Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2022 Oct 24;18(10):e1010136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010136

Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans

Karen P McNally 1, Elizabeth A Beath 1, Brennan M Danlasky 1, Consuelo Barroso 2, Ting Gong 1, Wenzhe Li 1, Enrique Martinez-Perez 2,3, Francis J McNally 1,*
Editor: Sarit Smolikove4
PMCID: PMC9632809  PMID: 36279281

Abstract

Accurate chromosome segregation requires a cohesin-mediated physical attachment between chromosomes that are to be segregated apart, and a bipolar spindle with microtubule plus ends emanating from exactly two poles toward the paired chromosomes. We asked whether the striking bipolar structure of C. elegans meiotic chromosomes is required for bipolarity of acentriolar female meiotic spindles by time-lapse imaging of mutants that lack cohesion between chromosomes. Both a spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 quadruple mutant and a spo-11 rec-8 double mutant entered M phase with separated sister chromatids lacking any cohesion. However, the quadruple mutant formed an apolar spindle whereas the double mutant formed a bipolar spindle that segregated chromatids into two roughly equal masses. Residual non-cohesive COH-3/4-dependent cohesin on separated sister chromatids of the double mutant was sufficient to recruit haspin-dependent Aurora B kinase, which mediated bipolar spindle assembly in the apparent absence of chromosomal bipolarity. We hypothesized that cohesin-dependent Aurora B might activate or inhibit spindle assembly factors in a manner that would affect their localization on chromosomes and found that the chromosomal localization patterns of KLP-7 and CLS-2 correlated with Aurora B loading on chromosomes. These results demonstrate that cohesin is essential for spindle assembly and chromosome segregation independent of its role in sister chromatid cohesion.

Author summary

Meiosis is the process that reduces the number of chromosomes from four to one during the formation of eggs and sperm so that a fertilized egg has exactly two copies of each chromosome. Meiotic errors result in offspring with an incorrect number of chromosomes which results in prenatal death or birth defects. Accurate meiosis requires that the four chromosomes at the beginning of meiosis are attached to each other by a protein called cohesin and a structure called a spindle that pulls individual chromosomes in two directions. Here we show that in the roundworm, C. elegans, cohesin is required for building a spindle that can pull in two directions independently of its role in attaching chromosome copies to each other. Because cohesin is gradually lost in aging women, these results may clarify why aging women have an increasing incidence of babies with birth defects caused by an incorrect number of chromosomes.

Introduction

The accurate segregation of chromosomes during meiosis and mitosis requires sister chromatid cohesion (SCC) provided by the cohesin complex and a bipolar spindle with microtubule minus ends oriented toward the two poles and microtubule plus ends extending from the two poles toward the chromosomes [1]. During mitosis in most animal cells, spindle formation is initiated when organelles known as centrosomes are duplicated and move to opposite sides of the cell. There they anchor, nucleate and stabilize microtubules with their plus ends polymerizing away from the poles [2]. Microtubule plus ends puncture the nuclear membrane and capture the kinetochores of chromosomes, thus establishing a symmetric spindle axis.

In contrast to the pathway of mitotic spindle formation, the female meiotic cells of many animals lack centrosomes and spindle formation initiates when microtubules organize around chromatin during the two consecutive meiotic divisions. In Xenopus egg extracts and mouse oocytes, DNA-coated beads are sufficient to induce bipolar spindle assembly [3,4]. The mechanisms of acentrosomal spindle assembly are being elucidated in several species and two alternate pathways have been implicated. The first molecular activity to be identified in the assembly of microtubules around meiotic chromatin is the GTPase Ran. In the Ran pathway, spindle assembly factors (SAFs) contain nuclear localization sequences and are imported into the nucleus during interphase by binding to importins. GTP-Ran, which is maintained at a high concentration in the nucleus by the chromatin-bound GEF RCC1, causes dissociation of the SAFs from importins inside the nucleus, thus driving the directionality of import. Upon nuclear envelope breakdown, tubulin enters the region adjacent to chromatin and the locally activated SAFs initiate MT nucleation and stabilization [5]. Inhibition of the Ran pathway prevents or affects the assembly of acentrosomal spindles in Xenopus egg extracts [6] and in mouse [7], Drosophila [8] and C. elegans oocytes [9]. In Xenopus egg extracts, spindle assembly is induced by beads coated with the Ran GEF, RCC1, even without DNA [10].

The second pathway which has been implicated in acentrosomal spindle assembly requires the Chromosomal Passenger Complex (CPC), which includes the chromatin-targeting proteins Survivin and Borealin, the scaffold subunit INCENP, and Aurora B kinase [11]. The CPC is recruited to distinct regions on mitotic chromosomes by at least three different pathways [12]. Depletion of CPC components resulted in a lack of spindle microtubules in Drosophila oocytes [13] and in Xenopus egg extracts to which sperm nuclei or DNA-coated beads are added [1416]. In C. elegans oocytes, the CPC subunits, BIR-1/survivin [17], INCENP [18], and the Aurora B-homolog AIR-2 [19,20] contribute to meiotic spindle assembly.

While the GTP Ran and CPC pathways are known to be involved in the initiation of acentrosomal spindle assembly, the mechanism by which the microtubules are captured into two poles is unclear. Spindles with one or more poles form when chromatin-coated beads are added to Xenopus egg extracts, suggesting that pole formation is an intrinsic activity of microtubules assembling around chromatin [10]. However, the results also suggest that the reproducible production of bipolar spindles requires that the process includes some bidirectionality. In C. elegans, meiotic bivalents, which promote assembly of a bipolar metaphase I spindle, are composed of 4 chromatids held together by chiasmata, physical attachments provided by cohesin and a single crossover formed between homologous chromosomes. These bivalents have a discrete bipolar symmetry with a mid-bivalent ring containing the CPC, and they are capped at their two ends by cup-shaped kinetochores. Metaphase II univalents, which promote assembly of a bipolar metaphase II spindle, are composed of 2 chromatids held together by cohesin. These univalents also have a discrete bipolar symmetry with a CPC ring between sister chromatids that are each capped by cup-shaped kinetochores [18,19,21].

To test whether this chromosomal bipolar symmetry is required for spindle bipolarity, we analyzed cohesin mutants that start meiotic spindle assembly with separated sister chromatids rather than the bivalents present in wild-type meiosis I or the univalents present in wild-type meiosis II. During meiosis, cohesin is composed of SMC-1, SMC-3, and one of 3 meiosis-specific kleisin subunits: REC-8 and the functionally redundant COH-3 and COH-4 [2224]. Both REC-8 and COH-3/4 cohesin promote pairing and recombination between homologous chromosomes during early meiosis, thus ensuring chiasma formation. However, SCC appears to be provided by REC-8 complexes, while COH-3/4 complexes associate with individual chromatids [25,26]. Previous work indicated that rec-8 single mutants have 12 univalents at meiosis I, with each pair of sister chromatids held together by recombination events dependent on COH-3/COH-4 cohesin [25,27]. Sister chromatids segregated equationally at anaphase I of rec-8 mutants with half the chromatids going into a single polar body [23]. This suggests that rec-8 embryos enter metaphase II with 12 separated sister chromatids. Although it was reported that rec-8 embryos do not extrude a second polar body, the structure of the metaphase II spindle was not described in detail. To address the question of whether chromosomal bipolarity is required for spindle bipolarity, we first monitored metaphase II spindle assembly in a rec-8 mutant by time-lapse imaging of living embryos in utero.

Results

Apolar spindles assemble around separated sister chromatids of metaphase II rec-8 embryos

Time-lapse in utero imaging of control embryos with microtubules labelled with mNeonGreen::tubulin and chromosomes labelled with mCherry::histone H2b revealed bipolar spindles that shorten, then rotate, then segregate chromosomes in both meiosis I and meiosis II (Fig 1A and S1 Video). Wild-type embryos enter metaphase I with 6 bivalents and enter metaphase II with 6 univalents whereas rec-8 embryos enter metaphase I with 12 univalents (Fig 1B and S1A Fig) and enter metaphase II with approximately 12 separated sister chromatids (Fig 1B) [23]. Time-lapse imaging of rec-8 embryos revealed bipolar metaphase I spindles that shortened, rotated, and segregated chromosomes (Fig 1C, -1:45–5:15; and S2 Video). Metaphase II rec-8 embryos, however, assembled an amorphous cloud of microtubules around separated sister chromatids which did not segregate into two masses. The apolar spindle shrank with timing similar to spindle shortening that occurs during wild-type meiosis (Fig 1C, 9:15–18:00). Because spindle shortening is caused by APC-dependent inactivation of CDK1 [28], this suggests that the failure in metaphase II spindle assembly is not due to a lack of cell cycle progression. The bipolar nature of metaphase I rec-8 spindles and the apolar nature of rec-8 metaphase II spindles was confirmed by time-lapse imaging of GFP::ASPM-1 (Fig 1D). ASPM-1 binds at microtubule minus ends [29] so the dispersed appearance of GFP::ASPM-1 on rec-8 metaphase II spindles suggests that microtubules are randomly oriented in the spindle.

Fig 1. Metaphase II spindles are apolar in rec-8(ok978).

Fig 1

(A) In 8/8 control embryos, bipolar MI spindles shorten and rotate, chromosomes segregate, and a polar body forms. The cycle repeats with a bipolar MII spindle. Lines indicate the position of the cortex. (B) In metaphase I, both sister chromatids and homologs are bound by cohesin containing both REC-8 and COH-3/4 (dark blue); homologs are released and separate in Anaphase I; sister chromatids are released and separate in Anaphase II. In rec-8(ok978), COH-3/4 cohesin (light blue) is present in an expanded region between sister chromatids in MI and no cohesin is present in MII. (C) Time-lapse imaging of rec-8(ok978) expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11. The metaphase II spindle appears disorganized and no anaphase chromosome separation occurs in 8/8 embryos. 0 minutes is the end of MI spindle rotation. (D) Control and rec-8(ok978) embryos expressing GFP::ASPM-1. Single-focal plane imaging was ended at metaphase II and z-stacks were acquired. 7/7 control MI spindles, 7/7 rec-8 MI spindles, and 7/7 control MII spindles were bipolar. 8/8 rec-8 MII spindles were apolar. (E) Imaging of rec-8 embryos expressing GFP::MEL-28 revealed kinetochore cups in 4/4 MI spindles and chromatids enclosed by GFP::MEL-28 in 7/7 MII spindles. All bars = 4μm.

Time-lapse imaging of the kinetochore protein GFP::MEL-28 in rec-8 embryos revealed metaphase I univalents with discrete bipolar structure similar to wild-type metaphase II univalents, whereas metaphase II separated sister chromatids were enveloped by a continuous shell of GFP::MEL-28 with no bipolar symmetry (Fig 1E).

Apolar spindles assemble around separated sister chromatids of metaphase I rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 embryos and spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 embryos

To test whether the apparent inability of separated sister chromatids to drive bipolar spindle assembly is specific for meiosis II, we compared control embryos (Fig 2A and 2B) with embryos of a rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 triple mutant which lack meiotic cohesin and therefore enter metaphase I with 24 separated sister chromatids [23] (Fig 2A and S1C Fig). In the majority of these embryos, an amorphous cloud of microtubules assembled around the separated sister chromatids (Fig 2C) at the same time after ovulation that a bipolar spindle assembled in control embryos (Fig 2B). This amorphous cloud shrank in diameter (Fig 2C, -0.20) at a similar time as control spindles, which shortened prior to anaphase chromosome separation (Fig 2B, -1:10). The mutant spindles did not undergo anaphase like control spindles. In a minority of rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 triple mutant embryos, a bipolar metaphase I spindle started to form (Fig 2D, -6:50 and -6:10) but then quickly collapsed into an amorphous cloud of microtubules (Fig 2D, -4:20). These spindles also shrank with timing similar to wild-type spindle shortening and did not undergo anaphase (Fig 2D, 5:00). Triple mutant embryos assembled a second amorphous mass of microtubules at the time of normal metaphase II spindle assembly (Fig 2D, 13:20) and this meiosis II spindle also shrank without segregating chromosomes (Fig 2D, 16:10). Similar results were obtained by fixed immunofluorescence (Fig 2E).

Fig 2. Bipolar spindles can form in rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 embryos, but they are unstable and become apolar.

Fig 2

(A) In metaphase I of control embryos, both sister chromatids and homologs are bound by cohesin; homologs are released and separate in Anaphase I; sister chromatids are released and separate in anaphase II. In rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 embryos, no cohesin is present in either MI or MII and chromatids do not separate. (B) Time-lapse images of a control embryo expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11 show bipolar meiosis I and meiosis II spindles which shorten and undergo anaphase chromosome separation. Time 0:00 for B, C, and D is the time of full contact between the spindle and the cortex. (C) Time-lapse images captured with 7/12 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 embryos expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11 show MI spindles which were apolar at ovulation, then shortened and chromosome separation did not occur. MII (not shown) was similar to MI. (D) In 5/12 embryos, MI spindles initially appeared to be bipolar, but were unstable and became apolar. The MI spindles shortened and no anaphase chromosome separation occurred. MII was similar to MI. (E) Control and rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 embryos were fixed and stained with both tubulin and MEI-1 antibodies and with DAPI. 10/10 Control and 5/11 mutant embryos had spindles with MEI-1 concentrated on chromosomes and at two poles. 6/11 mutant spindles were apolar. All bars = 5μm.

We also examined meiotic embryos within a spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 quadruple mutant (Fig 3A), which lack meiotic cohesin and the double strand breaks that initiate meiotic recombination (spo-11 mutation) and also enter metaphase I with 24 separated sister chromatids [23] (Fig 3B). In all of these embryos, an amorphous mass of microtubules formed around the 24 chromatids (Fig 3A, -2:30; and S3 Video). This cloud of microtubules shrank with similar timing to wild-type spindle shortening and was not followed by any separation of chromosomes (Fig 3A, -2:30–2:30). A second large mass of microtubules formed at the time that a metaphase II spindle normally forms (Fig 3A, 12:15). This metaphase II mass also shrank with similar timing to normal spindle shortening (Fig 3A, 12:15–16) and chromatids did not separate into two masses and polar bodies did not form in 10/10 time-lapse sequences. Possible reasons for the stronger defect in the quadruple mutant than the triple mutant are discussed below. These results indicated that bipolar spindle assembly around separated sister chromatids that lack both cohesin and cohesion, is severely defective at both metaphase I and metaphase II.

Fig 3. spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 embryos have disorganized meiotic spindles whereas spo-11 rec-8 embryos have bipolar spindles in meiosis I.

Fig 3

(A) Single-focal plane time-lapse imaging of a spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutant expressing mNeonGreen::TBB-2 and mCherry::HIS. Disorganized spindles were observed in both MI and MII in 10/10 embryos. 0 minutes is the time when the MI spindle contacts the cortex. (B) Z-stack slices of a spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 MI spindle show 24 chromatids with one chromatid visible in both slices 9 and 14. (C) Single-focal plane time-lapse imaging of 13/13 spo-11 rec-8 embryos show bipolar MI spindles which undergo anaphase chromosome separation and MII spindles which are disorganized and do not undergo anaphase chromosome separation. 0 minutes is the completion of MI spindle rotation. (D) Combined z-stack slices of a spo-11 rec-8 MI spindle show 24 chromatids. (E) Time-lapse imaging of spo-11 rec-8 embryos expressing GFP::MEI-1. 10/10 Control MI spindles, 5/5 Control MII spindles and 9/9 spo-11 rec-8 MI spindles were bipolar. 8/8 spo-11 rec-8 MII spindles were apolar. (F) Graph showing chromosome numbers during MI in both spo-11 rec-8, and spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutant embryos. All bars = 4μm.

Bipolar spindles assemble around separated sister chromatids of metaphase I spo-11 rec-8 embryos

To distinguish whether cohesin vs cohesion is required for bipolar spindle assembly, we analyzed spo-11 rec-8 double mutants (Fig 3C) which enter metaphase I with 24 separated sister chromatids [24] (Fig 3D and S1B Fig) but have been reported to retain COH-3/4 cohesin on pachytene chromosomes [24,26]. Bipolar metaphase I spindles assembled in spo-11 rec-8 double mutants and these spindles shortened, rotated, and then segregated the chromatids into two masses (Fig 3C, -6:50–5:20; and S4 Video). During meiosis II, an amorphous mass of microtubules assembled around the chromatids and this mass shrank but did not separate chromatids into two masses (Fig 3C, 16:10–18:40), similar to meiosis I in the triple and quadruple mutant, and meiosis II in the triple mutant, the quadruple mutant and the rec-8 single mutant. The spindle pole protein, GFP::MEI-1, clearly labelled two poles of metaphase I and metaphase II control spindles but only labelled spindle poles of metaphase I spo-11 rec-8 mutants (Fig 3E). GFP::MEI-1 was dispersed on metaphase II spindles, confirming the apolar structure of these spindles. GFP::MEI-1 also associated with chromosomes and this chromosome association was much more apparent in metaphase II spo-11 rec-8 spindles (Fig 3E). However, the background subtracted ratio of mean GFP::MEI-1 pixel intensity on chromosomes divided by mean cytoplasmic intensity was not significantly increased between metaphase I and metaphase II for either spo-11 rec-8 (MI: 7.01 ± 0.89, N = 5 embryos, n = 15 chromosomes; MII: 5.62 ± 0.76, N = 5, n = 15; p = 0.23) or control spindles (MI: 5.62 ± 0.33, N = 6, n = 18; MII: 5.47 ± 0.35, N = 6, n = 18; p = 0.74). This result indicated that the enhanced contrast of chromosomal GFP::MEI-1 in spo-11 rec-8 embryos was due to the decrease in microtubule-associated GFP::MEI-1.

The ability of spo-11 rec-8 embryos to form bipolar metaphase I spindles might be due to one or two univalents held together by residual COH-3/COH-4 cohesin. However, 24 chromosome bodies could be counted in Z-stacks of the majority of metaphase I spindles (Fig 3F) and all metaphase I spindles were bipolar (13/13 mNeonGreen tubulin, 9/9 GFP::MEI-1). The ability of spo-11 rec-8 embryos to undergo anaphase I but inability to undergo anaphase II is consistent with the single polar body previously described for this double mutant [23].

Cohesin rather than cohesion is required for bipolar spindle assembly

The ability of spo-11 rec-8 mutants to build bipolar metaphase I spindles but not metaphase II spindles might be because metaphase I chromatids retain cohesin, as high levels of COH-3/4 associate with pachytene chromosomes of rec-8 mutants [24,26]. This non-cohesive COH-3/4 cohesin might be removed at anaphase I, leaving the metaphase II chromatids with no cohesin. This hypothesis was validated by time-lapse imaging of the cohesin subunit, SMC-1::AID::GFP, which would be a component of both REC-8 cohesin and COH-3/4 cohesin. SMC-1::AID::GFP was found on control metaphase I and metaphase II chromosomes and on most metaphase I chromosomes of spo-11 rec-8 mutants but was absent from the metaphase II chromatids of spo-11 rec-8 mutants (Fig 4A–4C). The absence of SMC-1 from a subset of metaphase I spo-11 rec-8 chromatids may be due to WAPL-1-dependent and WAPL-1-independent pre-anaphase removal pathways [25]. To more directly test the requirement for cohesin, we monitored metaphase I spindle assembly in embryos depleted of SMC-1 with an auxin-induced degron [30]. For this experiment we monitored endogenously tagged GFP::LIN-5 as a spindle pole marker instead of GFP::ASPM-1 because the aspm-1 gene is linked to smc-1. The majority of SMC-1-depleted embryos formed apolar metaphase I spindles (Fig 4D). The small number of multipolar spindles likely resulted from an incomplete depletion of SMC-1 as a subset of oocyte nuclei exhibited residual SMC-1::AID::GFP fluorescence after auxin treatment (S2A and S2B Fig) and auxin treatment only caused a reduced brood size (S1 Table) whereas null mutants have been reported to be completely sterile [31]. These results support the idea that cohesin on chromosomes rather than cohesion between chromosomes is required for bipolar spindle assembly during both meiosis I and meiosis II.

Fig 4. Non-cohesive cohesin is sufficient for bipolar spindle formation.

Fig 4

Single-plane time-lapse images from control (A) and spo-11 rec-8 (B) embryos expressing SMC-1::AID::GFP and mCH::HIS-58. (C) SMC-1::AID::GFP pixel intensities on individual chromosomes were determined relative to cytoplasmic background. N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes. (D) C. elegans expressing SMC-1::AID::GFP, eGFP::LIN-5 and mkate::TBB-2 were incubated overnight in the presence or absence of auxin. Single slices of z-stack MI images are shown. All bars = 4μm.

A specific subclass of chromosome-associated Aurora B kinase correlates with competence for bipolar spindle assembly

We then asked why cohesin might be required for bipolar spindle assembly. During mitosis in cultured human cells [32] and fission yeast [33], cohesin-associated PDS5 recruits haspin kinase to chromosomes [32] and the recruited haspin phosphorylates histone H3 threonine 3. Although PDS5 has important functions during meiotic prophase in several species [3437], a role in recruiting haspin during meiosis has not been reported to our knowledge. The survivin (BIR-1 in C. elegans) subunit of the CPC binds to the phosphorylated histone thereby recruiting Aurora B to chromosomes [32,38,39]. In C. elegans, haspin (HASP-1) is required to promote recruitment of Aurora B (AIR-2) to the midbivalent region in diakinesis oocytes [40] and AIR-2 is essential for bipolar meiotic spindle assembly in C. elegans [19,20]. Therefore we hypothesized that chromatids that lack cohesin-recruited AIR-2 would be unable to form bipolar meiotic spindles. Time-lapse imaging of control embryos with endogenously tagged AIR-2::GFP (Fig 5A) revealed bright rings between homologs at metaphase I, microtubule association during anaphase I, bright rings between sister chromatids at metaphase II, and microtubule association during anaphase II as previously described [19]. In rec-8 embryos, AIR-2 formed bright structures between sister chromatids at metaphase I and filled spaces between chromosomes at anaphase I, consistent with transfer to microtubules. However, at metaphase II in rec-8 embryos, AIR-2::GFP was dim and diffuse on bipolar-spindle-incompetent separated sister chromatids, then became bright in regions between chromosomes, consistent with transfer to microtubules at anaphase II (Fig 5B). In rec-8 embryos, AIR-2::GFP was significantly dimmer on chromosomes at metaphase II relative to metaphase I whereas no such decrease was observed in control embryos (Fig 5C).

Fig 5. AIR-2::GFP levels are diminished and diffuse in the absence of cohesin.

Fig 5

(A) In time-lapse images of control embryos, AIR-2::GFP is in the midbivalent ring structure during metaphase I and II and on MTs during anaphase I and II. (B) In rec-8(ok978), AIR-2::GFP is an expanded ring structure during MI, diffuse on chromatids in MII and extends into a broader area during both anaphase I and II, consistent with transfer to microtubules. (C) Quantification of AIR-2::GFP intensities on chromosomes relative to the cytoplasm in control and rec-8(ok978). Ratios varied depending on the distance of the chromosomes from the coverslip. N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes. The higher than control intensities in rec-8 MI might be due to the previously reported [23] expanded ring structure between chromatids which might involve unresolved synaptonemal complex intermediates [25,27]. (D) -1 oocyte nuclei in living control and mutant worms expressing AIR-2::GFP and mCH::HIS-58. (E) Quantification of AIR-2::GFP intensities on chromosomes relative to the nucleoplasm in control and mutant oocytes. N, number of oocytes. n, number of chromosomes. (F) MI and MII metaphase chromosomes in living spo-11(me44) rec-8(ok978) embryos. All bars = 4μm.

In control -1 diakinesis oocytes, which will initiate meiosis I spindle assembly within 1–23 min [41], AIR-2::GFP brightly labeled the space between the homologous chromosomes in 6 bivalents. In contrast, GFP::AIR-2 was dim and diffuse on all of the bipolar-spindle-incompetent separated sister chromatids of spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 quadruple mutants (Fig 5D and 5E, S3 Fig). Unlike the quadruple mutant, a fraction of chromatids in the triple mutant had AIR-2::GFP intensities that overlapped with those of controls (Fig 5E) providing a possible explanation for the stronger spindle assembly defect in the quadruple mutant. Diakinesis oocytes of bipolar-spindle-competent spo-11 rec-8 double mutants contained a mixture of separated sister chromatids with either dim diffuse AIR-2::GFP or bright patterned AIR-2::GFP (Fig 5D and 5E, S3 Fig). The bright patterned AIR-2::GFP on a subset of separated sister chromatids could also be observed in bipolar metaphase I spindles of spo-11 rec-8 mutants (Fig 5F). The subset of metaphase I chromatids in spo-11 rec-8 mutants with bright patterned AIR-2 was the same subset that retained COH-3/4 cohesin (S4 Fig). In bipolar-spindle-incompetent metaphase II embryos of spo-11 rec-8 embryos, AIR-2::GFP was again dim and diffuse on all separated sister chromatids (Fig 5F). These results indicated that a specific subclass of AIR-2::GFP, that which is cohesin-dependent and forms a bright pattern on chromosomes, can promote bipolar spindle assembly. The subclasses of AIR-2::GFP that are cohesin-independent label chromatin dimly and diffusely, and label anaphase microtubules, but cannot efficiently promote bipolar spindle assembly.

To further test this idea, we analyzed sperm-derived chromatin in meiotic embryos. Whereas demembranated sperm [42] or DNA-coated beads [3] added to Xenopus egg extracts induce bipolar spindle assembly, the sperm-derived chromatin in C. elegans meiotic embryos does not induce spindle assembly [43]. Endogenously tagged GFP::SMC-1 was not detected on sperm-derived DNA in meiotic embryos (S5A Fig). When male worms with unlabelled AIR-2 were mated to hermaphrodites expressing endogenously tagged AIR-2::GFP, maternal AIR-2::GFP was recruited to the sperm DNA (S5B Fig) but this cohesin-independent AIR-2 did not induce bipolar spindle assembly. The cohesin-dependent subclass of AIR-2 might have a unique substrate specificity or it might be needed to reach a threshold of activity in combination with cohesin-independent AIR-2.

The reason for the heterogeneity of AIR-2 loading on separated sister chromatids of spo-11 rec-8 mutants is not known, although it correlates with the heterogeneity of residual COH-3/4 cohesin (S4 Fig). The heterogeneity of AIR-2 loading on the 12 univalents of a spo-11 single mutant correlates with heterogeneity in retention of LAB-1 and protein phosphatase 1, which remove haspin-dependent histone H3 T3 phosphorylation [40,44,45]. Our results suggest that bright patterned AIR-2 on only a subset of chromatids is sufficient to promote bipolar spindle assembly.

Haspin-dependent Aurora B kinase is required for bipolar meiotic spindle assembly

To more specifically identify the subclass of Aurora B that is required for bipolar spindle assembly, we analyzed a bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutant. This double mutation is equivalent to the D70A, D71A mutation in human survivin that prevents binding to T3-phosphorylated histone H3 and prevents recruitment of Aurora B to mitotic centromeres in HeLa cells [39]. Time-lapse imaging of mNeonGreen::tubulin in bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutants revealed apolar metaphase spindles that shrank without chromosome separation during both meiosis I and meiosis II (Fig 6A). The bir-1(E69A, D70A) embryos were unlike the cohesin mutants in that they entered meiosis I with 6 bivalents (11/11 z-stacks of -1 oocytes), suggesting successful formation of chiasmata between homologous chromosomes during meiotic prophase and intact SCC (Fig 6A). Endogenously-tagged AIR-2::GFP diffusely labeled both lobes of metaphase I (Fig 6B) and diakinesis (Fig 6C) bivalents in bir-1(E69A, D70A). This was in contrast to the bright ring of AIR-2::GFP that is observed between the lobes in controls. AIR-2::GFP localized in a broader pattern consistent with transfer to microtubules during anaphase I and anaphase II (Fig 6B) as was observed in cohesin mutants. Apolar metaphase I spindles (Fig 6D, center) also formed after depletion of haspin kinase with an auxin-induced degron. Like bir-1(E69A, D70A) embryos, haspin-depleted embryos entered meiosis I with 6 bivalents (10/10 z-stacks of metaphase I), indicating the presence of chiasmata and SCC. As with cohesin mutants that were bipolar-spindle-incompetent, the fluorescence intensity of AIR-2::GFP on chromosomes was strongly reduced in both bir-1(E69A, D70A) and hasp-1(degron) embryos (Fig 6E). Whereas all bir-1(E69A, D70A) spindles were apolar, a minority of hasp-1(degron) spindles were multipolar (Fig 6D right, and 6F). Apolar spindles had undetectable phosphor H3 T3 staining whereas multipolar spindles had reduced phosphor H3 T3 staining relative to no auxin controls (S2C–S2E Fig). In addition, a low frequency of hatching was observed among the progeny of hasp-1(AID) worms on auxin plates (S1 Table). Because a hasp-1(null) mutant is completely sterile [46], the low hatch rate suggested that the low frequency of bipolar spindles in HASP-1-depleted worms was due to incomplete depletion by the degron. Because haspin is recruited to chromosomes by cohesin-associated PDS5 [32], these results indicated that the subclass of Aurora B that is recruited to chromosomes by cohesin and haspin-dependent phosphorylation of histone H3 is required for bipolar spindle assembly and that cohesin-independent and haspin-independent Aurora B on chromosome lobes and anaphase microtubules are not sufficient to drive bipolar spindle assembly.

Fig 6. AIR-2 is recruited by Survivin and Haspin for bipolar spindle formation.

Fig 6

(A) Time-lapse images of 14/14 bir-1(fq55) embryos expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11 show disorganized MI spindles and no MI anaphase chromosome separation. An example of a bir-1(+)/bir-1(+) control with the same transgenes is shown in Fig 1A. (B) Similar results were obtained in 4/4 bir-1(fq55) embryos expressing AIR-2::GFP, which is diffuse on both MI and MII metaphase chromosomes and present in a broader pattern consistent with microtubules during anaphase. An example of a bir-1(+)/bir-1(+) control with the same transgenes is shown in Fig 5A. (C) Single slices from z-stack images of -1 oocytes in C. elegans expressing AIR-2::GFP and mCH::HIS-58. 11/11–1 oocytes in bir-1(fq55) embryos had 6 mCH::HIS-58 labelled bodies. (D) Single-plane images of hasp-1::AID embryos expressing eGFP::LIN-5 and mCH::H2B. Left: Bipolar spindle without auxin (- auxin). Center: An apolar spindle with auxin (+ auxin). Right: A multipolar spindle with auxin (+ auxin). 10/10 MI spindles in Auxin-treated hasp-1:::AID embryos had 6 mCH::HIS-58 labelled bodies. (E) AIR-2::GFP pixel intensities on individual chromosomes were determined relative to nucleoplasmic background. N, number of oocytes. n, number of chromosomes. (F) Graph showing percent of apolar, multipolar, and bipolar spindles in bir-1 and auxin-treated hasp-1::AID embryos. N, number of embryos. All bars = 4 μm.

Cohesin is required for coalescence of microtubule bundles into spindle poles

C. elegans meiotic spindle assembly begins at germinal vesicle breakdown in the -1 oocyte that is still in the gonad. Microtubule bundles assemble within the volume of the nucleus as the nuclear envelope breaks down. Oocytes are then fertilized as they ovulate into the spermatheca and meiosis is completed in fertilized embryos that have moved out of the spermatheca into the uterus. Microtubule bundles can coalesce into poles either before, during, or shortly after ovulation [4750]. The meiosis I spindle assembly defect in spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 mutants shown in Fig 3A was determined from time-lapse imaging of fertilized embryos in the uterus. To more precisely define the spindle assembly step that is defective in cohesin mutants, we conducted time-lapse imaging starting at nuclear envelope breakdown in -1 oocytes. In bipolar-spindle-competent control (Fig 7A and 7B) and spo-11 rec-8 (Fig 7C and 7D) -1 oocytes, as well as bipolar-spindle-incompetent spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 (Fig 7E and 7F) -1 oocytes, microtubule bundles initially filled the entire volume of the germinal vesicle as it broke down. The microtubule bundles of control (Fig 7B) and spo-11 rec-8 (Fig 7D) coalesced first into multiple poles, then into two poles as the oocytes squeezed into, then out of, the spermatheca. In contrast, the microtubule bundles of spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 (Fig 7F) did not coalesce even after ovulation into the uterus. This phenotype is consistent with that previously observed by fixed immunofluorescence of air-2(degron) embryos [20] and is distinct from the pole-stability phenotype reported for zyg-9(RNAi) where poles form but then fall apart [9]. In addition, the mean fluorescence intensity of mNeonGreen::tubulin, indicative of microtubule density, was significantly reduced in apolar metaphase I spindles of bir-1(E69A, D70A) and spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 embryos relative to the bipolar spindles in control and spo-11 rec-8 metaphase I spindles (S6 Fig). These results suggested that cohesin-dependent AIR-2 might regulate proteins that promote coalescence of microtubule bundles and promote microtubule polymerization, although other models are possible.

Fig 7. Cohesin is necessary to direct the formation of spindle poles.

Fig 7

Time-lapse images in A, C, and E were captured in the gonad prior to ovulation; images in B, D, and F were captured post-ovulation in the uterus. (A, B) Time-lapse images of 7/7 control embryos show MT fibers organizing rapidly around chromosomes. Spindles become multipolar, then bipolar as poles coalesce. Times are from the initial observation of spindle MTs. (C, D) Time-lapse images of 13/13 spo-11 rec-8 embryos show spindle fibers coalescing into multiple poles, then two poles. (E, F) Time-lapse images of 7/7 spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 embryos show that spindle fibers begin to form, but do not become organized into poles. All bars = 4μm.

Cohesin-dependent Aurora B kinase correlates with altered localization of spindle assembly factors on meiotic chromosomes

We hypothesized that cohesin-dependent Aurora B on chromosomes might activate microtubule-binding proteins that are required for coalescence of microtubule bundles and microtubule polymerization, or inhibit proteins that antagonize bundle coalescence and microtubule polymerization. Meiotic chromosome-associated spindle assembly factors include the katanin homolog, MEI-1 [51], the kinesin-13, KLP-7 [50,52], and the CLASP2 homolog, CLS-2 [19,53]. Loss of MEI-1 function results in apolar spindles with dispersed ASPM-1 [54] and reduced microtubule density [48,55] similar to those observed in cohesin mutants. However, apolar spindles in mei-1 mutants are far from the cortex at metaphase I [47] whereas cohesin-mutant apolar spindles were cortical at metaphase I (Figs 1C, 1D, 2C, 3A and 3B). In addition, endogenously tagged GFP::MEI-1 was retained on chromosomes of apolar metaphase II spo-11 rec-8 mutants (Fig 3E). These results suggest that MEI-1 is active in embryos that are deficient in cohesin-recruited AIR-2.

Endogenously tagged KLP-7::mNeonGreen localized to the midbivalent ring and to the two lobes of control bivalents (Fig 8A) but localized only to the two lobes in bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutants (Fig 8B). KLP-7 is also lost from the midbivalent ring after air-2(degron) depletion [20]. In living spo-11 rec-8 double mutants, KLP-7::mNeonGreen localized in a bright pattern with a larger area on a subset of separated sister chromatids in bipolar-spindle-competent metaphase I embryos but labeled separated sister chromatids with a more uniform smaller area in bipolar-spindle-incompetent metaphase II embryos (Fig 8C and 8D). In fixed spo-11 rec-8 embryos stained with antibodies and imaged with Airyscan, the pattern of KLP-7 on single chromatids was clearly distinct from that of AIR-2 (Fig 8E). In living spo-11 rec-8 metaphase I embryos there was a positive correlation between the fluorescence intensity of endogenously tagged mScarlet::AIR-2 and the area of endogenously tagged KLP-7::mNeonGreen (Fig 8F). This result indicated that a subclass of bright patterned AIR-2 that is cohesin-dependent, and that correlates with bipolar spindle assembly, also correlates with a subclass of KLP-7 on chromosomes.

Fig 8. Survivin-dependent AIR-2 is required for KLP-7 recruitment to the midbivalent ring.

Fig 8

(A) KLP-7::mNG localized to the two lobes and the ring complex (indicated by an arrowhead) of bivalents in 7/7 living control metaphase I embryos, but localized only to the two lobes in (B) 8/8 bir-1(fq55) [E69A D70A]) embryos. (Arrows indicate bivalents which clearly lack a ring complex). Bar = 3 μm. (C) In living spo-11 rec-8 MI metaphase spindles, one subset of chromosomes had a small area of KLP-7::mNG and a second subset had a larger area of KLP-7::mNG that was unevenly dispersed around the DNA. Bar, spindle images = 3 μm. Bar, single chromosome images = 1 μm. (D) KLP-7::mNG areas were determined in spo-11 rec-8 MI metaphase and MII metaphase spindles. N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes. (E) Single plane Airyscan images from z-stacks of 14/14 fixed spo-11 rec-8 embryos showed expanded KLP-7::mNG on chromosomes with the highest mScarlet::AIR-2 fluorescence intensity. Bar = 3 μm. (F) Graph of mScarlet::AIR-2 mean pixel value relative to KLP-7::mNG area from live images. The Pearson r correlation coefficient is 0.8559. N = 8, n = 40, p < 0.0001.

CLS-2::GFP labeled the kinetochore cups enveloping the two lobes of metaphase I bivalents but was not detected in the midbivalent region in control embryos (Fig 9A and S5 Video) in agreement with a previous study [56]. In contrast, CLS-2::GFP labeled kinetochore cups and the midbivalent region in bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutants (Fig 9A and S6 Video). In spo-11 rec-8 double mutants, CLS-2::GFP localized in hollow spheres with a larger diameter on a subset of separated sister chromatids in bipolar-spindle-competent metaphase I embryos but labeled separated sister chromatids with more uniform, smaller diameter hollow spheres in bipolar-spindle-incompetent metaphase II embryos (Fig 9B and 9C). In spo-11 rec-8 metaphase I embryos there was a weak positive correlation between the diameter of histone H2b and and the diameter of CLS-2::GFP (correlation coefficient 0.37; Fig 9D)and a strong positive correlation (correlation coefficient 0.79) between the fluorescence intensity of endogenously tagged mScarlet::AIR-2 and the diameter of CLS-2::GFP spheres (Fig 9E and 9F). These results indicate that cohesin-dependent AIR-2 both excludes CLS-2 from the midbivalent region and either recruits CLS-2 into larger spheres around separated sister chromatids or increases the diameter of separated sister chromatids.

Fig 9. BIR-1-recruited AIR-2 excludes CLS-2 from the midbivalent region.

Fig 9

(A) Individual chromosomes in living embryos expressing CLS-2::GFP show that CLS-2 is excluded from the midbivalent region in 9/9 control embryos and present in the midbivalent region in 16/16 bir-1(fq55) embryos. Bar = 1μm. (B) CLS-2::GFP encirles both MI and MII metaphase chromosomes in spo-11 rec-8 embryos. (C) The diameter of CLS-2::GFP spheres on MI and MII metaphase chromosomes was determined. N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes. (D) Graph showing mCherry::HIS-58 diameter versus CLS-2::GFP diameter on rec-8 spo-11 chromosomes. (E) Single plane images taken from z-stacks of two spo-11 rec-8 embryos expressing CLS-2::GFP and mScarlet::AIR-2. (F) Graph showing mean pixel value of mScarlet::AIR-2 versus CLS-2::GFP diameter on rec-8 spo-11 chromosomes. Bars, B and E = 4μm. N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes.

Most C. elegans meiotic SAFs are cytoplasmic

Vertebrate Ran-dependent SAFs bind importins through a nuclear localization signal (NLS) and are nuclear during interphase [5]. This arrangement places SAFs close to chromosomes at nuclear envelope breakdown when tubulin enters the nuclear space. In contrast, endogenously GFP-tagged MEI-1, LIN-5, CLS-2, and AIR-1, which all contribute to bipolar spindle assembly in C. elegans [19,5759], were all cytoplasmic before nuclear envelope breakdown (S7 Fig). In addition, KLP-15/16, which are required for spindle assembly, have been reported to be cytoplasmic in -1 oocytes [60]. The cytoplasmic location of these SAFs may sequester them from cohesin-associated CPC and thus prevent premature coalescence of microtubule bundles. These results also make it unlikely that most of the known SAFs during C. elegans meiosis are activated by the canonical Ran pathway, which involves release of an NLS from an importin by GTP-Ran [5].

Discussion

Our results indicate that cohesin is required for efficient acentrosomal spindle assembly independent of its role in SCC because it is required for recruitment of a specific pool of Aurora B kinase to chromatin. The requirement for cohesin is independent of SCC because separated sister chromatids bearing COH-3/4 cohesin in spo-11 rec-8 double mutants support the assembly of bipolar spindles. In contrast, separated sister chromatids in mutants lacking any cohesin assembled amorphous masses of microtubules with no discrete foci of spindle pole proteins. The cohesin-dependent pool of Aurora B kinase is then required for microtubule bundles to coalesce to form spindle poles during C. elegans oocyte meiotic spindle assembly. In the absence of either cohesin, haspin kinase, or phosphorylated histone H3-bound survivin, Aurora B remains dispersed on metaphase chromatin and localizes on anaphase microtubules but is insufficient to promote spindle pole formation. This could be due to a need for a threshold concentration of Aurora B on chromatin or a need for a specific activity unique to cohesin-dependent Aurora B.

The mechanism by which a specific pool of Aurora B kinase promotes spindle pole formation is not clear. In Drosophila oocytes, Aurora B phosphorylates the microtubule-binding tail of the kinesin-14, ncd, releasing it from inhibition by 14-3-3 [61]. Aurora B is thus activating ncd’s ability to bind microtubules and its loss should have a similar phenotype to loss of ncd. In C. elegans, depletion of the kinesin-14’s, KLP-15/16, results in apolar meiotic spindles [60], a phenotype similar to that reported for loss of Aurora B [20] or cohesin (this study). Thus KLP-15/16 are potential targets of activation by Aurora B in C. elegans. Completely apolar meiotic spindles have also been observed in C. elegans upon depletion of MEI-1/2 katanin [54] and AIR-1 [59]. Thus MEI-1/2 and AIR-1 are potential targets of activation in C. elegans.

In contrast with activation of kinesin-14, Aurora B promotes bipolar spindle assembly by phosphorylating and inhibiting the microtubule-disassembly activity of the Xenopus kinesin-13, XMCAK [62]. If Aurora B inhibits kinesin-13, then depletion of Aurora B or kinesin-13 should have opposite phenotypes. Indeed, depletion of kinesin-13 suppresses the spindle assembly defect of Aurora B inhibition in both Xenopus extracts [16] and Drosophila oocytes [63]. Loss of the C. elegans kinesin-13, KLP-7 [50,52] results in multi-polar meiotic spindles which might be viewed as the opposite phenotype of the apolar spindles resulting from depletion of AIR-2 [20] or cohesin (this study). Katanin is also inhibited in Xenopus laevis egg extracts by phosphorylation of an Aurora consensus site [64]. Whereas this exact site is not conserved in C. elegans MEI-1, the activity of MEI-1 is inhibited by phosphorylation at several sites [65]. If Aurora B acts by inhibiting one SAF, then over-expression of that SAF or expression of a non-phosphorylatable SAF should phenocopy loss of Aurora B. However, technical limitations of C. elegans transgene technology have limited over-expression of meiotic SAFs or expression of hyperactive mutant SAFs. If Aurora B acts by inhibiting or activating multiple SAFs, then reproducing the Aurora B depletion phenotype with phosphorylation site mutants of SAFs will be challenging.

Loss of haspin-dependent CPC in this study caused a change in the localization pattern of KLP-7 and CLS-2 on chromosomes. The CPC also regulates the chromosomal localization of the KLP-7 homolog, MCAK, on mammalian mitotic chromosomes [66]. Thus Aurora B may promote bipolar spindle assembly by regulating chromosomal targeting of SAFs in addition to regulating the activity of SAFs.

Depletion of SMC3, which should remove all cohesin from chromatin, has been reported in mouse oocytes [67] and Drosophila oocytes [68]. Metaphase I spindle defects were not reported in either case. In both cases, cohesin depletion may have been incomplete. Mouse oocyte spindle assembly is dependent on haspin [69], independent of Aurora B because AuroraA can substitute for B in the CPC [70], and dependent on Aurora A [71]. In Drosophila, bipolar spindle assembly is CPC-dependent [13] but the relevant CPC recruitment depends on borealin binding to HP1 [72] rather than survivin binding to haspin-phosphorylated histone H3. Drosophila sunn null mutants lack SCC and also form bipolar metaphase I spindles [68]. Thus it remains unclear how widely the cohesin-dependence of acentrosomal spindle assembly applies in phyla other than Nematoda. In addition, future analysis of centrosome-based C. elegans male meiosis in cohesin mutants should reveal whether the cohesin-dependence of spindle bipolarity is specific to acentrosomal spindle assembly.

Our time-lapse imaging revealed separated sister chromatids separating into two masses during anaphase I in spo-11 rec-8 embryos. This result is consistent with the previously published observation of a single polar body and equational segregation interpreted from polymorphism analysis [23,24]. Similarly, Drosophila sunn mutants are able to carry out anaphase I [68]. HeLa cells induced to enter mitosis with unreplicated genomes likely have G1 non-cohesive cohesin on their individual unreplicated chromatids. These cells assemble bipolar spindles but do not separate the unreplicated chromatids into two masses. Instead, all of the chromatids end up in one daughter cell at cytokinesis [73]. In C. elegans meiosis, anaphase B occurs by CLS-2-dependent microtubule pushing on the inner faces of separating chromosomes [74]. During normal meiosis, the pushing microtubules assemble between homologous chromosomes in a manner that depends on the CPC which is localized between homologous chromosomes, thus driving correct chromosome segregation [19,20]. In a spo-11 rec-8 double mutant, bright patterned AIR-2 is only on a subset of chromatids but microtubules still appeared to push all of the chromatids apart. Presumably, microtubules are pushing between any two chromatids. This faux anaphase likely occurs by the same mechanism as anaphase B in embryos depleted of outer kinetochore proteins [19,75].

The bipolar-spindle-competent separated sister chromatids of C. elegans spo-11 rec-8 mutants had a severe congression defect (Fig 3C and 3D). In contrast, unreplicated chromatids in HeLa cells congress normally to the metaphase plate [73]. It is likely that antagonism between dynein in kinetochore cups and KLP-19 in the midbivalent ring is important for chromosome congression in C. elegans oocytes [76], thus the striking bipolar structure of C. elegans metaphase I bivalents and metaphase II univalents is essential for congression while dispensable for bipolar spindle assembly or anaphase.

Materials and methods

CRISPR-mediated genome editing to create the bir-1(fq55[E69A D70A]) allele was performed by microinjecting preassembled Cas9sgRNA complexes, single-stranded DNA oligos as repair templates, and dpy-10 as a co-injection marker into the C. elegans germline as described in Paix et al [77]. The TCGTACCACGGATCGTCTTC sequence was used for the guide RNA and the single-stranded DNA oligo repair template had the following sequence: tgtgcattttgcaacaaggaacttgattttgaccccgctgctgacccgtggtacgagcacacgaaacgtgatgaaccgtg.

C. elegans strains were generated by standard genetic crosses, and genotypes were confirmed by PCR. Genotypes of all strains are listed in S2 Table.

Live in utero imaging

L4 larvae were incubated at 20°C overnight on MYOB plates seeded with OP50. Worms were anesthetized by picking adult hermaphrodites into a solution of 0.1% tricaine, 0.01% tetramisole in PBS in a watch glass for 30 min as described in Kirby et al. [78] and McCarter et al [41]. Worms were then transferred in a small volume to a thin agarose pad (2% in water) on a slide. Additional PBS was pipetted around the edges of the agarose pad, and a 22-×-30-mm cover glass was placed on top. The slide was inverted and placed on the stage of an inverted microscope. Meiotic embryos or -1 diakinesis oocytes were identified by bright-field microscopy before initiating time-lapse fluorescence. For all live imaging, the stage and immersion oil temperature was 22°C–24°C. For all time-lapse data, single–focal plane images were acquired with a Solamere spinning disk confocal microscope equipped with an Olympus IX-70 stand, Yokogawa CSU10, Hamamatsu ORCA FLASH 4.0 CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) detector, Olympus 100×/1.35 objective, 100-mW Coherent Obis lasers set at 30% power, and MicroManager software control. Pixel size was 65 nm. Exposures were 300 ms. Time interval between image pairs was 15 s with the exception of Fig 6 images, which were captured at 10 s intervals. Focus was adjusted manually during time-lapse imaging. Control and experimental time-lapse data sets always included sequences acquired on multiple different days. For chromosome counting in oocyte nuclei, z-stacks were captured at 0.4 um intervals. For chromosome counting in metaphase spindles, z-stacks were captured at 0.2 um intervals. Chromosomes were counted in z-stacks, not in z projections.

Timing

Control spindles maintain a steady-state length of 8 μm for 7 min before initiating APC-dependent spindle shortening, followed by spindle rotation and movement to the cortex [79]. Because the majority of our videos began after MI metaphase onset, we measured time relative to the arrival of the spindle at the cortex in Figs 1, 2, 3 and 6; for control embryos, this corresponded to the completion of rotation. For Fig 7, time was measured relative to the initial appearance of MT fibers.

Fixed immunofluorescence and Airyscan imaging

C. elegans meiotic embryos were extruded from hermaphrodites in 0.8× egg buffer by gently compressing worms between coverslip and slide, flash frozen in liquid N2, permeabilized by removing the coverslip, and then fixed in ice-cold methanol before staining with antibodies and DAPI. The primary antibodies used in this work were mouse monoclonal anti-tubulin (DM1α; Sigma-Aldrich; 1:200), GFP Booster Alexa 488 (gb2AF488; Chromotek; 1:200), rabbit anti-GFP (NB600-308SS; Novus Biologicals; 1:600), rabbit anti-KLP-7 ([20]; 1:300), rabbit anti-MEI-1 ([80]; 1:200), rabbit anti-H3 pT3 (07–424; Merck Millipore; 1:700) and rabbit anti-COH-3 ([24];1:500). The secondary antibodies used were Alexa Fluor 488 anti-mouse (A-11001; Thermo Fisher Scientific; 1:200), Alexa Fluor 594 anti-rabbit (A11037; Thermo Fisher Scientific; 1:200) and Alexa Fluor Plus 647 anti-rabbit (A32733; Thermo Fisher). z-stacks were captured at 1-μm steps for each meiotic embryo using the same microscope described above for live imaging. Super resolution images shown in Fig 8E were acquired on a ZEISS LSM 980 with Airyscan 2.

Auxin

C. elegans strains endogenously tagged with auxin-inducible degrons and a TIR1 transgene were treated with auxin overnight on seeded plates. Auxin (indole acetic acid) was added to molten agar from a 400 mM stock solution in ethanol to a final concentration of 4 mM auxin before pouring plates, which were subsequently seeded with OP50 bacteria. Depletion of SMC-1::AID::GFP is shown in S2A and S2B Fig. Depletion of HASP-1 was indicated by reduced phosphor h3T3 staining (S2C–S2E Fig). Bipolar spindle assembly occurs in knl-1(AID) knl-3(AID) tir1 worms [75] and in dhc-1(AID) worms (S8 Fig) treated with auxin using the same protocol. Bipolar spindle assembly also occurred in smc-1::AID::GFP worms with no auxin (Fig 4D) and hasp-1(AID) worms with no auxin (Fig 6D). Embryonic lethality was dependent on auxin for both degrons and auxin did not induce embryonic lethality in a strain carrying only endogenously tagged lin-5 (S1 Table). Thus the spindle assembly defects observed for smc-1::AID::GFP and hasp-1(AID) likely do not result from non-specific effects.

Fluorescence intensity measurements

Fluorescence intensity measurements are from single focal plane images chosen from z-stacks. Single focal plane images were chosen that had similar nucleoplasmic or cytoplasmic pixel values and in which the majority of a chromosome was in focus. A chromosome was judged to be in focus in the focal plane with the highest pixel intensity, largest diameter, and sharpest edges. Choosing focal planes with similar cytoplasmic or nucleoplasmic pixel values was used to partially eliminate the problem of spherical aberration due to different distances from the coverslip. For counting the number of bright vs dim AIR-2::GFP-labeled chromosomes in entire nuclei in S3 Fig, chromatids were subjectively scored as bright vs dim by comparing chromosomes within the same focal plane to compensate for the loss of intensity due to distance from the coverslip. In Figs 4B, 4C, 4E and 6E, total pixel values of chromosomal SMC-1::AID::GFP or AIR-2::GFP were obtained using the Freehand Tool (ImageJ software) to outline individual chromosomes. For each chromosome, the ROI was dragged to the adjacent nucleoplasm or cytoplasm and the total pixel value obtained. A background value was determined by dragging the ROI to a region of the image outside the worm. The values were background-subtracted, then divided in order to generate a ratio for comparison. This method was also used to determine the intensity of GFP::MEI-1 on chromosomes reported in the text of the results corresponding to Fig 3E. MEI-1 looks brighter on the chromosomes in the spo-11 rec-8 metaphase II image because the original 16 bit image (65,000 grey levels) has been scaled to display the brightest pixel as 256 in the 8 bit (256 grey levels) figure panel. The chromosomes are not actually brighter as explained in the Results. In Fig 8D and 8F, areas of KLP-7::mNG on individual chromosomes was measured using the Freehand Tool (ImageJ). The diameter of CLS-2::GFP spheres in Fig 9 was calculated from the area using the equation D=2Aπ, where D is diameter and A is area. Area was obtained by hand drawing a circular ROI over each sphere. Focal planes in which each sphere had the largest diameter were used. Mean mScarlet::AIR-2 pixel values in Figs 8 and 9 were determined after outlining individual chromosomes with the Freehand Tool (ImageJ). In S1 Fig, single-plane images were captured at the midsection of -1 oocytes. For each image, regions of nucleoplasm and cytoplasm were outlined and the mean pixel values determined. In S6 Fig, single-plane images were captured at the midsection of metaphase I spindles. For each image, mean pixel values of the spindle and a region of cytoplasm were determined. For both figures, the mean values were background-subtracted and divided to generate ratios for comparison.

Statistics

P values were calculated in GraphPad Prism using one-way ANOVA for comparing means of three or more groups. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using GraphPad Prism.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. DNA body counts in -1 oocytes of mutant C. elegans.

(A) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living rec-8 oocyte nucleus expressing mCherry::HIS-11. rec-8 oocyte nuclei contained 12.33 +/- 0.37 DNA bodies (n = 9), which included univalents and an occasional chromatid. (B) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living spo-11 rec-8 oocyte nucleus expressing GFP::H2B show 22 of the 24 total chromatids. spo-11 rec-8 oocyte nuclei contained 23.8 +/- 0.01 DNA bodies (n = 10). (C) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 oocyte nucleus expressing mCH::HIS-11. rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 nuclei contained 24.5 +/- 0.43 DNA bodies (n = 14). 4/14 oocytes contained one or two small DNA bodies which may indicate chromosomes fragmented by SPO-11 activity. All bars = 5 μm.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Auxin depletion of SMC-1::AID::GFP and HASP-1::AID is incomplete in some embryos.

(A) Single-plane images of SMC-1::AID:GFP in the gonad of living worms incubated overnight in either the presence or absence of auxin. (B) The ratio of SMC-1::AID::GFP mean pixel intensity to mCH:HIS-58 mean pixel intensity in gonad nuclei was determined in worms incubated as described in (A). Several of the ratios in auxin-treated worms approach the values obtained in untreated worms. N, number of worms. n, number of nuclei. (C) Embryos from worms expressing HASP-1::AID and incubated in either the presence or absence of auxin were fixed and stained with tubulin and phosphor H3(T3) antibodies, and with DAPI. (D) Ratios of chromosomal to cytoplasmic H3(T3) antibody staining were determed in worms incubated as described in (C). N, number of spindles. n, number of chromosomes. (E) The values for worms incubated in the presence of auxin were separated into those obtained from chromosomes in apolar spindles and those obtained from chromosomes in multipolar spindles. N, number of spindles. n, number of chromosomes. All bars equal 4μm.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Some chromatids are bound by bright patterned AIR-2::GFP in spo-11 rec-8 oocytes.

(A) Single chromosomes from z-stack images of living control and mutant C. elegans oocytes expressing mCherry::HIS-58 and AIR-2::GFP. Two examples are shown of a spo-11 rec-8 chromosome, one bound by bright patterned AIR-2::GFP and one with dim diffuse AIR-2::GFP. All bars = 1μm. (B) Graph showing the percent of chromosomes bound by bright AIR-2::GFP in living -1 oocytes of control and mutant C. elegans. Z-stacks of entire nuclei were analyzed. For spo-11 rec-8, bright vs dim AIR-2::GFP was scored by only comparing chromatids within the same focal plane. Bright AIR-2::GFP was observed on 100 percent of control chromosomes, 0 percent of spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 chromatids and 39.5 +/- 4.0 percent of spo-11 rec-8 chromatids. N, number of oocytes. n, number of chromosomes.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Colocalization of AIR-2 and COH-3 in spo-11 rec-8 metaphase I embryos.

(A) Meiotic embryos within control and spo-11 rec-8 worms expressing AIR-2::GFP were fixed and stained with DAPI, COH-3/4 antibodies, and GFP antibodies. The control spindle displays consistent intensities of AIR-2 and COH-3/4 on each chromosome while the spo-11 rec-8 spindle displays varying intensities. Bars = 3 μm. (B) High magnification view of single chromatids from (A). The control chromosome shows bright COH-3/4 and bright AIR-2. Two chromosomes from the same spo-11 rec-8 embryo are shown, one with bright COH-3/4 and AIR-2 and one with dim COH-3/4 and AIR-2. Bars = 1 μm. (C) Graph showing mean pixel value of COH-3/4 versus mean pixel value of AIR-2 on rec-8 spo-11 chromosomes. Mean pixel values were taken by using a circle ROI with a 22 pixel diameter (covering the entire univalent’s area). N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Maternal AIR-2, but not SMC-1, is recruited to the sperm DNA.

(A) Time-lapse images of 15/15 embryos from worms expressing SMC-1::GFP and mCH::HIS-58 in both oocytes and spermatocytes show no SMC-1::GFP on sperm-derived paternal DNA within the zygote during meiosis. SMC-1::GFP was observed in the sperm-derived paternal pronucleus in 7/7 embryos. Bar = 3 μm. (B) Male worms were soaked in mitotracker before mating to hermaphrodites. The sperm-derived paternal DNA is found at the center of the cloud of paternal mitochondria within meiotic embryos (far right). In 5/5 mated hermaphrodites, paternal AIR-2::GFP was present on spermatids, but was not detected post-fertilization within the cloud of paternal mitochondria in meiotic embryos identified by their position in the uterus adjacent to the spermatheca (+1 embryo). 13/13 unmated hermaphrodites expressing AIR-2::GFP, and 11/11 AIR-2::GFP expressing hermaphrodites mated with non-expressing males had AIR-2::GFP on the sperm DNA in +1 embryos. Bar = 4μm.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. MT density is decreased in spo-11 rec-8; coh-3 coh-4 and bir-1(fq55) spindles.

(A) Single slices from z-stack images of embryos expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11. Bar = 4μm. (B) Ratios of mean, background-subtracted mNG::TBB-2 pixel values in spindles vs. nearby cytoplasm of control and mutant embryos. N = number of embryos.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Spindle assembly factors are cytoplasmic prior to nuclear envelope breakdown.

(A) Single plane images of -1 oocytes in C. elegans expressing GFP::H2B, SMC-1::AID::GFP, and spindle assembly factors. Bar = 10 μm. (B) Nucleoplasmic to cytoplasmic ratios were determined for mean, background-subtracted pixel values in -1 oocytes.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Bipolar spindles form in the presence of Auxin.

C. elegans expressing DHC-1::AID::GFP, eGFP::LIN-5, mCH::H2B and mKate2::PH were incubated for 2–4 hours in the presence or absence of auxin. (A) Images of metaphase I spindles show that 9/9 spindles were bipolar in the absence of auxin and 10/10 metaphase I spindles were bipolar in the presence of auxin. (B) Quantification of spindle bipolarity. (C) Time-lapse images of C. elegans incubated in the absence of auxin show bipolar spindles shorten and rotate prior to chromosome separation (n = 5). (D) Time-lapse images of C. elegans incubated in the presence of auxin show bipolar spindles shorten and remain parallel to the cortex due to the depletion of DHC-1::AID::GFP (n = 7).

(TIF)

S1 Table. Hatch rate data for auxin-induced degron experiments.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. C. elegans Strain List.

List of genotypes of all strains used in this paper.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Numerical values for all graphs shown in this paper.

(XLSX)

S1 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a control strain.

Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

(MP4)

S2 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a rec-8 strain.

Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

(MP4)

S3 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 strain.

Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

(MP4)

S4 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a spo-11 rec-8 strain.

Green is GFP::histone H2b. Red is mKate::tubulin.

(MP4)

S5 Video. z-stack showing the pattern of CLS-2::GFP on control bivalents.

(MP4)

S6 Video. z-stack showing the pattern of CLS-2::GFP on bir-1(fq55) bivalents.

(MP4)

Acknowledgments

We thank Fede Pelisch, Arshad Desai, and the CGC, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440), for strains. We thank Sadie Wignall and Aaron Severson for antibodies. We thank Thomas Wilkop for assistance with Airyscan imaging.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant R35GM136241 to F.J.M, U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project 1009162 to F.J.M. and Medical Research Council core-funded grant MC-A652-5PY60 to E.M.P. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Nasmyth K. Segregating sister genomes: the molecular biology of chromosome separation. Science. 2002;297(5581):559–65. doi: 10.1126/science.1074757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blanco-Ameijeiras J, Lozano-Fernandez P, Marti E. Centrosome maturation—in tune with the cell cycle. J Cell Sci. 2022;135(2). doi: 10.1242/jcs.259395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Heald R, Tournebize R, Blank T, Sandaltzopoulos R, Becker P, Hyman A, et al. Self-organization of microtubules into bipolar spindles around artificial chromosomes in Xenopus egg extracts. Nature. 1996;382(6590):420–5. doi: 10.1038/382420a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Deng M, Suraneni P, Schultz RM, Li R. The Ran GTPase mediates chromatin signaling to control cortical polarity during polar body extrusion in mouse oocytes. Dev Cell. 2007;12(2):301–8. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cavazza T, Vernos I. The RanGTP Pathway: From Nucleo-Cytoplasmic Transport to Spindle Assembly and Beyond. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2015;3:82. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2015.00082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carazo-Salas RE, Guarguaglini G, Gruss OJ, Segref A, Karsenti E, Mattaj IW. Generation of GTP-bound Ran by RCC1 is required for chromatin-induced mitotic spindle formation. Nature. 1999;400(6740):178–81. doi: 10.1038/22133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dumont J, Petri S, Pellegrin F, Terret ME, Bohnsack MT, Rassinier P, et al. A centriole- and RanGTP-independent spindle assembly pathway in meiosis I of vertebrate oocytes. J Cell Biol. 2007;176(3):295–305. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200605199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cesario J, McKim KS. RanGTP is required for meiotic spindle organization and the initiation of embryonic development in Drosophila. J Cell Sci. 2011;124(Pt 22):3797–810. doi: 10.1242/jcs.084855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chuang CH, Schlientz AJ, Yang J, Bowerman B. Microtubule assembly and pole coalescence: early steps in C aenorhabditis elegans oocyte meiosis I spindle assembly. Biol Open. 2020;9(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Halpin D, Kalab P, Wang J, Weis K, Heald R. Mitotic spindle assembly around RCC1-coated beads in Xenopus egg extracts. PLoS Biol. 2011;9(12):e1001225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Willems E, Dedobbeleer M, Digregorio M, Lombard A, Lumapat PN, Rogister B. The functional diversity of Aurora kinases: a comprehensive review. Cell Div. 2018;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s13008-018-0040-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Broad AJ, DeLuca KF, DeLuca JG. Aurora B kinase is recruited to multiple discrete kinetochore and centromere regions in human cells. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(3). doi: 10.1083/jcb.201905144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Radford SJ, Jang JK, McKim KS. The chromosomal passenger complex is required for meiotic acentrosomal spindle assembly and chromosome biorientation. Genetics. 2012;192(2):417–29. doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.143495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kelly AE, Sampath SC, Maniar TA, Woo EM, Chait BT, Funabiki H. Chromosomal enrichment and activation of the aurora B pathway are coupled to spatially regulate spindle assembly. Dev Cell. 2007;12(1):31–43. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Maresca TJ, Groen AC, Gatlin JC, Ohi R, Mitchison TJ, Salmon ED. Spindle assembly in the absence of a RanGTP gradient requires localized CPC activity. Curr Biol. 2009;19(14):1210–5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sampath SC, Ohi R, Leismann O, Salic A, Pozniakovski A, Funabiki H. The chromosomal passenger complex is required for chromatin-induced microtubule stabilization and spindle assembly. Cell. 2004;118(2):187–202. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Speliotes EK, Uren A, Vaux D, Horvitz HR. The survivin-like C. elegans BIR-1 protein acts with the Aurora-like kinase AIR-2 to affect chromosomes and the spindle midzone. Mol Cell. 2000;6(2):211–23. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)00023-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wignall SM, Villeneuve AM. Lateral microtubule bundles promote chromosome alignment during acentrosomal oocyte meiosis. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(7):839–44. doi: 10.1038/ncb1891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dumont J, Oegema K, Desai A. A kinetochore-independent mechanism drives anaphase chromosome separation during acentrosomal meiosis. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(9):894–901. doi: 10.1038/ncb2093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Divekar NS, Davis-Roca AC, Zhang L, Dernburg AF, Wignall SM. A degron-based strategy reveals new insights into Aurora B function in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(5):e1009567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Monen J, Maddox PS, Hyndman F, Oegema K, Desai A. Differential role of CENP-A in the segregation of holocentric C. elegans chromosomes during meiosis and mitosis. Nat Cell Biol. 2005;7(12):1248–55. doi: 10.1038/ncb1331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pasierbek P, Jantsch M, Melcher M, Schleiffer A, Schweizer D, Loidl J. A Caenorhabditis elegans cohesion protein with functions in meiotic chromosome pairing and disjunction. Genes Dev. 2001;15(11):1349–60. doi: 10.1101/gad.192701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Severson AF, Ling L, van Zuylen V, Meyer BJ. The axial element protein HTP-3 promotes cohesin loading and meiotic axis assembly in C. elegans to implement the meiotic program of chromosome segregation. Genes Dev. 2009;23(15):1763–78. doi: 10.1101/gad.1808809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Severson AF, Meyer BJ. Divergent kleisin subunits of cohesin specify mechanisms to tether and release meiotic chromosomes. Elife. 2014;3:e03467. doi: 10.7554/eLife.03467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Crawley O, Barroso C, Testori S, Ferrandiz N, Silva N, Castellano-Pozo M, et al. Cohesin-interacting protein WAPL-1 regulates meiotic chromosome structure and cohesion by antagonizing specific cohesin complexes. Elife. 2016;5:e10851. doi: 10.7554/eLife.10851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Woglar A, Yamaya K, Roelens B, Boettiger A, Kohler S, Villeneuve AM. Quantitative cytogenetics reveals molecular stoichiometry and longitudinal organization of meiotic chromosome axes and loops. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(8):e3000817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cahoon CK, Helm JM, Libuda DE. Synaptonemal Complex Central Region Proteins Promote Localization of Pro-crossover Factors to Recombination Events During Caenorhabditis elegans Meiosis. Genetics. 2019;213(2):395–409. doi: 10.1534/genetics.119.302625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ellefson ML, McNally FJ. CDK-1 inhibits meiotic spindle shortening and dynein-dependent spindle rotation in C. elegans. J Cell Biol. 2011;193(7):1229–44. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201104008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jiang K, Rezabkova L, Hua S, Liu Q, Capitani G, Altelaar AFM, et al. Microtubule minus-end regulation at spindle poles by an ASPM-katanin complex. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(5):480–92. doi: 10.1038/ncb3511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Castellano-Pozo M, Pacheco S, Sioutas G, Jaso-Tamame AL, Dore MH, Karimi MM, et al. Surveillance of cohesin-supported chromosome structure controls meiotic progression. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4345. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18219-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chan RC, Chan A, Jeon M, Wu TF, Pasqualone D, Rougvie AE, et al. Chromosome cohesion is regulated by a clock gene paralogue TIM-1. Nature. 2003;423(6943):1002–9. doi: 10.1038/nature01697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yamagishi Y, Honda T, Tanno Y, Watanabe Y. Two histone marks establish the inner centromere and chromosome bi-orientation. Science. 2010;330(6001):239–43. doi: 10.1126/science.1194498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Goto Y, Yamagishi Y, Shintomi-Kawamura M, Abe M, Tanno Y, Watanabe Y. Pds5 Regulates Sister-Chromatid Cohesion and Chromosome Bi-orientation through a Conserved Protein Interaction Module. Curr Biol. 2017;27(7):1005–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Joo JH, Kang HA, Kim KP, Hong S. Meiotic prophase roles of Pds5 in recombination and chromosome condensation in budding yeast. J Microbiol. 2022;60(2):177–86. doi: 10.1007/s12275-022-1635-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pradillo M, Knoll A, Oliver C, Varas J, Corredor E, Puchta H, et al. Involvement of the Cohesin Cofactor PDS5 (SPO76) During Meiosis and DNA Repair in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:1034. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.01034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ding DQ, Matsuda A, Okamasa K, Nagahama Y, Haraguchi T, Hiraoka Y. Meiotic cohesin-based chromosome structure is essential for homologous chromosome pairing in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Chromosoma. 2016;125(2):205–14. doi: 10.1007/s00412-015-0551-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kusch T. Brca2-Pds5 complexes mobilize persistent meiotic recombination sites to the nuclear envelope. J Cell Sci. 2015;128(4):717–27. doi: 10.1242/jcs.159988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kelly AE, Ghenoiu C, Xue JZ, Zierhut C, Kimura H, Funabiki H. Survivin reads phosphorylated histone H3 threonine 3 to activate the mitotic kinase Aurora B. Science. 2010;330(6001):235–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1189505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang F, Dai J, Daum JR, Niedzialkowska E, Banerjee B, Stukenberg PT, et al. Histone H3 Thr-3 phosphorylation by Haspin positions Aurora B at centromeres in mitosis. Science. 2010;330(6001):231–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1189435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ferrandiz N, Barroso C, Telecan O, Shao N, Kim HM, Testori S, et al. Spatiotemporal regulation of Aurora B recruitment ensures release of cohesion during C. elegans oocyte meiosis. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):834. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03229-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.McCarter J, Bartlett B, Dang T, Schedl T. On the control of oocyte meiotic maturation and ovulation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol. 1999;205(1):111–28. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1998.9109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sawin K, Mitchison T. Cell biology. Motoring in the spindle. Nature. 1990;345(6270):22–3. doi: 10.1038/345022a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.McNally KL, Fabritius AS, Ellefson ML, Flynn JR, Milan JA, McNally FJ. Kinesin-1 prevents capture of the oocyte meiotic spindle by the sperm aster. Dev Cell. 2012;22(4):788–98. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.01.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.de Carvalho CE, Zaaijer S, Smolikov S, Gu Y, Schumacher JM, Colaiácovo MP. LAB-1 antagonizes the Aurora B kinase in C. elegans. Genes Dev. 2008;22(20):2869–85. doi: 10.1101/gad.1691208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Martinez-Perez E, Schvarzstein M, Barroso C, Lightfoot J, Dernburg AF, Villeneuve AM. Crossovers trigger a remodeling of meiotic chromosome axis composition that is linked to two-step loss of sister chromatid cohesion. Genes Dev. 2008;22(20):2886–901. doi: 10.1101/gad.1694108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Macaraeg J, Reinhard I, Ward M, Carmeci D, Stanaway M, Moore A, et al. Genetic analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans Haspin-like genes shows that hasp-1 plays multiple roles in the germline. Biol Open. 2022;11(7). doi: 10.1242/bio.059277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yang HY, McNally K, McNally FJ. MEI-1/katanin is required for translocation of the meiosis I spindle to the oocyte cortex in C elegans. Dev Biol. 2003;260(1):245–59. doi: 10.1016/s0012-1606(03)00216-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.McNally K, Audhya A, Oegema K, McNally FJ. Katanin controls mitotic and meiotic spindle length. J Cell Biol. 2006;175(6):881–91. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200608117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wolff ID, Tran MV, Mullen TJ, Villeneuve AM, Wignall SM. Assembly of Caenorhabditis elegans acentrosomal spindles occurs without evident microtubule-organizing centers and requires microtubule sorting by KLP-18/kinesin-12 and MESP-1. Mol Biol Cell. 2016;27(20):3122–31. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-05-0291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gigant E, Stefanutti M, Laband K, Gluszek-Kustusz A, Edwards F, Lacroix B, et al. Inhibition of ectopic microtubule assembly by the kinesin-13 KLP-7 prevents chromosome segregation and cytokinesis defects in oocytes. Development. 2017;144(9):1674–86. doi: 10.1242/dev.147504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Srayko M, Buster DW, Bazirgan OA, McNally FJ, Mains PE. MEI-1/MEI-2 katanin-like microtubule severing activity is required for Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Genes Dev. 2000;14(9):1072–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Connolly AA, Sugioka K, Chuang CH, Lowry JB, Bowerman B. KLP-7 acts through the Ndc80 complex to limit pole number in C. elegans oocyte meiotic spindle assembly. J Cell Biol. 2015;210(6):917–32. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201412010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Schlientz AJ, Bowerman B. C. elegans CLASP/CLS-2 negatively regulates membrane ingression throughout the oocyte cortex and is required for polar body extrusion. PLoS Genet. 2020;16(10):e1008751. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.McNally KP, McNally FJ. The spindle assembly function of Caenorhabditis elegans katanin does not require microtubule-severing activity. Mol Biol Cell. 2011;22(9):1550–60. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E10-12-0951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Srayko M, ET, Hyman AA, Müller-Reichert T. Katanin disrupts the microtubule lattice and increases polymer number in C. elegans meiosis. Curr Biol. 2006;16(19):1944–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pelisch F, Bel Borja L, Jaffray EG, Hay RT. Sumoylation regulates protein dynamics during meiotic chromosome segregation in C. elegans oocytes. J Cell Sci. 2019;132(14). doi: 10.1242/jcs.232330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mains PE, Kemphues KJ, Sprunger SA, Sulston IA, Wood WB. Mutations affecting the meiotic and mitotic divisions of the early Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. Genetics. 1990;126(3):593–605. doi: 10.1093/genetics/126.3.593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.van der Voet M, Berends CW, Perreault A, Nguyen-Ngoc T, Gonczy P, Vidal M, et al. NuMA-related LIN-5, ASPM-1, calmodulin and dynein promote meiotic spindle rotation independently of cortical LIN-5/GPR/Galpha. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(3):269–77. doi: 10.1038/ncb1834 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sumiyoshi E, Fukata Y, Namai S, Sugimoto A. Caenorhabditis elegans Aurora A kinase is required for the formation of spindle microtubules in female meiosis. Mol Biol Cell. 2015;26(23):4187–96. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E15-05-0258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mullen TJ, Wignall SM. Interplay between microtubule bundling and sorting factors ensures acentriolar spindle stability during C. elegans oocyte meiosis. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(9):e1006986. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Beaven R, Bastos RN, Spanos C, Romé P, Cullen CF, Rappsilber J, et al. 14-3-3 regulation of Ncd reveals a new mechanism for targeting proteins to the spindle in oocytes. J Cell Biol. 2017;216(10):3029–39. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201704120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Ohi R, Sapra T, Howard J, Mitchison TJ. Differentiation of cytoplasmic and meiotic spindle assembly MCAK functions by Aurora B-dependent phosphorylation. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(6):2895–906. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e04-02-0082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Jang JK, Gladstein AC, Das A, Shapiro JG, Sisco ZL, McKim KS. Multiple pools of PP2A regulate spindle assembly, kinetochore attachments and cohesion in Drosophila oocytes. J Cell Sci. 2021;134(14). doi: 10.1242/jcs.254037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Loughlin R, Wilbur JD, McNally FJ, Nedelec FJ, Heald R. Katanin contributes to interspecies spindle length scaling in Xenopus. Cell. 2011;147(6):1397–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Joly N, Beaumale E, Van Hove L, Martino L, Pintard L. Phosphorylation of the microtubule-severing AAA+ enzyme Katanin regulates C. elegans embryo development. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(6). doi: 10.1083/jcb.201912037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tanno Y, Kitajima TS, Honda T, Ando Y, Ishiguro K, Watanabe Y. Phosphorylation of mammalian Sgo2 by Aurora B recruits PP2A and MCAK to centromeres. Genes Dev. 2010;24(19):2169–79. doi: 10.1101/gad.1945310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Yueh WT, Singh VP, Gerton JL. Maternal Smc3 protects the integrity of the zygotic genome through DNA replication and mitosis. Development. 2021;148(24). doi: 10.1242/dev.199800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Gyuricza MR, Manheimer KB, Apte V, Krishnan B, Joyce EF, McKee BD, et al. Dynamic and Stable Cohesins Regulate Synaptonemal Complex Assembly and Chromosome Segregation. Curr Biol. 2016;26(13):1688–98. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Balboula AZ, Nguyen AL, Gentilello AS, Quartuccio SM, Drutovic D, Solc P, et al. Haspin kinase regulates microtubule-organizing center clustering and stability through Aurora kinase C in mouse oocytes. J Cell Sci. 2016;129(19):3648–60. doi: 10.1242/jcs.189340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Nguyen AL, Drutovic D, Vazquez BN, El Yakoubi W, Gentilello AS, Malumbres M, et al. Genetic Interactions between the Aurora Kinases Reveal New Requirements for AURKB and AURKC during Oocyte Meiosis. Curr Biol. 2018;28(21):3458–68.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.08.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Blengini CS, Ibrahimian P, Vaskovicova M, Drutovic D, Solc P, Schindler K. Aurora kinase A is essential for meiosis in mouse oocytes. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(4):e1009327. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wang LI, DeFosse T, Jang JK, Battaglia RA, Wagner VF, McKim KS. Borealin directs recruitment of the CPC to oocyte chromosomes and movement to the microtubules. J Cell Biol. 2021;220(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.O’Connell CB, Loncarek J, Hergert P, Kourtidis A, Conklin DS, Khodjakov A. The spindle assembly checkpoint is satisfied in the absence of interkinetochore tension during mitosis with unreplicated genomes. J Cell Biol. 2008;183(1):29–36. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200801038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Laband K, Le Borgne R, Edwards F, Stefanutti M, Canman JC, Verbavatz JM, et al. Chromosome segregation occurs by microtubule pushing in oocytes. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1499. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01539-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Danlasky BM, Panzica MT, McNally KP, Vargas E, Bailey C, Li W, et al. Evidence for anaphase pulling forces during C. elegans meiosis. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(12). doi: 10.1083/jcb.202005179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Muscat CC, Torre-Santiago KM, Tran MV, Powers JA, Wignall SM. Kinetochore-independent chromosome segregation driven by lateral microtubule bundles. Elife. 2015;4:e06462. doi: 10.7554/eLife.06462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Paix A, Folkmann A, Seydoux G. Precision genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9 and linear repair templates in C. elegans. Methods. 2017;121–122:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.03.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kirby C, Kusch M, Kemphues K. Mutations in the par genes of Caenorhabditis elegans affect cytoplasmic reorganization during the first cell cycle. Dev Biol. 1990;142(1):203–15. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(90)90164-e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Yang HY, Mains PE, McNally FJ. Kinesin-1 mediates translocation of the meiotic spindle to the oocyte cortex through KCA-1, a novel cargo adapter. J Cell Biol. 2005;169(3):447–57. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200411132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.McNally K, Berg E, Cortes DB, Hernandez V, Mains PE, McNally FJ. Katanin maintains meiotic metaphase chromosome alignment and spindle structure in vivo and has multiple effects on microtubules in vitro. Mol Biol Cell. 2014;25(7):1037–49. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E13-12-0764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gregory P Copenhaver, Sarit Smolikove

31 Mar 2022

Dear Dr McNally,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

For resubmission I ask you to carefully address all reviewer’s comments. The reviewers are very clear in their comments as to which experiments are required, and which changes and additions to the text are requested.  This includes not only performing the required experiments and text edits, but also addressing low n values and missing information in the materials and methods section. I think it is possible to address these concerns in the timeframe suggested for revisions.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, use the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Sarit Smolikove

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: Although cohesin is best known for its role in the sister chromatid cohesion (SCC) that holds replicated sister chromatids together from S phase until anaphase of mitosis and meiosis, the cohesin complex appears to perform other roles that are independent of its role in SCC. This manuscript from Frank McNally’s lab reports a novel SCC-independent role for cohesin in the establishment of bipolar, acentrosomal meiotic spindles. In many organisms, including C. elegans and mammals, oocytes lack centrosomes, and chromosomes appear to play a critical role in the formation of meiotic spindles. How spindle bipolarity is established in the absence of centrosomes remains poorly understood, but it has seemed likely that the back-to-back, bipolar arrangement of homologous chromosomes in meiosis I and of sister chromatids in meiosis II might be critical. By comparing spindle assembly in fertilized oocytes from C. elegans hermaphrodites that lack meiotic cohesin with those from mutants in which cohesin associates with meiotic chromosomes but does mediate SCC, the authors demonstrate that cohesin, but not SCC, is required for spindle bipolarity. As long as COH-3/4 cohesin is present on chromosomes, robust, bipolar spindles can form even when pairs of sister chromatids are detached from one another, indicating that back-to-back orientation of chromosomes is not needed for spindle bipolarity. Instead, COH-3/4 cohesin appears to recruit the Aurora B kinase AIR-2 to meiotic chromosomes through mechanism dependent on the Haspin kinase and survivin, and AIR-2 in turn appears to regulate the chromosomal association of several factors known to function in oocyte spindle assembly. Thus, this paper overturns a widely-held assumption regarding how spindle bipolarity is achieved, at least in C. elegans, provides new mechanistic insight into the process, and demonstrates a novel SCC-independent role for cohesin.

The experimental approach exclusively involves live imaging of microtubule and chromosome dynamics, as well as fluorescently-tagged versions of various microtubule and chromosome-associated proteins. When possible, quantitative data were extracted from the images. Although the methods used for the quantitation and certain technical aspects of the study need to be better described, the major conclusions are convincing and quite interesting. Some suggestions that may strengthen the conclusions or improve the readability of the paper follow.

Major Comments:

1. p.5, lines 19-20 and elsewhere: the term “single chromatid” is confusing. Phrases like “mutants that start meiotic spindle assembly with single chromatids” sound like there is only one chromatid. It might be clearer to say “detached sister chromatids” or “separated sister chromatids.”

2. Chromosome separation was not observed during anaphase I or II of spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 quadruple mutants (p.8, lines 5-7 and 8-10), but it was observed during meiosis I of spo-11 rec-8 double mutants (p.8, lines 18-20). Since the authors likely have the data, it would be interesting to know whether polar body extrusion ever occurred in the quadruple mutant, and how often it occurred during meiosis I and II in the double mutant.

3. p.8, lines 21-23: “At metaphase II” is confusing. The mass of microtubules presumably assembled before metaphase II, while the failure to separate chromatids happened after metaphase II.

4. p.10, lines 1-4: “This non-cohesive COH-3/4 cohesin might be removed by separase at anaphase I, leaving the metaphase II chromatids with no cohesin. This hypothesis was validated by time-lapse imaging…” The imaging validated the hypothesis that cohesin was undetectable on metaphase II chromatids, but not that separase was required for removal of the COH-3/4 cohesin. This is likely true, but the authors should be careful not to suggest that it is proven by this experiment.

5. p.11, line 11 and throughout: The terms “spindle-incompetent” and “spindle-competent” are confusing if not misleading. Apolar spindles form around the detached sister chromatids of spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutants (abstract line 10, first subheading in the results section, p.6 line 19, etc.). Thus, the mutants described as spindle-incompetent do not fail to form a meiotic spindle, they just do not form a bipolar spindle.

6. p.12, lines 2-4 and Fig. 4 D-F: in spo-11 rec-8 double mutants, some chromatids have very bright AIR-2 signal and others do not. Since COH-3/4 protein, but not SCC, appears to be required for the bright AIR-2, it would be quite interesting to know if the chromatids with intense AIR-2 signal also have high levels of COH-3/4.

7. pp.12-13: bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutants enter meiosis with 6 bivalents but form apolar spindles, and chromosomes do not separate in meiosis I or II. Is SCC released and do sisters disjoin in anaphase I or II in these mutants? If so, this should be shown. If not, this should also be shown, since it would increase the impact of this paper - SCC likely persists due to a failure to recruit AIR-2 to the region between homologs in meiosis I and between sisters in meiosis II, and therefore a failure to phosphorylate REC-8 to mark it for destruction by separase. Thus, the failure to segregate chromosomes could occur for very different reasons in the bir-1 mutant and in the spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutants. From the figures, it does appear that disjunction fails, and this is quite intersting and critical to interpret the data.

8. p.14, lines 14-16: “These results suggested that cohesin-dependent AIR-2 regulates proteins that coalesce microtubule bundles and promote microtubule polymerization.” This model is consistent with the data, but it is not the only model consistent with the data. Thus, the statement as written is too strong.

9. p.14, lines 19-22: It is difficult to understand the hypothesis, since activating MT-binding proteins required for coalescence of MT bundles or MT polymerization and inhibiting such proteins should result in opposite phenotypes.

10. pp.16-17: the final section of the results does not fit with the rest of the paper and does not add much to the story. It is not obvious to me how the experiments “address the relative roles of the ran pathway and the CPC pathway,” as is claimed. Indeed, presence of SAFs in the cytoplasm does not preclude their regulation by Ran. The section should be rewritten to clarify the rationale and avoid overstating the conclusions, or perhaps the authors may wish to remove it since doing so would not significantly weaken the paper.

11. p.17, lines 19-21: It does not seem likely that the removal of residual cohesin at anaphase II would prevent the formation of a metaphase III spindle between meiosis II and the first mitotic cell cycle, because spindles DO form in the absence of cohesin during meiosis I and II of spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutants – they just remain apolar.

12. As written, the manuscript suggests that the SCC-independent role of cohesin in bipolar meiotic spindle assembly is unique to the acentrosomal spindles that form in oocytes. This is likely true; however, it is formally possible that cohesin also plays an SCC-independent role that is required for formation of the centriolar meiotic spindles that form during spermatogenesis. It would be easy to look at spindle formation during spermatogenesis in spo-11 rec-8 and bir-1(E69A, D70A) mutants compared to spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutants to see of loss of SCC or loss of cohesin disrupts spindle polarity. At the very least, this should be addressed in the discussion.

13. p.18: the long discussion paragraph on this page jumps from topic to topic and is somewhat difficult to follow. The possibility that Aurora B inhibits a target SAF comes out of the blue. After several examples of Aurora B-dependent inhibition of SAFs, the model is raised that the CPC might affect spindle pole assembly through activation or inhibition of multiple SAFs. Are there known examples of activation? The bir-1 mutants fails to accumulate KLP-7 in midbivalent rings and fails to exclude CLS-2 from a similar region, so there are clearly effects on protein localization – is this what the authors mean by activation and inhibition, or are they referring to enzymatic activities? The authors cite published data showing that depletion of either protein results in multipolar spindles and mention that effects of overexpression are not known. It is difficult to disentangle this data and understand what the model is. The paragraph needs to be revised, and a model figure would be very helpful.

14. p.18, lines 22-23 and p.19 lines 1-4: the fact that metaphase I defects were not observed following SMC3 depletion in Drosophila means that one cannot conclude that the bipolar spindle assembly observed in Drosophila sunn mutants suggests an SCC-independent requirement for cohesin in spindle assembly. It could simply be that cohesin is not required for bipolar spindle assembly in flies. Leading off with the sunn phenotype is somewhat misleading. This phenotype could still be mentioned, but it should come later in the paragraph after the SMC3 depletion result is described.

15. p.22, Auxin methods: more detail regarding the auxin experiments should be included. Was the auxin added to the molten agar before plates were poured, or was it added to plates after they were poured? What volume of auxin was added, or what concentration was the stock? What solvent was the auxin dissolved in? Were controls done to demonstrate that the phenotypes were a result of degradation of the target and not due to the solvent? Did the authors use IAA or NAA or one of the newer synthetic auxins? Degron experiments have given variable results in different labs, so it is critical to give detailed methods for these experiments.

16. pp.22-23, Fluorescence Intensity Measurements: insufficient detail is given for the quantification. In particular, what was used as the reference image for background subtraction (line 16)? Was it dark noise of the camera, or a region of the image outside of the worm, or something else? In lines 18-19, how was the diameter of CLS-2::GFP rings calculated from the area inside of an ellipse? I don’t understand how this would be done, since the angle of the ring relative to the objective would vary. More detail, and ideally the equation used, needs to be given. For intensity measurements done on single planes, what, if anything was done to ensure that the image plane was in the center of a chromosome or spindle and that differences in intensity were not simply due to the focal plane being analyzed? For supplemental figures 1 and 2, how were the regions of the spindle or nucleoplasm and cytoplasm selected? Were they the same size and shape?

17. Fig. 4C, legend: “Ratios varied depending on the distance of the chromosomes from the objective.” Presumably, this should say the distance of the chromosomes from the coverslip, since the distance between the objective and the focal plane should not change but chromosomes deeper within the gonad will be dimmer. If this is not the intended meaning, it should be stated more clearly. What is the evidence that the observed differences in this figure and others are not simply a consequence of distance to the chromosomes? Perhaps this needs to be discussed in the methods.

18. Fig. 7B, please use symbols to indicate bivalents in each subset of chromosomes described in the legend.

19. Supplemental Figure 1: In panel A, “Paternal DNA” is confusing – is this from a male, or simply the sperm DNA in an unmated hermaphrodite? In panel B, “+1 embryo” is never defined. What is the importance of the mitotracker label, and what is the conclusion from the two panels on the left? It is unclear in these panelswhere the sperm DNA is, if it is shown at all.

20. It has previously been shown that the axial element proteins HTP-3, HIM-3, and HTP-1/2 and the SC central region proteins form polycomplexes in rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 mutants but associate with chromosomes in spo-11 rec-8 mutants. Thus, AE formation requires cohesin but not SCC, similar to bipolar spindle assembly. It would be interesting to know if AEs are required for bipolar spindle assembly in spo-11 rec-8 mutants. If so, it would add another layer of mechanistic insight.

Minor comments, wording suggestions, etc.:

1. The authors should be consistent in their use of genetic nomenclature. In the standard nomenclature for C. elegans, gene names are separated by a space when on the same chromosome and by a semicolon when on different chromosomes. In the abstract (p.2, lines 7-8) commas separate both genes on the same chromosome and genes on different chromosomes (spo-11 and rec-8 on chromosome IV, coh-4 and coh-3 on chromosome V). Elsewhere (e.g. p.7, lines 21-22) no punctuation is used in the same genotype. While the authors may choose not to follow the standard nomenclature in the text to enhance the readability, they should strive to be consistent.

2. Standard nomenclature should be used in the Strain List. Mutations should be listed in order of their genomic location, from left to right on chromosome I, then chromosome II, etc. The allele designation for Karen Oegema’s lab is lt (LT), not it. Thus, their transgenes begin with ltIs or ltSi (e.g. ltIs37, the widely used mCherry-tagged histone).

3. p.5, line 22: “highly identical” is confusing. Things are identical or they are not.

4. p.6, lines 11-12: Severson et al (2009) did show in a supplemental figure that apolar spindles assemble around the chromatids of rec-8 embryos during meiosis II.

5. p.7, line 19: perhaps “continuous” instead of “contiguous.”

6. p.10, line 5: typo SMC-1::AAID::GFP

7. p.11, line 18: Is GFP::AIR-2 correct? AIR-2::GFP is used elsewhere.

8. p.12, lines 6-9: this should refer to Fig. S1, not Fig. S3.

9. p.13, line 23: the -1 oocyte has been cellularized and therefore is no longer part of the syncytial gonad.

10. Many citations throughout the text are formatted incorrectly. One example: “(K. McNally, Audhya, Oegema, & McNally, 2006; Srayko, O'toole, Hyman, & Müller-Reichert, 2006)”

11. Fig. 1A: it would be helpful to add timestamps similar to those shown in stills from other timelapses.

12. Fig. 2B: the legend states that there are 24 chromatids with one chromatid visible in both slices 9 and 14. This chromatid should be somehow indicated in the figure, for example with an arrowhead.

13. Fig. 3: it is confusing to have two figure panels labeled A.

14. Fig. 6A,B: it would be helpful to add symbols to indicate spindle poles in multipolar and bipolar spindles, as well as some examples of MT fibers that are referred to.

15. Fig. 6 legend: the statement “Images in E and F have been pseudocolored for increased clarity” is confusing. Aren’t all of the images in the paper pseudocolored, since they were captured with a greyscale camera?

16. Fig. 7A, it would help to have arrowheads pointing to the rings.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by McNally et.al. assesses the contribution of chromosome structure to meiotic spindle assembly, by investigating whether the bipolar structure of C. elegans chromosomes is required for spindle assembly. They therefore analyze a set of mutants with defects in sister chromatid cohesion and demonstrate that in the absence of all cohesion (spo-11, rec-8, coh-3, coh-4), spindles failed to form. However, spo-11 rec-8 mutants formed bipolar spindles in MI, presumably due to the presence of residual COH-3/4-containing cohesin complexes. In these mutants, a subset of chromosomes are able to pattern AIR-2, and chromosomes with patterned AIR-2 have a different localization of spindle factors MCAK and CLS-2. Therefore, the authors conclude that cohesin is essential for spindle assembly independent of its role in sister chromatid cohesion.

This manuscript reports interesting findings that have the potential to be of interest to the field. However, there are some major issues that need to be corrected prior to publication.

Major points:

1. The authors argue that the spo-11 rec-8 mutant has 24 chromosomes, contrary to a prior report that argued that these mutants have 12 univalents that segregate equationally in MI (Figure 2A in Severson 2009). However, the data presented to support this conclusion (Figure 2D, 2F) is not convincing. The chromosome counting appears to have been done on metaphase-stage spindles, where the chromosomes are very close together (however, there are no details in the materials and methods describing this counting, so it is hard to tell; see point #2 below). If counting was done in metaphase, it would be difficult to definitively state that two chromosomes close together are not part of the same bi-lobed univalent (as is seen in rec-8 single mutants, and as Severson argued also occurs in rec-8 spo-11). This is especially true because it has been shown that the chromatids in rec-8 mutants are quite separated, even though they are still held together (the authors also show this in the current manuscript, Figure 4B, Metaphase I image). Therefore, the 24s counted in Figure 2F could actually be 12s, just with the individual sisters further away from each other than would be seen in WT MII univalents. If the authors want to argue that this mutant has 24 individual chromosomes, they need to demonstrate this more rigorously. They should count chromosomes in diakinesis, where the chromosomes are more spread out, and also image additional markers to aid in determining if particular chromosomes are linked to others. I suggest imaging MEL-28, as they do in Figure 1E, and also AIR-2, as they do in Figure 4B, which may reveal chromosome connections; this imaging should be done using multiple z-stacks, to make sure they are imaging all chromosomes (unlike the single-slice images shown in many other panels, such as Figure 4D, where only a minor subset of chromosomes are shown). Also, the authors should provide movies stepping through the z-stacks so that the readers can see the chromosomes and count them themselves. This may seem like overkill, but strong evidence is needed if the authors are attempting to dispute a prior published study. (If it turns out that this mutant does not have 24 chromosomes as the current version of the manuscript claims, the conclusions need to be substantially adjusted.) Finally, it is also important to include a better discussion of the Severson paper and provide an explanation for the discrepancies between this study and theirs so the reader can better understand this section of the manuscript.

2. The Materials and Methods section needs more details. For example, the only imaging described is single-plane live imaging, but in some of the figures the authors show sum projections of z-stacks (e.g. Fig 2B, D). Information about the step size and acquisition of these images should be added, as well as details such as how the chromosomes were counted (e.g. Were they counted from the summed images or from going through individual stacks? How did the authors ensure they were counting two independent chromosomes vs. two that are connected? What stage was assessed?).

3. Similar to point #2 above, the Materials and Methods has no information about the generation of the AID strains. Have all of these strains been published before? If so, cite the relevant references in the strain list (Table S1). If not, the authors need to discuss how these strains were made (which terminus were the tags inserted into, what linkers, if any, were used, etc.), and also present a characterization of these strains. Sometimes adding a degron tag and/or GFP can alter protein function. The authors should present brood size and embryonic lethality information, to increase confidence that the tags are not affecting function and impacting the results, as well as western blots to assess the level of depletion they are achieving (especially since some of the phenotypes are not 100% and the authors note that they may not be achieving complete depletion - e.g. page 10 lines 11-12 and page 13 line 13).

4. The authors cite Severson (2009) as showing that spo-11 rec-8 double mutants “retain COH-3/4 on pachytene chromosomes” (page 8 lines 15-18). However, I don’t see that data in the cited Severson paper. If this has been shown somewhere, the proper reference should be used. However, even if it has been shown, is it known whether COH-3/4 remain on chromosomes during spindle assembly (the stage the authors are assessing in Figure 2C)? The authors need to show this (or cite the relevant study) if they want to claim that chromosomes in spo-11 rec-8 have COH-3/4 at the stage they are analyzing.

5. The MEI-1 data in Figure 2E is confusing. The authors claim that the chromosomal pixel intensity divided by the cytoplasmic intensity was not significantly increased, but the signal is so much brighter in the representative image that this is hard to believe. I couldn’t find any information in the Materials and Methods about how this quantification was done - adding this information is essential for the reader to evaluate this data. Also, even if the interpretation of the authors is correct (that the increased contrast of chromosomal MEI-1 is due to a decrease in microtubule-associated MEI-1), couldn’t this result still be real (i.e. couldn’t mistargeting excess MEI-1 to the chromosomes affect the ability of spindles to assemble)? The authors should look at MEI-1 localization in the quadruple mutant that is unable to assemble a bipolar spindle, and in other mutants where cohesin is disrupted and bipolar spindles cannot form (e.g. the bir-1 mutant and haspin(degron)), to see if increased MEI-1 chromosomal staining is correlated with spindle defects.

6. Figure 4: The authors show that in spo-11 rec-8 mutants, some chromosomes have bright AIR-2, and some only have diffuse AIR-2. However, if I understand correctly, all of these chromosomes have “non-cohesive cohesin” that is “sufficient for bipolar spindle formation” (Figure 3). Do the authors have an explanation for why some of these chromosomes are able to pattern AIR-2, while others load diffuse AIR-2 (as they show in Figure 4)? This should be explained somewhere in the text, since it is hard to follow the logic as currently written. Moreover, related to this point, I don’t understand the sentence (page 13 lines 15-19) that states “the subclass of Aurora B that is recruited to chromosomes by cohesin and haspin-dependent phosphorylation of histone H3 is required for bipolar spindle assembly…”. If cohesin recruits Aurora B to chromosomes, then shouldn’t all chromosomes properly load AIR-2 in the spo-11 rec-8 mutant, since the authors showed that SCC-1 is present on all chromosomes? It is possible there is a logical explanation for this that I missed, but I think the authors should explain this better to help the reader follow the logic of the experiments.

7. Figure 4D, 4F: The localization of AIR-2 on chromosomes (diffuse vs. patterned) is not easy to see in the images presented. Also, it would be useful to know, within a given oocyte, how many of the chromosomes have diffuse vs. patterned AIR-2. In the quadruple mutant, it looks like all are diffuse, but in spo-11 rec-8, the image in 4D makes it look like some are patterned and some are not. More oocytes should be assessed for each mutant (only 5-6 oocytes are quantified and pooled in Figure 4C and 4E; more should be assessed) and in addition to the pooled data presented, the authors should report the numbers for each oocyte with appropriate statistics, so it is clear how much this number varies from oocyte to oocyte.

8. In Figure 5, the authors characterize a bir-1 mutant that, based on work in other organisms, should not properly localize to chromosomes (page 12, lines 15-18). However, this has not been shown in C. elegans. The authors should stain for BIR-1 in the mutant, to confirm that there is no chromosomal staining (to make sure that the interpretation of this figure is correct).

9. Figure 6C: In the results section (page 14 line 7-9) it is stated that microtubule bundles in the bir-1 mutant do not coalesce, but the movie shown only goes to 1:30, when control spindles have not coalesced either, so this is not convincing.

10. The different patterns of MCAK on univalents in Figure 7B and 7D are hard to distinguish - even the zoomed images just look like dots or blobs, making it hard to tell what MCAK actually looks like. Higher resolution images are necessary for the reader to understand this localization pattern. Also, similar to point #7 about Figure 4, the authors should increase the number of oocytes analyzed and also report, within a given oocyte, how many chromosomes have patterned vs. diffuse MCAK.

11. The CLS-2 data in Figure 8A is not convincing. Specifically, page 16 lines 10-12 state “cohesin-dependent AIR-2 excludes CLS-2 from the midbivalent ring…”. However, the data presented in Figure 8A does not show that CLS-2 localizes to the ring in the bir-1 mutant - there is only a small amount of CLS-2 on the sides of the bivalent, but this does not extend all the way across, as would be expected for a ring protein. It has been shown that when you deplete AIR-2 to prevent formation of the RC, the midbivalent break between the two homologs is gone (Monen 2007 and Divekar 2021; this is also apparent in the mCH:his images in Figure 8A). Under these conditions kinetochore proteins change from two distinct cups, to one continuous pattern surrounding the bivalent. This is what I think the authors are seeing in Figure 8A. CLS-2 is not loading onto the ring (because there is no ring complex if the CPC is not present); instead, the kinetochore staining just spreads further into this middle region because it coats the entire bivalent. If the authors really want to demonstrate that CLS-2 has RC localization, they would have to show more convincing images, with staining all across the midbivalent region, and also co-localization with another RC component.

12. Related to point #11, the localization of CLS-2 to the midbivalent has not been replicated by others since the Dumont 2010 study, so it is unlikely that CLS-2 is an RC protein (see Pelisch et.al. 2019, Figure 6A, and the control images for Figure 8A in the current manuscript). However, in the discussion CLS-2 is stated to be a RC protein (page 19 lines 19-20) - this should be corrected and Pelisch should be cited.

13. The authors show that there is a positive correlation between the presence of AIR-2 and the recruitment of CLS-2 into larger spheres (Figure 8A). However, is it possible the “larger spheres” just represent a difference in chromosome organization in the presence and absence of AIR-2, rather than a specific effect on patterning CLS-2? Maybe the chromosomes are larger in the presence of AIR-2? The authors should measure chromosome diameter in the presence and absence of AIR-2, to rule out this possibility. Moreover, they should provide a possible explanation for the larger diameter of CLS-2 - this reviewer was left wondering what this pattern meant…what is the significance of a “larger diameter”?

Other points:

- It is hard to keep track of chromosome configurations in the various chromosome structure mutants, especially for people outside the field. I suggest adding more diagrams, similar to those shown in Figure 1A comparing WT and rec-8, but for the other chromosome structure mutants as well (spo-11, spo-11 rec-8, and the quadruple mutant). However, the authors should be careful making these diagrams because in Figure 1A there are thin white lines down the center of some of the single chromatids (e.g. dividing the single chromatids at the end of Anaphase II in the WT and dividing the single chromatids in the rec-8 mutant) – when I first looked at them, I thought that these were put there intentionally to distinguish sister chromatids from each other; it took me awhile to figure out that they were probably mistakes. I suggest remaking this diagram to remove these thin lines.

- Abstract line 13-15: “which regulated the localization of the spindle assembly factors CLASP-2 and kinesin-13 to mediate bipolar spindle assembly.” This makes it sound like these are the key factors that mediate spindle assembly in your mutants, which has not been demonstrated. Moreover, both CLASP-2 and kinesin-13 target to chromosomes lacking AIR-2 (the pattern or circumference is just different), so I am not entirely convinced that the changes in localization observed would affect spindle assembly.

- Figure 1D: It would be helpful for the reader to show ASPM-1 in a control embryo, for comparison.

- Page 10 lines 18-20. This sentence talks about PDS5, but there is no reference, and it is not clear what organism is being discussed - has this been shown in C. elegans? If not, it may be best to remove discussion of PDS5 because it might confuse the reader. There is a similar reference to PDS5 on page 13 lines 14-15.

- Figure 3C: The authors image LIN-5 in Figure 3C and 5D (presumably using it as a pole marker) but they provide no information in the results section about what LIN-5 is or why they are imaging it; this information should be added to make the manuscript more accessible to non-experts.

- Figure 4B: the authors state in the text that AIR-2 is bright on microtubules in Anaphase II (page 11 line 12) but the image shown appears to be end-on and therefore gives the impression that AIR-2 is on chromosomes not microtubules. This localization should be shown more convincingly. Figure 5B has the same problem - AIR-2 appears to overlap with chromosomes in Anaphase II but the text says that AIR-2 is on microtubules.

- Fig S1: I was confused by the discussion of this figure in the results section. Page 12 lines 7-8 states that “sperm-derived paternal DNA within meiotic embryos recruited maternal GFP::AIR-2 but lacked detectable cohesin and did not promote spindle assembly”. However, the authors should explain the experiments presented in Figure S1 in more detail if they want readers to understand this point (the mating experiments are not described except in the Figure S1 legend, and this is not enough information to make this experiment accessible to a broad audience).

- The section on spindle assembly (starting on page 13 line 21) does not reference prior studies describing the wild type spindle assembly pathway - for example, page 14 lines 3-4 notes that microtubule bundles normally arise within the germinal vesicle, but prior studies describing this are not referenced (Wolff et.al. and Gigant et.al. 2017).

- The authors note that MCAK targeting to the midbivalent is dependent on bir-1 (page 15, lines 12-14). Since it has been shown that MCAK targeting to this region requires AIR-2 (Divekar, et.al. 2021), this previous (similar) result should be cited.

- Figure 7: the images of MCAK and AIR-2 colocalization are small and hard to interpret. Does the MCAK pattern match the AIR-2 pattern? Higher resolution images are needed to better understand this result.

- Some of the reported Ns are low. For example, one of the conditions in Figure 3B and 8C only has 3 embryos. A minimum of 5 should be reported (though for some experiments, where there is more variability, this should be even higher; see major points #7 and #10).

Typos:

- Page 6 line 4: “individual” is misspelled

- Page 10, line 5: “AAID” should be “AID”

- Page 12 line 9: “Fig S3” should be “Fig S1”

- Page 15 line 17: “Fig. 6B, C” should be “Fig. 7B, C”

- Page 15 line 20: “Fig. 6D, E” should be “Fig. 7D, E”

- Page 16 line 7: “Fig. 7B, C” should be “Fig. 8B, C”

- Page 16 line 7: “Fig. 7D, E” should be “Fig. 8D, E”

- Sometimes you use “Ran” and sometimes “ran”. Make this consistent.

- Figure 2E: label the top row “merge”

Reviewer #3: The results in this manuscript reveal a role for cohesins in promoting the localization of the chromosome passenger complex (CPC) to the chromosomes and spindle assembly. A key result is that when cohesins are absent, an amorphous cloud of microtubules is observed instead of a bipolar spindle. In MI, this requires depleting both rec-8 and coh-3/4. In MII, because coh-3/4 is normally absent, depletion of only rec-8 leads to a loss of spindle formation. This paper includes a nice result showing auxin-induced depletion of SMC-1 leads to a similar phenotype. In addition, there is strong evidence linking cohesins to CPC recruitment (eg. Fig 4). The main conclusions of this paper are supported by the data. A significant problem, however, is redundancy between figures, lack of raionale for certain genotypes, and a couple experiments that do not show exactly what the authors claim, or the implications are ambiguous. These issues and others listed below should be addressed prior to publication. In short, this paper could be improved with a more concise presentation.

1) Why is the spo-11 mutation in most of the cohesin genotypes. For example, why is there no rec-8; coh-3 coh-4 mutant. It seems that the presence of a spo-11 mutation should not be required to observe the defects in spindle assembly. Besides the presence or absence of the spo-11 mutant may not effect spindly assembly, the results in Fig 2C seem to duplicate results in Fig 1. What does Fig 4F (spo-11 rec-8) show that is not shown in Fig 4B (rec-8) (this results is also not measured or quantified and it should).

2) Figure 1D or E lacks controls. For example, the localization of ASPM-1 is not shown in controls. There is also no rationale given for examining MEL-28 localization. What does this result show? The results in Fig 2E are more relevant and could be move to Fig 1 instead (see below). The conclusion is the same as with ASPM-1, and 2E has a control.

3) Are all the image slices needed in some of the figures, like in Fig 2? I understand this is to see how many chromatids there are, but the key result here is the microtubules, not the number of chromatids. The extra slices could be in a supp figure.

4) Pg 10, line 2: is there evidence that coh-3/4 is a target of separase? If so, this should be cited. In contrast, there are meiotic cohesins that do not appear to be cohesin targets.

5) Some stats in Fig 4C are borderline (p=0.07) although the most important comparison is significant. The sample size is rather small and the authors should try and improve this. In Fig 4D, why is MI not shown?

6) Figure 5: The differences in Fig 5B with AIR-2 localization are a little hard to see. This is a case where side by side images with wild-type would be warranted and quantitation of the AIR-2 localization pattern done if possible. The differences in Fig 5C are measured but seem less impressive and are also prior to meiosis, when different factors could regulate CPC localization.

7) Figure 5D: be clear in the legend why there are two images here. I believe one shows apolar and the other shows multipolar.

8) Figure 6 and text on pg 14: This seems to mostly repeat results in previous Figures. Improve the description to make it clear what is the new finding in this figure, or remove, or move to supp figures.

9) Pg 15, line: Should this be Fig 7B,C? Same for line 20.

10) Figure 7A is important. In contrast, Figure 7B shows cohesin is required for Klp-7 recruitment, not Air-2. For the non-worm person, what is the difference between Figure 7B and D. Both are MI, but one is an embryo. And I really don’t know what the graph in Fig 7E shows. There is no comparison to a control and it is only showing a correlation between Air-2 and Klp-7. But not a relationship to rec-8. I think 7D and E should be deleted.

11) Figure 8B has the same issue as Figure 7B, and 8D,E have the same issues as 7D,E.

12) Pg 16-17: I don’t see how these results exclude a role for the Ran pathway. The fact that the listed SAF proteins are cytoplasmic does not inform on the ran pathway. See below regarding how CPC could derepress cytoplasmic factors.

13) Pg 17, line 20: there is no metaphase III. Use a different term.

14) Pg 18: The authors should cite work from Ohkura in Drosophila (Rome 2019, Beaven 2017) showing strong evidence for suppression of cytoplasmic SAFs that is alleviated by CPC activity. The Xenopus data showing CPC inactivates MCAK is really a isolated result and these experiments did not rule out activation of SAFs. In contrast, the CPC is required for kinetochore assembly is multiple systems.

15) Pg 19 top: Published evidence suggests the ran pathway does not drive spindle assembly in Drosophila oocytes. The authors should discuss how there are several mechanisms to recruit the CPC to the chromosomes in other organisms. The strong role for cohesin described here may be due to the structure of C. elegans meiotic chromosomes. In Drosophila a different chromatin feature rather than cohesins recruits the CPC to the chromosomes (Wang 2021). It is striking, however, that in both C. elegans and Drosophila, recruitment of the CPC is critical for spindle assembly. Mouse also do not require Haspin for spindle assembly.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Decision Letter 1

Gregory P Copenhaver, Sarit Smolikove

2 Jun 2022

Dear Dr McNally,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important problem, but raised some substantial concerns about the current manuscript. Based on the reviews, we will not be able to accept this version of the manuscript, but we would be willing to review a much-revised version. We cannot, of course, promise publication at that time.

The reviewers all agree that the findings are interesting, but have a significant number of concerns that are not yet addressed by the revision. To move this manuscript forward we ask that you address that reviewers’ comments. Several requests for additional experiments were disregarded in the current revision. Some of these requests have been repeated in the current reviews. The editors agree that these will need to be either experimentally addressed, or very robust reasoning as to why they are not possible will need to be provided (e.g., why fixed sample analysis cannot answer reviewers’ concerns and the authors only consider live imaging analysis? why high-resolution images are not possible using fixed samples?). Other comments are requesting more details, better presentation and change in wording that all can and should be addressed.

Should you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration here, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. We will also require a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

If you decide to revise the manuscript for further consideration at PLOS Genetics, please aim to resubmit within the next 60 days, unless it will take extra time to address the concerns of the reviewers, in which case we would appreciate an expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments are included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool.  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, use the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

We are sorry that we cannot be more positive about your manuscript at this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely,

Sarit Smolikove

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The resubmitted manuscript from the McNally lab has undergone significant revisions, including textual changes in response to reviewer’s comments that greatly improve the readability of the manuscript and the clarity of certain key points; new analyses and/or figures of prior datasets that address some of the reviewer concerns; and an increase in numbers of oocytes analyzed in certain cases where the number was initially quite low. Consequently, the manuscript is much improved. Unfortunately, many important reviewer comments have been inadequately addressed, and some textual changes raise new concerns.

My page numbers below refer to the position in the 128 page long combined PDF, not the page numbers that appear "printed" on each page, which are inconsistent between the section showing the revised draft without changes highlighted and the version with changes highlighted

Major Comments:

1. P. 109, top: “Bipolar spindle assembly 1 occurs in knl-1(AID) knl-3(AID) tir1 worms (Danlasky et al., 2020) and in worms with no degron tag treated with auxin using the same protocol. Thus the spindle assembly defect observed for hasp-1(AID) cannot be due only to non-specifc effects of auxin or the 1% ethanol solvent.” This text was added to give greater detail regarding controls that were done for the auxin degron experiments. It essentially says that experiments done by other people using other lines did not reveal any issues. This does give some level of confidence that the observed results are not a result simply of growth on plates with auxin or the carrier. However, a proper control would be done by the same person, in parallel with the experimental group, using the same batch of media, and would show the phenotype of worms expressing the SAME tagged protein and TIR1 on “normal” plates and worms with TIR1 but without the tag on the same batch of auxin plates. Because proper controls were not done, the word “cannot” is untrue and must be replaced with something else. Perhaps, “Thus, the spindle assembly defect observed for hasp-1(AID) likely does not result from non-specific effects…”

2. Also regarding controls, text was added to the legend for Figure 5 (p. 123) to specify where “control images” are in earlier figures. Unless the experiments were done at the same time, and with only one variable changed from the experimental group, I do not believe the earlier images can accurately be called control images. Moreover, the legend states that “Control for 5D is in Fig. 3C.” Fig. 5D shows mCH::H2B and eGFP::LIN-5, while Fig. 3C shows mKate::TBB-2; SMC-1::AID::GFP; eGFP::LIN-5 in the presence and absence of auxin. These are completely different strains, although I assume the lin-5 transgene is the same. 3C most certainly should not be called a control for 5D. Although it is clunky, the authors must describe the comparisons accurately. Perhaps “eGFP:LIN-5 localization in a different strain, in which a different protein is tagged with AID, is shown in Fig. 3C.” Similar wording is needed to replace “control” for the other parts of this figure to avoid the risk of misleading the reader. A better alternative would be to do the proper controls.

3. Regarding my comment 11 in the first review: The suggestion that the dependence of bipolar spindle assembly on cohesin might prevent the formation of a metaphase III spindle is still quite confusing. In metaphase I and II, cohesin is not required for spindle MT assembly, just for bipolarity. There is never a third round of spindle assembly/MT assembly between anaphase II and pronuclear migration, even in cohesin triple mutants. Why would a requirement for cohesin in promoting bipolarity matter when a third round of MT assembly doesn’t occur? Adding the word "bipolar" or changing the wording from “meiosis III” to something different doesn’t increase the plausibility of this model.

4. Responses to several reviewer comments stated that experiments could not be done because of technical limitations, when the experiments could easily be done if immunofluorescence were used instead of live imaging. These include:

a. Reviewer 2 comment 3 suggested evaluating the level of depletion by AID using a Western blot. The authors response is correct that Western blotting might not give a clean result because TIR1 is expressed only in the germline while the AID-tagged protein is expressed in both soma and germline. However, level of knockdown could be addressed by fixing worms and staining with antibodies to SMC-1 and HASP-1 (SMC-1 antibodies definitely exist; if antibodies to HASP-1 don’t yet exist, there are great antibodies to the Histone H3-PhosT3 mark that HASP-1 makes and to the AID tag used in this study).

b. Reviewer 2 comment 10: patterns of MCAK on univalents are hard to distinguish. It is undoubtedly difficult to get good images of this via live imaging because as the authors state in their response, chromosomes and embryos are moving. However, there are very good antibodies to MCAK, and movement would not be a problem in fixed and stained gonads, so the reason given for not addressing the issue is not convincing.

c. Same for Reviewer 2 comment on Fig. 7 in “Other points.” The concern could easily be addressed by immunofluorescence.

d. Reviewer 1 point 6: do chromatids with intense AIR-2 signal also have high levels of COH-3/4. Although this could not be addressed in live imaging because COH-3::mCherry was too dim, there are very good antibodies for both AIR-2 and COH-3/4, so the reason for not addressing this is not convincing.

Minor Comments:

1. Figure 1B: I agree with reviewer 2 that showing a similar cartoon for spo-11 rec-8 and for spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 would be quite helpful for unfamiliar readers to understand the model for these mutants. Also in this figure, the legend does not state what is meant by the blue and green lines. What are “blue cohesin” and “green cohesin”?

2. I agree with the authors that it is important to mention PDS5, since it is the connection between haspin and cohesin. However, I also agree with reviewer 2 that it is important to state in which organisms/cell types the role of PDS5 has been shown and whether it has only been shown in mitosis or also in meiosis. “in mitotically proliferating human cells…”

Reviewer #2: This revised manuscript is much improved, and the major issues have been fixed. Notable improvements include increasing the number of n’s in key figures, better explanations of the quantification schemes, and quantification of the number of chromosomes with patterned Aurora B (Figure S2). I have a few remaining suggestions to improve the manuscript prior to publication, which are all minor compared to the original review and do not require any additional experiments.

Specific points:

- In Major point #5 from my original review, I had noted that it was confusing that the MEI-1 signal looked bright on chromosomes, yet the quantification suggested that it was not increased. I appreciate the addition of details to the materials and methods about how this quantification was done, as well as the explanation provided in the response document explaining the issue that arises when 16 bit images are converted to 8 bit – these clarifications made the data more convincing to me. However, I predict that some future readers will be confused by the images presented, as I was initially, without the provided explanation for how the chromosomes get brighter during the conversion process. Therefore, I think it would be worthwhile to provide the explanation (given in the response document) somewhere in the manuscript as well (materials and methods or figure legend).

- In Figure 3, two panels are labeled “A”. Reviewer 1 commented on it, but this was not fixed. (In my readthrough of the revision, I noticed this too, and I agree with reviewer 1 that it is confusing.)

- Page 10, lines 14-16: the text states that “SMC-1:AID:GFP was found on control metaphase I and metaphase II chromosomes and metaphase I chromosomes of spo-11 rec-8 mutants…” However, when looking at the graph shown in Figure 3B, it looks like a fair number of measured chromosomes in the spo-11 rec-8 mutant in MI fall close to a ratio of 1 (which would indicate no enrichment on chromosomes). I am very convinced that many of the chromosomes have SMC-1, but the raw data suggest that some chromosomes do not. If the authors think this is a valid point (i.e. they agree that some chromosomes may not be enriched for SMC-1 in this condition), then they should add the word “some” or “most” chromosomes when describing their data, and then comment on why some chromosomes may not have SMC-1 (since this is not obvious to this reviewer). But if the authors think that all chromosomes have SMC-1 and there is a different explanation for the chromosomes with a ratio close to 1, then they should provide this explanation in the materials and methods, when describing their quantification scheme.

- Page 10, line 20: there is a reference to smc-1/him-1, but non-worm people will not know what him-1 is. Either explain this or remove the “/him-1”.

- There is inconsistency in how “Aurora B” is written. In the discussion in particular, “auroraB” is used frequently. Unless there is a specific reason for this, I suggest “Aurora B” should be used throughout the manuscript.

- I had suggested that the authors provide more diagrams, similar to the ones in Figure 1A, showing chromosome structure in the other mutants (spo-11 rec-8, and the quadruple mutant). Although the authors did not take my suggestion, I still think that this would help readers who are not C. elegans meiosis experts keep track of chromosome organization in the various conditions, helping them understand the results. Therefore, I would like to again gently encourage the authors to consider this. However, I do not consider this essential for acceptance, so I leave it up to them.

- I still think that it would be helpful if the authors state in the text what organism the PDS5 statements are referring to (in the Yamagishi 2010 reference). Without stating this, readers might think that the sentences are referring to C. elegans PDS5.

Typos:

- Pg. 4 line 19: Ran should be capitalized

- Pg. 16 line 7/8: the word “or” is duplicated

- Pg. 20 line 10: “non-phosphorylatable” is misspelled

- Pg. 24 line 17: “non-specific” is misspelled

- Pg. 37 line 23: “dependingon” should be fixed

Reviewer #3: This is a very interesting paper demonstrating a link between meiotic cohesins, CPC recruitment, and spindle assembly. The authors have made many changes in response to the previous review, but there are still some issues they did not adequately address.

1. The author response that the key comparison is between spo-11 rec-8 and spo-11 rec-8 coh-3 coh-4 does not address the original question of why spo-11 is in there. What if spo-11 influences the phenotype? Just one image of rec-8 coh-3 coh-4 would suffice. It may also help the reader to know why the spo-11 mutation was included. For example, to easily see the effects of the cohesin mutants.

5. Minor point, the reason to show MI images is that the regulation of CPC is known to be different between prophase and metaphase. Additional factors can recruit the CPC in metaphase. And clearly MI is the more relevant time point (see also previous comment #6 and Fig 5C). Agreed the results could easily be the same. Just a thought. From the reader’s perspective, they may wonder, why 4D is one stage while 4F is another (or why 5C is at this stage). The authors do not do a good job explaining this.

Can the authors speculate on why in 4C the chromosomal Air-2 is higher in rec-8 MI relative to controls? Also on Figure 4, can they comment on why the spo-11 rec-8 genotype in 4E show a mix of Air2 intensity, some like the control, some like spoc-11 rec-8 coh3/4.

10) Fig 7A confirms previous results the authors cite. The results in B and C are consistent with these observations but indirect. Therefore, the statement in lines 4-6 pg. 17 applies to Fig 7A only. 7B does not test Air-2 and 7C is only a correlation. However, the author response did not really answer the original question. Fig 7C needs a control. What if the KLP-7 measurement looks the same in wild-type? Similar comment for 7E. And shouldn’t the data in 7B-C also be extractable from 7D? Its also not clear why Klp-7 was not observed in rec-8 coh-3 coh-4, which should have the most dramatic effect.

12) The authors present no evidence on the Ran pathway, even though I agree with the conclusions. For example, being cytoplasmic/ outside the nucleus does not show something is not regulated by the Ran pathway. I think these results are interesting but not because of Ran. Its because these SAFs must be inactive while in the cytoplasm, to avoid bundling of microtubules prior to spindle assembly. And it’s not NEB that triggers spindle assembly, it is exposure of these SAFs to the chromosomes (ands their cohesin recruited CPC) that activates them.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Decision Letter 2

Gregory P Copenhaver, Sarit Smolikove

26 Sep 2022

Dear Dr McNally,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some concerns that we ask you address in a revised manuscript.

Only one of the reviewers identified places that requires addressing. I believe that these few comments can be easily addressed via text edits, including the clarification question of reviewer 2 [it could be that including the description of what time indicates in M&M is not sufficient to make it clear to the reader and/or statement comparing time by the arrival of the spindle at the cortex (the time on the figures) to the time of ovulation (the time in the text) and how variable it is].

Additional typos are:

  • Page 8 line 16- Microtubules instead microtubles

  • Page 16 line 20 imaging instead imagng

  • Page 42 line 9 occurred instead occured

  • page 44 line 3 expressing instead expresing

  • Fig. 2D is called before 2B and 2C, the order of figure 7 panels calls not right

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.

In addition we ask that you:

1) Provide a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

2) Upload a Striking Image with a corresponding caption to accompany your manuscript if one is available (either a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). If this image is judged to be suitable, it may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel square images. For examples, please browse our archive. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Note: we cannot publish copyrighted images.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we would ask you to let us know the expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments should be included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, you will need to go to the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

Please let us know if you have any questions while making these revisions.

Yours sincerely,

Sarit Smolikove

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript includes new data that address the most critical referee comments and suggestions made during the second round of reviews. The manuscript is much stronger and more easily understood because of these revisions, and the data and conclusions regarding cohesin-dependent but cohesion-independent roles for cohesin in spindle assembly are quite convincing and interesting. My concerns have been adequately addressed.

Reviewer #2: The reviewers have addressed my concerns in this revised version. In my final readthrough I caught a few minor errors that I suggest correcting. Otherwise, I am supportive of publication.

- The section describing Figure 2 (starting on line 9) describes events happening in live movies and refers to the timing of events. However, some of the timestamps don’t match when comparing between panels. For example, page 8 line 11 states that microtubules assemble at a similar time after ovulation as control, but if you look at the timestamps in panels 2B and 2D, it does not seem similar (Metaphase I is at -3:20 in panel B, but at 2:00 in panel D). Similarly, the next sentence states that the amorphous cloud shrinks in similar timing, but lists two different timepoints (7:50 and -1:10). Why are these timestamps so different if the authors are claiming they are “similar”? It is possible that this timing difference is explained somewhere, but if so, I missed it. I think it would be useful to add some clarifying information to the figure legend, which is where I think most people would look for this type of information if they are confused.

- Figure S2A does not have a figure call-out in the results section.

- I think that “S5C” on page 14 line 10 is supposed to be S5B. Also, in Figure S5 itself, I think the “B” needs to be moved up (it is placed below labels that should be part of the panel).

Reviewer #3: The authors have done a satisfactory job revising the manuscript. I have no further comments.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Decision Letter 3

Gregory P Copenhaver, Sarit Smolikove

10 Oct 2022

Dear Dr McNally,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In answer to the question you posted in your response letter: please contact PloS Genetic office directly (plosgenetics@plos.org) to enable them to help you with your image file submissions.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Sarit Smolikove

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-22-00290R3

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

Acceptance letter

Gregory P Copenhaver, Sarit Smolikove

18 Oct 2022

PGENETICS-D-22-00290R3

Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans

Dear Dr McNally,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Cohesin is required for meiotic spindle assembly independent of its role in cohesion in C. elegans" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Anita Estes

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. DNA body counts in -1 oocytes of mutant C. elegans.

    (A) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living rec-8 oocyte nucleus expressing mCherry::HIS-11. rec-8 oocyte nuclei contained 12.33 +/- 0.37 DNA bodies (n = 9), which included univalents and an occasional chromatid. (B) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living spo-11 rec-8 oocyte nucleus expressing GFP::H2B show 22 of the 24 total chromatids. spo-11 rec-8 oocyte nuclei contained 23.8 +/- 0.01 DNA bodies (n = 10). (C) Single and Z-stack sum slices of a living rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 oocyte nucleus expressing mCH::HIS-11. rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 nuclei contained 24.5 +/- 0.43 DNA bodies (n = 14). 4/14 oocytes contained one or two small DNA bodies which may indicate chromosomes fragmented by SPO-11 activity. All bars = 5 μm.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Auxin depletion of SMC-1::AID::GFP and HASP-1::AID is incomplete in some embryos.

    (A) Single-plane images of SMC-1::AID:GFP in the gonad of living worms incubated overnight in either the presence or absence of auxin. (B) The ratio of SMC-1::AID::GFP mean pixel intensity to mCH:HIS-58 mean pixel intensity in gonad nuclei was determined in worms incubated as described in (A). Several of the ratios in auxin-treated worms approach the values obtained in untreated worms. N, number of worms. n, number of nuclei. (C) Embryos from worms expressing HASP-1::AID and incubated in either the presence or absence of auxin were fixed and stained with tubulin and phosphor H3(T3) antibodies, and with DAPI. (D) Ratios of chromosomal to cytoplasmic H3(T3) antibody staining were determed in worms incubated as described in (C). N, number of spindles. n, number of chromosomes. (E) The values for worms incubated in the presence of auxin were separated into those obtained from chromosomes in apolar spindles and those obtained from chromosomes in multipolar spindles. N, number of spindles. n, number of chromosomes. All bars equal 4μm.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Some chromatids are bound by bright patterned AIR-2::GFP in spo-11 rec-8 oocytes.

    (A) Single chromosomes from z-stack images of living control and mutant C. elegans oocytes expressing mCherry::HIS-58 and AIR-2::GFP. Two examples are shown of a spo-11 rec-8 chromosome, one bound by bright patterned AIR-2::GFP and one with dim diffuse AIR-2::GFP. All bars = 1μm. (B) Graph showing the percent of chromosomes bound by bright AIR-2::GFP in living -1 oocytes of control and mutant C. elegans. Z-stacks of entire nuclei were analyzed. For spo-11 rec-8, bright vs dim AIR-2::GFP was scored by only comparing chromatids within the same focal plane. Bright AIR-2::GFP was observed on 100 percent of control chromosomes, 0 percent of spo-11 rec-8; coh-4 coh-3 chromatids and 39.5 +/- 4.0 percent of spo-11 rec-8 chromatids. N, number of oocytes. n, number of chromosomes.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Colocalization of AIR-2 and COH-3 in spo-11 rec-8 metaphase I embryos.

    (A) Meiotic embryos within control and spo-11 rec-8 worms expressing AIR-2::GFP were fixed and stained with DAPI, COH-3/4 antibodies, and GFP antibodies. The control spindle displays consistent intensities of AIR-2 and COH-3/4 on each chromosome while the spo-11 rec-8 spindle displays varying intensities. Bars = 3 μm. (B) High magnification view of single chromatids from (A). The control chromosome shows bright COH-3/4 and bright AIR-2. Two chromosomes from the same spo-11 rec-8 embryo are shown, one with bright COH-3/4 and AIR-2 and one with dim COH-3/4 and AIR-2. Bars = 1 μm. (C) Graph showing mean pixel value of COH-3/4 versus mean pixel value of AIR-2 on rec-8 spo-11 chromosomes. Mean pixel values were taken by using a circle ROI with a 22 pixel diameter (covering the entire univalent’s area). N, number of embryos. n, number of chromosomes.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Maternal AIR-2, but not SMC-1, is recruited to the sperm DNA.

    (A) Time-lapse images of 15/15 embryos from worms expressing SMC-1::GFP and mCH::HIS-58 in both oocytes and spermatocytes show no SMC-1::GFP on sperm-derived paternal DNA within the zygote during meiosis. SMC-1::GFP was observed in the sperm-derived paternal pronucleus in 7/7 embryos. Bar = 3 μm. (B) Male worms were soaked in mitotracker before mating to hermaphrodites. The sperm-derived paternal DNA is found at the center of the cloud of paternal mitochondria within meiotic embryos (far right). In 5/5 mated hermaphrodites, paternal AIR-2::GFP was present on spermatids, but was not detected post-fertilization within the cloud of paternal mitochondria in meiotic embryos identified by their position in the uterus adjacent to the spermatheca (+1 embryo). 13/13 unmated hermaphrodites expressing AIR-2::GFP, and 11/11 AIR-2::GFP expressing hermaphrodites mated with non-expressing males had AIR-2::GFP on the sperm DNA in +1 embryos. Bar = 4μm.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. MT density is decreased in spo-11 rec-8; coh-3 coh-4 and bir-1(fq55) spindles.

    (A) Single slices from z-stack images of embryos expressing mNG::TBB-2 and mCH::HIS-11. Bar = 4μm. (B) Ratios of mean, background-subtracted mNG::TBB-2 pixel values in spindles vs. nearby cytoplasm of control and mutant embryos. N = number of embryos.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Spindle assembly factors are cytoplasmic prior to nuclear envelope breakdown.

    (A) Single plane images of -1 oocytes in C. elegans expressing GFP::H2B, SMC-1::AID::GFP, and spindle assembly factors. Bar = 10 μm. (B) Nucleoplasmic to cytoplasmic ratios were determined for mean, background-subtracted pixel values in -1 oocytes.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Bipolar spindles form in the presence of Auxin.

    C. elegans expressing DHC-1::AID::GFP, eGFP::LIN-5, mCH::H2B and mKate2::PH were incubated for 2–4 hours in the presence or absence of auxin. (A) Images of metaphase I spindles show that 9/9 spindles were bipolar in the absence of auxin and 10/10 metaphase I spindles were bipolar in the presence of auxin. (B) Quantification of spindle bipolarity. (C) Time-lapse images of C. elegans incubated in the absence of auxin show bipolar spindles shorten and rotate prior to chromosome separation (n = 5). (D) Time-lapse images of C. elegans incubated in the presence of auxin show bipolar spindles shorten and remain parallel to the cortex due to the depletion of DHC-1::AID::GFP (n = 7).

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Hatch rate data for auxin-induced degron experiments.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. C. elegans Strain List.

    List of genotypes of all strains used in this paper.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Numerical values for all graphs shown in this paper.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a control strain.

    Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

    (MP4)

    S2 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a rec-8 strain.

    Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

    (MP4)

    S3 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a spo-11 rec-8 coh-4 coh-3 strain.

    Green is mNeonGreen::tubulin. Red is mCherry::histone H2b.

    (MP4)

    S4 Video. Metaphase I through anaphase II filmed in utero in a spo-11 rec-8 strain.

    Green is GFP::histone H2b. Red is mKate::tubulin.

    (MP4)

    S5 Video. z-stack showing the pattern of CLS-2::GFP on control bivalents.

    (MP4)

    S6 Video. z-stack showing the pattern of CLS-2::GFP on bir-1(fq55) bivalents.

    (MP4)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebuttal.rtf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers and editor.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES