Advertisement

Current Genetics

, Volume 65, Issue 5, pp 1135–1140 | Cite as

The DNA damage checkpoint and the spindle position checkpoint: guardians of meiotic commitment

  • Olivia Ballew
  • Soni LacefieldEmail author
Mini-Review

Abstract

Exogenous signals induce cells to enter the specialized cell division process of meiosis, which produces haploid gametes from diploid progenitor cells. Once cells initiate the meiotic divisions, it is imperative that they complete meiosis. Inappropriate exit from meiosis and entrance into mitosis can create polyploid cells and can lead to germline tumors. Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells enter meiosis when starved of nutrients but can return to mitosis if provided nutrient-rich medium before a defined commitment point. Once past the meiotic commitment point in prometaphase I, cells stay committed to meiosis even in the presence of a mitosis-inducing signal. Recent research investigated the maintenance of meiotic commitment in budding yeast and found that two checkpoints that do not normally function in meiosis I, the DNA damage checkpoint and the spindle position checkpoint, have crucial functions in maintaining meiotic commitment. Here, we review these findings and discuss how the mitosis-inducing signal of nutrient-rich medium could activate these two checkpoints in meiosis to prevent inappropriate meiotic exit.

Keywords

Meiosis Mitosis Return-to-growth RTG Spindle position checkpoint DNA damage checkpoint Meiotic commitment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM105755.

References

  1. Agarwal R, Tang Z, Yu H, Cohen-Fix O (2003) Two distinct pathways for inhibiting pds1 ubiquitination in response to DNA damage. J Biol Chem 278:45027–45033.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M306783200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attner MA, Amon A (2012) Control of the mitotic exit network during meiosis. Mol Biol Cell 23:3122–3132.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E12-03-0235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballew O, Lacefield S (2019) The DNA damage checkpoint and the spindle position checkpoint maintain meiotic commitment in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Biol CB 29(449–460):e442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.12.043 Google Scholar
  4. Botchkarev VV Jr, Haber JE (2018) Functions and regulation of the polo-like kinase Cdc5 in the absence and presence of DNA damage. Curr Genet 64:87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0727-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broach JR (2012) Nutritional control of growth and development in yeast. Genetics 192:73–105.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.135731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartagena-Lirola H, Guerini I, Manfrini N, Lucchini G, Longhese MP (2008) Role of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad53 checkpoint kinase in signaling double-strand breaks during the meiotic cell cycle. Mol Cell Biol 28:4480–4493.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00375-08 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan LY, Amon A (2010) Spindle position is coordinated with cell-cycle progression through establishment of mitotic exit-activating and -inhibitory zones. Mol Cell 39:444–454.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen-Fix O, Koshland D (1997) The anaphase inhibitor of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Pds1p is a target of the DNA damage checkpoint pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:14361–14366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dayani Y, Simchen G, Lichten M (2011) Meiotic recombination intermediates are resolved with minimal crossover formation during return-to-growth, an analogue of the mitotic cell cycle. PLoS Genet 7:e1002083.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falk JE, Chan AC, Hoffmann E, Hochwagen A (2010) A Mec1- and PP4-dependent checkpoint couples centromere pairing to meiotic recombination. Dev Cell 19:599–611.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falk JE, Tsuchiya D, Verdaasdonk J, Lacefield S, Bloom K, Amon A (2016) Spatial signals link exit from mitosis to spindle position. Elife.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14036 Google Scholar
  12. Friedlander G, Joseph-Strauss D, Carmi M, Zenvirth D, Simchen G, Barkai N (2006) Modulation of the transcription regulatory program in yeast cells committed to sporulation. Genome Biol 7:R20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-3-r20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganesan AT, Holter H, Roberts C (1958) Some observations on sporulation in Saccharomyces. C R Trav Lab Carlsberg Chim 31:1–6Google Scholar
  14. Gihana GM, Musser TR, Thompson O, Lacefield S (2018) Prolonged cyclin-dependent kinase inhibition results in septin perturbations during return to growth and mitosis. J Cell Biol 217:2429–2443.  https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201708153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartwell LH, Weinert TA (1989) Checkpoints: controls that ensure the order of cell cycle events. Science 246:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haruki H, Nishikawa J, Laemmli UK (2008) The anchor-away technique: rapid, conditional establishment of yeast mutant phenotypes. Mol Cell 31:925–932.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu F, Wang Y, Liu D, Li Y, Qin J, Elledge SJ (2001) Regulation of the Bub2/Bfa1 GAP complex by Cdc5 and cell cycle checkpoints. Cell 107:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamieniecki RJ, Liu L, Dawson DS (2005) FEAR but not MEN genes are required for exit from meiosis I. Cell Cycle 4:1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keogh MC, Kim JA, Downey M, Fillingham J, Chowdhury D, Harrison JC, Onishi M, Datta N, Galicia S, Emili A, Lieberman J, Shen X, Buratowski S, Haber JE, Durocher D, Greenblatt JF, Krogan NJ (2006) A phosphatase complex that dephosphorylates gammaH2AX regulates DNA damage checkpoint recovery. Nature 439:497–501.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimble J (2011) Molecular regulation of the mitosis/meiosis decision in multicellular organisms. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 3:a002683.  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a002683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laureau R, Loeillet S, Salinas F, Bergstrom A, Legoix-Ne P, Liti G, Nicolas A (2016) Extensive recombination of a yeast diploid hybrid through meiotic reversion. PLoS Genet 12:e1005781.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee DH, Pan Y, Kanner S, Sung P, Borowiec JA, Chowdhury D (2010) A PP4 phosphatase complex dephosphorylates RPA2 to facilitate DNA repair via homologous recombination. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17:365–372.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopez AL 3rd, Chen J, Joo HJ, Drake M, Shidate M, Kseib C, Arur S (2013) DAF-2 and ERK couple nutrient availability to meiotic progression during Caenorhabditis elegans oogenesis. Dev Cell 27:227–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2013.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lydall D, Nikolsky Y, Bishop DK, Weinert T (1996) A meiotic recombination checkpoint controlled by mitotic checkpoint genes. Nature 383:840–843.  https://doi.org/10.1038/383840a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacQueen AJ, Hochwagen A (2011) Checkpoint mechanisms: the puppet masters of meiotic prophase. Trends Cell Biol 21:393–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2011.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nebreda AR, Ferby I (2000) Regulation of the meiotic cell cycle in oocytes. Curr Opin Cell Biol 12:666–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neiman AM (2011) Sporulation in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 189:737–765.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.127126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nyberg KA, Michelson RJ, Putnam CW, Weinert TA (2002) Toward maintaining the genome: DNA damage and replication checkpoints. Annu Rev Genet 36:617–656.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.36.060402.113540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill BM, Szyjka SJ, Lis ET, Bailey AO, Yates JR 3rd, Aparicio OM, Romesberg FE (2007) Pph3-Psy2 is a phosphatase complex required for Rad53 dephosphorylation and replication fork restart during recovery from DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:9290–9295.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703252104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Page AW, Orr-Weaver TL (1997) Stopping and starting the meiotic cell cycle. Curr Opin Genet Dev 7:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palou G, Palou R, Zeng F, Vashisht AA, Wohlschlegel JA, Quintana DG (2015) Three different pathways prevent chromosome segregation in the presence of DNA damage or replication stress in budding yeast. PLoS Genet 11:e1005468.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palou R, Palou G, Quintana DG (2017) A role for the spindle assembly checkpoint in the DNA damage response. Curr Genet 63:275–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-016-0634-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanchez Y, Bachant J, Wang H, Hu F, Liu D, Tetzlaff M, Elledge SJ (1999) Control of the DNA damage checkpoint by chk1 and rad53 protein kinases through distinct mechanisms. Science 286:1166–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scarfone I, Piatti S (2015) Coupling spindle position with mitotic exit in budding yeast: the multifaceted role of the small GTPase Tem1. Small GTPases 6:196–201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21541248.2015.1109023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Searle JS, Schollaert KL, Wilkins BJ, Sanchez Y (2004) The DNA damage checkpoint and PKA pathways converge on APC substrates and Cdc20 to regulate mitotic progression. Nat Cell Biol 6:138–145.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Searle JS, Wood MD, Kaur M, Tobin DV, Sanchez Y (2011) Proteins in the nutrient-sensing and DNA damage checkpoint pathways cooperate to restrain mitotic progression following DNA damage. PLoS Genet 7:e1002176.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sherman F, Roman H (1963) Evidence for two types of allelic recombination in yeast. Genetics 48:255–261Google Scholar
  38. Simchen G, Pinon R, Salts Y (1972) Sporulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: premeiotic DNA synthesis, readiness and commitment. Exp Cell Res 75:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simpson-Lavy KJ, Bronstein A, Kupiec M, Johnston M (2015) Cross-Talk between carbon metabolism and the DNA damage response in S. cerevisiae. Cell Rep 12:1865–1875.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.08.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Subramanian VV, Hochwagen A (2014) The meiotic checkpoint network: step-by-step through meiotic prophase. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6:a016675.  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a016675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsubouchi H, Argunhan B, Tsubouchi T (2018) Exiting prophase I: no clear boundary. Curr Genet 64:423–427.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0771-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsuchiya D, Lacefield S (2013) Cdk1 modulation ensures the coordination of cell-cycle events during the switch from meiotic prophase to mitosis. Curr Biol CB 23:1505–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsuchiya D, Yang Y, Lacefield S (2014) Positive feedback of NDT80 expression ensures irreversible meiotic commitment in budding yeast. PLoS Genet 10:e1004398.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang H, Liu D, Wang Y, Qin J, Elledge SJ (2001) Pds1 phosphorylation in response to DNA damage is essential for its DNA damage checkpoint function. Genes Dev 15:1361–1372.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.893201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinert TA, Kiser GL, Hartwell LH (1994) Mitotic checkpoint genes in budding yeast and the dependence of mitosis on DNA replication and repair. Genes Dev 8:652–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winter E (2012) The Sum1/Ndt80 transcriptional switch and commitment to meiosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 76:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.05010-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao X, Muller EG, Rothstein R (1998) A suppressor of two essential checkpoint genes identifies a novel protein that negatively affects dNTP pools. Mol Cell 2:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations