein related to ZIP3. PLOS Genetics. 2012;8:e1002799. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Colaiácovo MP, MacQueen AJ, Martinez-Perez E, McDonald K, Adamo A, La Volpe A, Villeneuve AM. Synaptonemal complex assembly in C. elegans is dispensable for loading strand-exchange proteins but critical for proper completion of recombination. Developmental Cell. 2003;5:463–474. doi: 10.1016/s1534-5807(03)00232-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crismani W, Girard C, Lloyd A. Crossover interference: just ZYP it. PNAS. 2021;118:e2103433118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103433118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. di Marzo GA. Méthodes de rosenbrock d’ordre 5(4) adaptées aux problemes différentiels-algébriques. Méthodes de Rosenbrock d’ordre 1992
  11. Du G, Drexler GA, Friedland W, Greubel C, Hable V, Krücken R, Kugler A, Tonelli L, Friedl AA, Dollinger G. Spatial dynamics of DNA damage response protein foci along the ion trajectory of high-LET particles. Radiation Research. 2011;176:706–715. doi: 10.1667/rr2592.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Durand S, Lian Q, Jing J, Ernst M, Grelon M, Zwicker D, Mercier R. Joint control of meiotic crossover patterning by the synaptonemal complex and HEI10 dosage. Nature Communications. 2022;13:5999. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33472-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duroc Y, Lemhemdi A, Larchevêque C, Hurel A, Cuacos M, Cromer L, Horlow C, Armstrong SJ, Chelysheva L, Mercier R. The kinesin atpss1 promotes synapsis and is required for proper crossover distribution in meiosis. PLOS Genetics. 2014;10:e1004674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferdous M, Higgins JD, Osman K, Lambing C, Roitinger E, Mechtler K, Armstrong SJ, Perry R, Pradillo M, Cuñado N, Franklin FCH. Inter-homolog crossing-over and synapsis in arabidopsis meiosis are dependent on the chromosome axis protein atasy3. PLOS Genetics. 2012;8:e1002507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fozard J. Hei10_zyp1. swh:1:rev:75a3f5de922a2b5da14d333ba678cc253417cd3cSoftware Heritage. 2023 https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:c0deb5843908320dbe7833137117a800da75be78;origin=https://github.com/jfozard/hei10_zyp1;visit=swh:1:snp:641b9bde6d6990f69a86948639c7375b79ba18db;anchor=swh:1:rev:75a3f5de922a2b5da14d333ba678cc253417cd3c
  16. France MG, Enderle J, Röhrig S, Puchta H, Franklin FCH, Higgins JD. ZYP1 is required for obligate cross-over formation and cross-over interference in arabidopsis. PNAS. 2021;118:e2021671118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021671118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gray S, Cohen PE. Control of meiotic crossovers: from double-strand break formation to designation. Annual Review of Genetics. 2016;50:175–210. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-035111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Haldane JBS. The cytological basis of genetical interference. CYTOLOGIA. 1931;3:54–65. doi: 10.1508/cytologia.3.54. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hunter N. Meiotic recombination: the essence of heredity. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2015;7:a016618. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a016618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jahns MT, Vezon D, Chambon A, Pereira L, Falque M, Martin OC, Chelysheva L, Grelon M. Crossover localisation is regulated by the neddylation posttranslational regulatory pathway. PLOS Biology. 2014;12:e1001930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jantsch V, Pasierbek P, Mueller MM, Schweizer D, Jantsch M, Loidl J. Targeted gene knockout reveals a role in meiotic recombination for ZHP-3, a Zip3-related protein in Caenorhabditis elegans. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2004;24:7998–8006. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.18.7998-8006.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones GH, Franklin FCH. Meiotic crossing-over: obligation and interference. Cell. 2006;126:246–248. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lake CM, Nielsen RJ, Guo F, Unruh JR, Slaughter BD, Hawley RS. Vilya, a component of the recombination nodule, is required for meiotic double-strand break formation in Drosophila. eLife. 2015;4:e08287. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lam WS, Yang X, Makaroff CA. Characterization of Arabidopsis thaliana SMC1 and SMC3: evidence that atsmc3 may function beyond chromosome cohesion. Journal of Cell Science. 2005;118:3037–3048. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambing C, Osman K, Nuntasoontorn K, West A, Higgins JD, Copenhaver GP, Yang J, Armstrong SJ, Mechtler K, Roitinger E, Franklin FCH. Arabidopsis PCH2 mediates meiotic chromosome remodeling and maturation of crossovers. PLOS Genetics. 2015;11:e1005372. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lambing C, Kuo PC, Tock AJ, Topp SD, Henderson IR. ASY1 acts as a dosage-dependent antagonist of telomere-led recombination and mediates crossover interference in arabidopsis. PNAS. 2020;117:13647–13658. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1921055117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lloyd A. Crossover patterning in plants. Plant Reproduction. 2023;36:55–72. doi: 10.1007/s00497-022-00445-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mercier R, Jolivet S, Vezon D, Huppe E, Chelysheva L, Giovanni M, Nogué F, Doutriaux MP, Horlow C, Grelon M, Mézard C. Two meiotic crossover classes cohabit in Arabidopsis: one is dependent on MER3, whereas the other one is not. Current Biology. 2005;15:692–701. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.02.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller DE. The interchromosomal effect: different meanings for different organisms. Genetics. 2020;216:621–631. doi: 10.1534/genetics.120.303656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Morgan C, Wegel E. Cytological characterization of arabidopsis arenosa polyploids by SIM. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2020;2061:37–46. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9818-0_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morgan C, Fozard JA, Hartley M, Henderson IR, Bomblies K, Howard M. Diffusion-mediated HEI10 coarsening can explain meiotic crossover positioning in arabidopsis. Nature Communications. 2021;12:4674. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24827-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Otto SP, Payseur BA. Crossover interference: shedding light on the evolution of recombination. Annual Review of Genetics. 2019;53:19–44. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-040119-093957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Page SL, Hawley RS. The genetics and molecular biology of the synaptonemal complex. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology. 2004;20:525–558. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.19.111301.155141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pochon G, Henry IM, Yang C, Lory N, Fernández-Jiménez N, Böwer F, Hu B, Carstens L, Tsai HT, Pradillo M, Comai L, Schnittger A. The arabidopsis hop1 homolog asy1 mediates cross-over assurance and interference. PNAS Nexus. 2022;3:pgac302. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Prusicki MA, Keizer EM, van Rosmalen RP, Komaki S, Seifert F, Müller K, Wijnker E, Fleck C, Schnittger A. Live cell imaging of meiosis in Arabidopsis thaliana. eLife. 2019;8:e42834. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Qiao H, Prasada Rao HBD, Yang Y, Fong JH, Cloutier JM, Deacon DC, Nagel KE, Swartz RK, Strong E, Holloway JK, Cohen PE, Schimenti J, Ward J, Hunter N. Antagonistic roles of ubiquitin ligase HEI10 and SUMO ligase RNF212 regulate meiotic recombination. Nature Genetics. 2014;46:194–199. doi: 10.1038/ng.2858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rackauckas C, Nie Q. DifferentialEquations.jl – a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in julia. Journal of Open Research Software. 2017;5:15. doi: 10.5334/jors.151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Reynolds A, Qiao H, Yang Y, Chen JK, Jackson N, Biswas K, Holloway JK, Baudat F, de Massy B, Wang J, Höög C, Cohen PE, Hunter N. RNF212 is a dosage-sensitive regulator of crossing-over during mammalian meiosis. Nature Genetics. 2013;45:269–278. doi: 10.1038/ng.2541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rog O, Köhler S, Dernburg AF. The synaptonemal complex has liquid crystalline properties and spatially regulates meiotic recombination factors. eLife. 2017;6:e21455. doi: 10.7554/eLife.21455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez J-Y, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods. 2012;9:676–682. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stauffer WT, Zhang L, Dernburg A, Wax A, Backman V. Diffusion through a liquid crystalline compartment regulates meiotic recombination. Biophysics, Biology and Biophotonics IV; 2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sturtevant AH. The behavior of the chromosomes as studied through linkage. Zeitschrift Für Induktive Abstammungs- Und Vererbungslehre. 1915;13:234–287. doi: 10.1007/BF01792906. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Termolino P, Falque M, Aiese Cigliano R, Cremona G, Paparo R, Ederveen A, Martin OC, Consiglio FM, Conicella C. Recombination suppression in heterozygotes for a pericentric inversion induces the interchromosomal effect on crossovers in Arabidopsis. The Plant Journal. 2019;100:1163–1175. doi: 10.1111/tpj.14505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Varas J, Graumann K, Osman K, Pradillo M, Evans DE, Santos JL, Armstrong SJ. Absence of SUN1 and SUN2 proteins in Arabidopsis thaliana leads to a delay in meiotic progression and defects in synapsis and recombination. The Plant Journal. 2015;81:329–346. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. von Diezmann L, Rog O. Let’s get physical-mechanisms of crossover interference. Journal of Cell Science. 2021;134:jcs255745. doi: 10.1242/jcs.255745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang S, Veller C, Sun F, Ruiz-Herrera A, Shang Y, Liu H, Zickler D, Chen Z, Kleckner N, Zhang L. Per-nucleus crossover covariation and implications for evolution. Cell. 2019;177:326–338. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yang C, Hu B, Portheine SM, Chuenban P, Schnittger A. State changes of the HORMA protein Asy1 are mediated by an interplay between its closure motif and PCH2. Nucleic Acids Research. 2020;48:11521–11535. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yang C, Sofroni K, Hamamura Y, Hu B, Elbasi HT, Balboni M, Chu L, Stang D, Heese M, Schnittger A. ZYP1-mediated recruitment of PCH2 to the synaptonemal complex remodels the chromosome axis leading to crossover restriction. Nucleic Acids Research. 2022;50:12924–12937. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac1160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang L, Köhler S, Rillo-Bohn R, Dernburg AF. A compartmentalized signaling network mediates crossover control in meiosis. eLife. 2018;7:e30789. doi: 10.7554/eLife.30789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang L, Stauffer W, Zwicker D, Dernburg AF. Crossover Patterning through Kinase-Regulated Condensation and Coarsening of Recombination Nodules. bioRxiv. 2021 doi: 10.1101/2021.08.26.457865. [DOI]
  51. Zickler D, Kleckner N. A few of our favorite things: pairing, the bouquet, crossover interference and evolution of meiosis. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2016;54:135–148. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.02.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ziolkowski PA, Underwood CJ, Lambing C, Martinez-Garcia M, Lawrence EJ, Ziolkowska L, Griffin C, Choi K, Franklin FCH, Martienssen RA, Henderson IR. Natural variation and dosage of the HEI10 meiotic E3 ligase control Arabidopsis crossover recombination. Genes & Development. 2017;31:306–317. doi: 10.1101/gad.295501.116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Editor's evaluation

Akira Shinohara 1

This important paper discloses a new control mechanism of meiotic crossing over, which is essential for the segregation of homologous chromosomes. With mathematical modeling and super-resolution imaging, the work provides convincing experimental data to support a model of "nucleoplasmic coarsening" between recombination intermediates and nucleoplasm for the control of crossover distribution in the context of a meiotic chromosome structure. The work will be of interest to researchers who work on meiosis as well as the regulation of chromosomal biology in general.

Decision letter

Editor: Akira Shinohara1
Reviewed by: Akira Shinohara2

Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "The synaptonemal complex controls cis- versus trans-interference in coarsening-based meiotic crossover patterning" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Akira Shinohara as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Jessica Tyler as the Senior Editor.

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

You propose a new model of the distribution of complexes involved in meiotic crossover formation in a synapsis-defective mutant and validated it by using published results and a new data set, to make your scientific claims more acceptable. The new model of nucleoplasmic coarsening is interesting and critical in the field of meiotic recombination. However, we strongly feel the additional analysis of your model using different genetic backgrounds would be required for further validation and application of your model as described below.

Moreover, given a recent preprint by Raphael Mercier (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.11.491364), which shows similar results to your current and past results, it is essential to comment on the paper.

Please address the comments from the three reviewers, especially the four major points outlined below.

We would like to have your revision to be returned within two months. If the revision takes a lot longer, you may want to resubmit it as a new manuscript, and we will make sure that it goes to the same editors and reviewers.

1. To strengthen the idea of the "nucleoplasmic coarsening" model in the paper, in addition to the analysis of the zyp1a/1b mutant, it is important to check some genetic perturbation of key parameters in the model by changing such as a HEI10 amounts/concentration and/or the number of the binding sites (DSB or future CO sites). Given your group previously used HEI10 over-expressor (Morgan et al. Nature Communications, 2021), it is not difficult to see the effect of HEI10 over-expression in zyp1a/1b mutants on the model. Moreover, it is very critical to test your model using mutants that reduce the number of recombination intermediates such as asy1/+ and/or asy3/+ heterozygous mutants showing the altered distribution of COs and weakened interference (doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921055117).

2. It would be nice if you integrate the "nucleoplasmic coarsening" model into the dynamics of recombination protein complexes in "wild-type" and "HEI10-overespressor" pachytene nuclei together with coarsening along chromosomes (Morgan et al. Nature Communications, 2021) to check the combination of the two types of the coarsening to explain wild-type (and HEI10-overespressor) CO distribution in a more robust way.

3. The term "trans-interference" is too strong and may be a bit misleading. The authors should be more careful to use trans-interference in the text including in the title of the paper. It would be better to use the other word with a detailed explanation.

4. It is essential to mention and compare the results described in the preprint by Mercier with the authors' results-how different and how similar the two papers are. This would provide much help to researchers in the related areas and readers of eLife.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

For the publication, the authors need more experiments by changing the Hei10 dose, as shown in the original paper (Morgan, 2021), to validate the model described in the paper, and, if possible, need to integrate this new model (nucleoplasmic coarsening model) with previous one (cis-interference) to check whether combined regulatory mechanisms could explain CO distribution in wild-type plant (or not) in a more robust way. Moreover, the authors can apply combined simulation of cis and trans coarsening models in "wild-type" meiosis such as the zygotene stage (and early pachytene stage) in addition to the late pachytene stage where SC formation is limited to some chromosomal regions to explain the distribution of Hei10 in the early stage in wild-type meiosis with the number (more), intensity, and distribution of the foci.

The proposed model in this paper could explain the controlled localization of various proteins involved in meiotic recombination. It is attractive to check if the model could explain the localization of proteins involved in the recombination such as Msh4-5 complexes in the early pachytene stage.

In addition, it is now important to indicate that there is "little" cytoplasmic/nucleoplasmic Hei10 in wild-type pachytene nuclei (all Hei10 molecules in SC conduits/channels) experimentally.

The authors need to explain "trans-interference", which is a confusing word, more in detail such as "which interferes with which" (lines 141-157). More importantly, to avoid confusion, "trans-interference" should "be renamed" such as since it does not stand for what the authors analyzed here (sub-Poisson distribution of COs). This could be tested by increasing amounts of Hei10 in nucleoplasm as pointed out above. In addition, the authors discuss their observation of per-nucleus crossover covariation, which shows the broader distribution of COs in various organisms (Wang et al. Cell, 2017 & 2019)

Need staining analysis of Hei10 foci in early pachytene stages in the mutant as well as the late stage. In the earlier stage, the authors would see less bright and reduced numbers of foci.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Some specific points:

Line 1 (and throughout): It is not obvious that the meiosis field needs yet another term – "trans-interference" – to join the rather overcrowded field of terms describing statistical and mechanistic phenomena related to crossovers. Especially not one that is a compound of two terms that tend to be confusing in themselves. In addition, it is not clear, based on the current data, that what the authors name "trans-interference" indeed reflects a relevant biological entity and not a truly random distribution (the null hypothesis here).

Lines 19-20: what is the difference between 'quantitatively reproducing' and 'predicting' as pertaining to the work here? If there is no difference, one should be removed.

Line 143: What is the statistical test used to claim the "significance" referred to here? Crucially, statistical tests are missing throughout. Their absence is particularly notable here since this piece of data is crucial to the main conclusion of the manuscript.

Line 159: Figure 2D does not show what the authors claim – it merely shows many examples of coarsening, some stabilizing and some not by the end of the simulation. The manuscript would actually benefit from a more thorough analysis of this point since duration seems like a missed opportunity to test the model. What is the distribution of pachytene duration in plants? And how sensitive is the model to the distribution of this parameter?

Lines 197-217: The discussion of 'telomere loading' of recombination intermediates confuses underlying biological mechanisms and modeling strategy/approach. (And it is also confusing in general). This discussion needs to clearly indicate what is the biological reasoning behind the parameters being used. In its current form, it seems like the authors were simply fitting the model to the observed data. If that is the case, that should be clearly stated, and the statistical consequences of this addressed. A similar issue arises earlier, in lines 106-116, where it is not clear what was done to "fit the model" (line 106) and what were the findings that the "coarsening model was capable of recapitulating" (line 116).

Line 192 (and below): The term 'cytological recombination maps' (and the discussion of the genetic recombination maps from Capilla-Perez 2021) is confusing and misleading. The authors' quantitative cytological analysis is indeed novel and useful for their purposes, but it is not a 'recombination map'; it's a description of HEI10 foci. The two seem to be well correlated, but that does not mean they could be trivially equated. (A minor point, but in line 167, it should be noted that cytological analysis has not been done specifically *in zyp1 mutants*.)

Two final points:

First, as I'm sure the authors are well aware, a related manuscript from Raphael Mercier's group was placed in bioRxiv as this manuscript was under review (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.11.491364). Please make sure to reference this preprint in the final form of your work.

Second, the clarity and readability of the manuscript will be greatly increased by limiting the number of abbreviations being used. Many of them are particularly uncommon or unique to the authors' own work (CP, RI).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors often refer to their previous model in which HEI10 coarsening is mediated via SC. The new model addresses the absence of SC, therefore HEI10 coarsening occurs via nucleoplasm. I think that it should be better emphasized in the work that the new model developed works only in a situation where SC is not present, while in the case of wild type and mutants where SC formation is not disturbed, the original model is applicable. I admit that it is well emphasized in the abstract, but not so clear later in the main body. This is particularly misleading in paragraphs that refer to Figure 4 (starting from line 191), where the authors present experimental data for both WT and zyp1, while showing the simulation for the mutant only. With a cursory reading, it is easy to lose this information somewhere and to think that the nucleoplasmic coarsening model can also be applied to WT. So why not show the simulation for WT using the original model in Figure 4 at the same time? I think it would improve the reception of work.

The paragraph on line 197 is difficult to follow and should be improved:

The sentence starting at Line 204: the authors should provide some figure explaining this effect of extra loading as it is not clear to me.

The sentence starting at line 210: when I tried to compare the original and nucleoplasmic coarsening models (Figure 2D in Nat commun paper and 4A in this ms), I couldn't see that end-loading is less pronounced in the new model than in the original one. Could you illustrate this more clearly and also show simulations from both models side-by-side?

The sentence starting at line 214: this is something I completely don't understand, as at the beginning of this paragraph you mentioned that in the zyp1 mutant HEI10 foci tend to be shifted toward the chromosome ends (which is also clearly visible in Figure 4A).

The way of using references in the manuscript is sometimes weird. E.g., I don't get why Capilla-Perez et al. 2021 is cited in line 110 and not just in 111 (this is the same sentence). In general, I would suggest including the references at the end of sentences and not in the middle of a sentence.

The methods are presented in a very clear and exhaustive way, I really appreciate this!

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Coarsening dynamics can explain meiotic crossover patterning in both the presence and absence of the synaptonemal complex" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Detlef Weigel (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

In the revised version, the authors properly addressed our points by adding the results in the pch2 mutant and re-analyzing the published data (Durand 2022) and the manuscript has been improved. In summary, this paper provides a new model of the patterning of crossovers on meiotic chromosomes but will be accepted after some revision.

The study on HEI10 patterning in the pch2-1 mutant supports the SC-mediated and nucleocytoplasmic coarsening models. However, it is not clear to me why 40% of SC segments in the mutant show no HEI10 focus (line 359, Figure 5C) if the coarsening-mediated CO assurance functions on each segment. Does this mean a short SC segment does not have enough HEI10 molecules per segment to form a bright focus on RI? If so, the authors should show the classification of segment focus numbers based on the segment length category (e.g. short, middle, and long segments) as shown in Figure 5C. The analysis could give the minimum segment length for the CO assurance (only in the case that PCH2 does not play a direct role in CO formation). It is critical to explain this defect in the pch2 mutant based on the simulation parameters in the main text.

eLife. 2023 Feb 27;12:e79408. doi: 10.7554/eLife.79408.sa2

Author response


Essential revisions:

You propose a new model of the distribution of complexes involved in meiotic crossover formation in a synapsis-defective mutant and validated it by using published results and a new data set, to make your scientific claims more acceptable. The new model of nucleoplasmic coarsening is interesting and critical in the field of meiotic recombination. However, we strongly feel the additional analysis of your model using different genetic backgrounds would be required for further validation and application of your model as described below.

Moreover, given a recent preprint by Raphael Mercier (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.11.491364), which shows similar results to your current and past results, it is essential to comment on the paper.

Please address the comments from the three reviewers, especially the four major points outlined below.

We would like to have your revision to be returned within two months. If the revision takes a lot longer, you may want to resubmit it as a new manuscript, and we will make sure that it goes to the same editors and reviewers.

1. To strengthen the idea of the "nucleoplasmic coarsening" model in the paper, in addition to the analysis of the zyp1a/1b mutant, it is important to check some genetic perturbation of key parameters in the model by changing such as a HEI10 amounts/concentration and/or the number of the binding sites (DSB or future CO sites). Given your group previously used HEI10 over-expressor (Morgan et al. Nature Communications, 2021), it is not difficult to see the effect of HEI10 over-expression in zyp1a/1b mutants on the model. Moreover, it is very critical to test your model using mutants that reduce the number of recombination intermediates such as asy1/+ and/or asy3/+ heterozygous mutants showing the altered distribution of COs and weakened interference (doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921055117).

To strengthen the empirical support for our mathematical modelling we have now added a substantial volume of additional experimental data. Specifically, we have added new experiments and accompanying modelling to investigate the patterning of late-HEI10 foci in pch2 mutants, which exhibit incomplete synapsis and weakened interference. We have also demonstrated that our nucleoplasmic coarsening model can explain the recently published results showing that zyp1 mutation combined with HEI10 overexpression results in a massive increase in class I COs in Arabidopsis (Durand et al., 2022).

Whilst the reviewers initially suggested performing experiments in asy1 or asy3 heterozygotes, after additional consultation with the editor we were informed that we “may add the analysis of two mutants in your model (you may try mutants other than the asy3 heterozygotes).” We felt that a pch2 mutant (alongside a zyp1 mutant + HEI10 overexpressor, see below) offered the best opportunity to further test our model for the following reasons:

  1. pch2 mutants exhibit partial synapsis. This phenotype fits well within the narrative of the paper, where we have also examined the effect of coarsening in lines with full or completely absent synapsis. Partial synapsis effectively reduces the number of recombination intermediates that can mature into COs, as only the minority of recombination intermediates that are present at regions of synapsis can form COs.

  2. CO interference has already been shown, genetically, to be weaker in pch2 mutants, both in Arabidopsis and other organisms (Lambing et al., 2015).

  3. DSB frequency does not appear to be affected in Arabidopsis pch2 mutants (Lambing et al., 2015). Therefore, it is likely that the effects on CO patterning are a direct result of altered synapsis and coarsening, rather than due to the altered patterning of DSB precursors.

We believe the addition of this extra data, and the ability of the coarsening model to explain yet another non-trivial meiotic phenotype, substantially strengthens and supports our conclusions. We thank the reviewers for suggesting the inclusion of such experiments. In light of these additions, we have also made some very minor adjustments to our original nucleoplasmic coarsening model to ensure continuity of model parameters used in the different simulation outputs now presented within the paper. Additionally, it is important to note that the ability of the coarsening model to explain the effect of reduced DSB number on CO frequency was already tested within our previous publication (fitting model outputs to spo11 hypomorph data from (Xue et al., 2018)).

2. It would be nice if you integrate the "nucleoplasmic coarsening" model into the dynamics of recombination protein complexes in "wild-type" and "HEI10-overespressor" pachytene nuclei together with coarsening along chromosomes (Morgan et al. Nature Communications, 2021) to check the combination of the two types of the coarsening to explain wild-type (and HEI10-overespressor) CO distribution in a more robust way.

As suggested, we have now added a section to the manuscript demonstrating that a model combining aspects of both synaptonemal complex (SC) and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening can explain CO patterning in Arabidopsis wild-type and HEI10 overexpressor lines.

3. The term "trans-interference" is too strong and may be a bit misleading. The authors should be more careful to use trans-interference in the text including in the title of the paper. It would be better to use the other word with a detailed explanation.

After taking on board feedback from the reviewers, we have now removed the terms trans- and cisinterference from the manuscript. We have re-written the title and edited the text to shift the main focus of the paper towards the more general conclusions we have made, regarding the interplay between synapsis and coarsening.

4. It is essential to mention and compare the results described in the preprint by Mercier with the authors' results-how different and how similar the two papers are. This would provide much help to researchers in the related areas and readers of eLife.

We have now added additional modelling to the paper demonstrating that our nucleoplasmic coarsening model is fully capable of explaining the massive increase in class I COs observed in the (now fully published) paper by Durand et al. We have also included additional text in the introduction and Discussion sections to further discuss this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

For the publication, the authors need more experiments by changing the Hei10 dose, as shown in the original paper (Morgan, 2021), to validate the model described in the paper, and, if possible, need to integrate this new model (nucleoplasmic coarsening model) with previous one (cis-interference) to check whether combined regulatory mechanisms could explain CO distribution in wild-type plant (or not) in a more robust way. Moreover, the authors can apply combined simulation of cis and trans coarsening models in "wild-type" meiosis such as the zygotene stage (and early pachytene stage) in addition to the late pachytene stage where SC formation is limited to some chromosomal regions to explain the distribution of Hei10 in the early stage in wild-type meiosis with the number (more), intensity, and distribution of the foci.

We have added extra modelling to the paper showing that the nucleoplasmic coarsening model can explain the massive increase in class I COs observed in zyp1 mutants and HEI10 overexpressing Arabidopsis (Durand et al., 2022). We have also added a new Results section that develops a combined coarsening model (incorporating SC and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening) to explain CO patterning in wild-type and HEI10 overexpressing Arabidopsis. We have also investigated how this model operates in scenarios where SC formation is limited to only some chromosomal regions. However, instead of looking in zygotene nuclei, which would require detailed knowledge of the dynamics of synapsis initiation and elongation that is currently lacking, and which would dramatically increase model complexity, we have examined this scenario by including extra experiments and modelling in pch2 mutants, which retain partial synapsis throughout the entirety of pachytene.

The proposed model in this paper could explain the controlled localization of various proteins involved in meiotic recombination. It is attractive to check if the model could explain the localization of proteins involved in the recombination such as Msh4-5 complexes in the early pachytene stage.

We do not have explicit data on MSH4-MSH5 localisation as, in our hands, we have not had much success with antibodies targeting these proteins, making it difficult to perform quantitative immunocytogenetics. However, it is important to note that the number of RIs in the initial conditions of our model is based on previously published counts of MSH4 and MSH5 foci (as well as early HEI10 foci) per cell (Higgins et al., 2008). Therefore, the expected frequency of these protein complexes is already incorporated within model parameters.

In addition, it is now important to indicate that there is "little" cytoplasmic/nucleoplasmic Hei10 in wild-type pachytene nuclei (all Hei10 molecules in SC conduits/channels) experimentally.

Unfortunately, to increase antibody penetration and specificity much of the cytoplasm and nucleoplasm is removed during the preparation of spread immunostained prophase I nuclei. This means that we cannot currently experimentally quantify the amount of SC bound vs nucleoplasmic HEI10. Live-cell imaging of fluorescently tagged HEI10 would be optimal for this experiment, but from personal communication with other labs that routinely perform live-cell imaging experiments, the tagging of HEI10 in Arabidopsis has proved to be experimentally challenging.

The authors need to explain "trans-interference", which is a confusing word, more in detail such as "which interferes with which" (lines 141-157). More importantly, to avoid confusion, "trans-interference" should "be renamed" such as since it does not stand for what the authors analyzed here (sub-Poisson distribution of COs). This could be tested by increasing amounts of Hei10 in nucleoplasm as pointed out above. In addition, the authors discuss their observation of per-nucleus crossover covariation, which shows the broader distribution of COs in various organisms (Wang et al. Cell, 2017 & 2019)

As described above, we have now removed the term trans-interference as it is clear this was a source of confusion. We have also added a small discussion of CO covariance and how recent evidence suggests this is absent in Arabidopsis (lines 398-402).

Need staining analysis of Hei10 foci in early pachytene stages in the mutant as well as the late stage. In the earlier stage, the authors would see less bright and reduced numbers of foci.

We have now included a supplementary figure (Figure 3 —figure supplement 1) showing the staining of HEI10 in early pachytene cells from wild-type and zyp1 Arabidopsis. Indeed, we see less bright and greater (assuming this is what the reviewer meant to say?) numbers of foci.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Some specific points:

Line 1 (and throughout): It is not obvious that the meiosis field needs yet another term – "trans-interference" – to join the rather overcrowded field of terms describing statistical and mechanistic phenomena related to crossovers. Especially not one that is a compound of two terms that tend to be confusing in themselves. In addition, it is not clear, based on the current data, that what the authors name "trans-interference" indeed reflects a relevant biological entity and not a truly random distribution (the null hypothesis here).

As described above, we have now removed the terms trans- and cis- interference from the paper (we concede they were confusing!) and have toned down our prior emphasis on this aspect of the results.

Lines 19-20: what is the difference between 'quantitatively reproducing' and 'predicting' as pertaining to the work here? If there is no difference, one should be removed.

This is a good point and was not made sufficiently clear within the original manuscript. For model ‘predictions’ the model was not explicitly fitted to the data it explains. This is not the case for scenarios where the model ‘reproduced’ the experimental results, where the model was explicitly fitted to the available data. We have added additional text to clarify this point (lines 259-261).

Line 143: What is the statistical test used to claim the "significance" referred to here? Crucially, statistical tests are missing throughout. Their absence is particularly notable here since this piece of data is crucial to the main conclusion of the manuscript.

Details regarding the statistical tests used to show significant under-dispersion relative to a Poisson distribution have now been added (lines 147-152 and lines 172-185).

Line 159: Figure 2D does not show what the authors claim – it merely shows many examples of coarsening, some stabilizing and some not by the end of the simulation. The manuscript would actually benefit from a more thorough analysis of this point since duration seems like a missed opportunity to test the model. What is the distribution of pachytene duration in plants? And how sensitive is the model to the distribution of this parameter?

We have changed the wording of the sentence in the text that refers to this figure to clarify our meaning (lines 159-161). As the reviewer points out, the coarsening dynamics within our model are sensitive to the duration of pachytene, with longer durations resulting in fewer COs. The sensitivity of this parameter (and others) were tested within our previous publication by 10% perturbation, giving broadly comparable results (Morgan et al., 2021). Interestingly, the distribution of timings of meiosis (and, hence, likely pachytene) in plants does seem to vary considerably, with increased duration possibly correlating with increasing total SC length (Anderson et al., 1985; Bennett et al., 1977). We agree testing the impact of altered duration of meiosis on CO number and HEI10 dynamics offers an excellent opportunity to test the model, however we feel this lies outside the scope of this current paper, which is more focused on the interplay between synapsis and coarsening in Arabidopsis.

Lines 197-217: The discussion of 'telomere loading' of recombination intermediates confuses underlying biological mechanisms and modeling strategy/approach. (And it is also confusing in general). This discussion needs to clearly indicate what is the biological reasoning behind the parameters being used. In its current form, it seems like the authors were simply fitting the model to the observed data. If that is the case, that should be clearly stated, and the statistical consequences of this addressed. A similar issue arises earlier, in lines 106-116, where it is not clear what was done to "fit the model" (line 106) and what were the findings that the "coarsening model was capable of recapitulating" (line 116).

We have added additional text to clarify that the end-bias parameter was included to ‘improve the fit’ of the original coarsening model (lines 230-232). We think this makes it clear that this parameter was initially included to improve the fit of the model to the data, rather than for a predetermined biological reason (the inclusion of this parameter, and the effect of its absence, is discussed in greater detail in (Morgan et al., 2021)). We have also clarified that in the absence of this parameter we would not observe the distal bias of COs observed within our zyp1 modelling (lines 232-233). However, we do believe the biological justifications for including these parameters are valid, which we discuss within the text. We have also added text clarifying how the model was fitted and specifically which data the model simulations recapitulate (lines 106-109 and lines 116-118).

Line 192 (and below): The term 'cytological recombination maps' (and the discussion of the genetic recombination maps from Capilla-Perez 2021) is confusing and misleading. The authors' quantitative cytological analysis is indeed novel and useful for their purposes, but it is not a 'recombination map'; it's a description of HEI10 foci. The two seem to be well correlated, but that does not mean they could be trivially equated. (A minor point, but in line 167, it should be noted that cytological analysis has not been done specifically *in zyp1 mutants*.)

This is a fair point. We have changed the terminology to ‘cytological late-HEI10 foci maps’ (line 219). We have also added the suggested text (line 190).

Two final points:

First, as I'm sure the authors are well aware, a related manuscript from Raphael Mercier's group was placed in bioRxiv as this manuscript was under review (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.11.491364). Please make sure to reference this preprint in the final form of your work.

Second, the clarity and readability of the manuscript will be greatly increased by limiting the number of abbreviations being used. Many of them are particularly uncommon or unique to the authors' own work (CP, RI).

We have now referenced and discussed this (now fully published) work. We have also removed the abbreviation for CP from the manuscript, however we would prefer to keep RI (recombination intermediate) as this is found in some other publications and, importantly, maintains continuity with our previous coarsening paper (Morgan et al., 2021).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors often refer to their previous model in which HEI10 coarsening is mediated via SC. The new model addresses the absence of SC, therefore HEI10 coarsening occurs via nucleoplasm. I think that it should be better emphasized in the work that the new model developed works only in a situation where SC is not present, while in the case of wild type and mutants where SC formation is not disturbed, the original model is applicable. I admit that it is well emphasized in the abstract, but not so clear later in the main body. This is particularly misleading in paragraphs that refer to Figure 4 (starting from line 191), where the authors present experimental data for both WT and zyp1, while showing the simulation for the mutant only. With a cursory reading, it is easy to lose this information somewhere and to think that the nucleoplasmic coarsening model can also be applied to WT. So why not show the simulation for WT using the original model in Figure 4 at the same time? I think it would improve the reception of work.

We believe that with the addition of the section discussing and exploring a combined version of the model, that incorporates SC and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening, it will be much clearer that the full nucleoplasmic model can only be used for SC mutants, whilst a model incorporating only a small amount of nucleoplasmic coarsening can explain CO patterning in wild-type Arabidopsis. Additionally, we have now incorporated wild-type CO patterning simulations in Figure 4 —figure supplement 2, which readers will be able to compare with the data in Figure 4.

The paragraph on line 197 is difficult to follow and should be improved:

The sentence starting at Line 204: the authors should provide some figure explaining this effect of extra loading as it is not clear to me.

We have added some additional text (lines 224-248) and an additional supplementary figure (Figure 1 —figure supplement 1) to clarify our meaning in this section.

The sentence starting at line 210: when I tried to compare the original and nucleoplasmic coarsening models (Figure 2D in Nat commun paper and 4A in this ms), I couldn't see that end-loading is less pronounced in the new model than in the original one. Could you illustrate this more clearly and also show simulations from both models side-by-side?

This has been added in the new supplementary figure, described above (Figure 1 —figure supplement 1).

The sentence starting at line 214: this is something I completely don't understand, as at the beginning of this paragraph you mentioned that in the zyp1 mutant HEI10 foci tend to be shifted toward the chromosome ends (which is also clearly visible in Figure 4A).

We have reworded this sentence (lines 239-242).

The way of using references in the manuscript is sometimes weird. E.g., I don't get why Capilla-Perez et al. 2021 is cited in line 110 and not just in 111 (this is the same sentence). In general, I would suggest including the references at the end of sentences and not in the middle of a sentence.

We have modified the referencing of Capilla-Perez et al., 2021 within the manuscript, as suggested.

The methods are presented in a very clear and exhaustive way, I really appreciate this!

Thank you!

References:

Anderson LK, Stack SM, Fox MH, Chuanshan Z. 1985. The relationship between genome size and synaptonemal complex length in higher plants. Exp Cell Res 156:367–378. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(85)90544-0

Bennett MD, Lewis KR, Harberd DJ, Riley R, Bennett MD, Flavell RB. 1977. The time and duration of meiosis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 277:201–226. doi:10.1098/rstb.1977.0012

Capilla-Pérez L, Durand S, Hurel A, Lian Q, Chambon A, Taochy C, Solier V, Grelon M, Mercier R. 2021. The synaptonemal complex imposes crossover interference and heterochiasmy in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2023613118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2023613118

Durand S, Lian Q, Jing J, Ernst M, Grelon M, Zwicker D, Mercier R. 2022. Joint control of meiotic crossover patterning by the synaptonemal complex and HEI10 dosage. Nat Commun 13:5999. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33472-w

Higgins JD, Vignard J, Mercier R, Pugh AG, Franklin FCH, Jones GH. 2008. AtMSH5 partners AtMSH4 in the class I meiotic crossover pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana, but is not required for synapsis. The Plant Journal 55:28–39. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03470.x

Lambing C, Osman K, Nuntasoontorn K, West A, Higgins JD, Copenhaver GP, Yang J, Armstrong SJ, Mechtler K, Roitinger E, Franklin FCH. 2015. Arabidopsis PCH2 Mediates Meiotic Chromosome Remodeling and Maturation of Crossovers. PLoS Genet 11:e1005372-.

Morgan C, Fozard JA, Hartley M, Henderson IR, Bomblies K, Howard M. 2021. Diffusion-mediated HEI10 coarsening can explain meiotic crossover positioning in Arabidopsis. Nat Commun 12:4674. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24827-w

Xue M, Wang J, Jiang L, Wang M, Wolfe S, Pawlowski WP, Wang Y, He Y. 2018. The number of meiotic double-strand breaks influencecrossover distribution in arabidopsis[open]. Plant Cell. doi:10.1105/tpc.18.00531

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

In the revised version, the authors properly addressed our points by adding the results in the pch2 mutant and re-analyzing the published data (Durand 2022) and the manuscript has been improved. In summary, this paper provides a new model of the patterning of crossovers on meiotic chromosomes but will be accepted after some revision.

The study on HEI10 patterning in the pch2-1 mutant supports the SC-mediated and nucleocytoplasmic coarsening models. However, it is not clear to me why 40% of SC segments in the mutant show no HEI10 focus (line 359, Figure 5C) if the coarsening-mediated CO assurance functions on each segment. Does this mean a short SC segment does not have enough HEI10 molecules per segment to form a bright focus on RI? If so, the authors should show the classification of segment focus numbers based on the segment length category (e.g. short, middle, and long segments) as shown in Figure 5C. The analysis could give the minimum segment length for the CO assurance (only in the case that PCH2 does not play a direct role in CO formation). It is critical to explain this defect in the pch2 mutant based on the simulation parameters in the main text.

Thank you for raising this interesting point. We have now added additional text to this Results section to further discuss why zero CO segments occur within our pch2 simulations (lines 362-367). We have also edited Figure 5 – S1 to make it clearer that some short SC segments lack any RIs in our pch2 simulations. We note that the classification of segment focus numbers based on segment SC length is already shown in Figure 5F. However, we have now added additional text to discuss the important point raised by the reviewer regarding the minimum SC length required for CO assurance in pch2 mutants (lines 330-332).

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. ZYP1 data. figshare. [DOI]
    2. Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. Col-o (for zyp1 comparison) figshare. [DOI]
    3. Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2023. pch2 data. figshare. [DOI]

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. Default simulation parameter values for nucleoplasmic coarsening model.
    Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Default simulation parameter values for various scenarios: WT, original synaptonemal complex (SC)-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters (as implemented in ‘Materials and methods’), WT+nuc, combined SC- and nucleoplasm-mediated coarsening model with wild-type parameters.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Parameters for pch2 simulations that are different from those in Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1.
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    Imaging data associated with this study are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19650249.v1, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19665810.v1 and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21989732. Custom Python scripts for data analysis are available at https://github.com/jfozard/hei10_zyp1, (copy archived at Fozard, 2023).

    The following datasets were generated:

    Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. ZYP1 data. figshare.

    Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2022. Col-o (for zyp1 comparison) figshare.

    Fozard JA, Morgan C, Howard M. 2023. pch2 data. figshare.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES