report
Report
Cell Cycle 10:6, 951-955; March 15, 2011; © 2011 Landes Bioscience
Sgo1 is required for co-segregation of sister
chromatids during achiasmate meiosis I
Andrej Dudas, Shazia Ahmad and Juraj Gregan*
Department of Chromosome Biology; Max F. Perutz Laboratories; University of Vienna; Vienna, Austria
Key words: meiosis, chromosome segregation, recombination, kinetochore, Sgo1, fission yeast
The reduction of chromosome number during meiosis is achieved by two successive rounds of chromosome segregation,
called meiosis I and meiosis II. While meiosis II is similar to mitosis in that sister kinetochores are bi-oriented and segregate
to opposite poles, recombined homologous chromosomes segregate during the first meiotic division. Formation of
chiasmata, mono-orientation of sister kinetochores and protection of centromeric cohesion are three major features
of meiosis I chromosomes which ensure the reductional nature of chromosome segregation. Here we show that sister
chromatids frequently segregate to opposite poles during meiosis I in fission yeast cells that lack both chiasmata and the
protector of centromeric cohesion Sgo1. Our data are consistent with the notion that sister kinetochores are frequently
bi-oriented in the absence of chiasmata and that Sgo1 prevents equational segregation of sister chromatids during
achiasmate meiosis I.
Introduction
Results
During meiosis, two successive rounds of chromosome segregation (meiosis I and meiosis II), which follow a single round of
DNA replication generate haploid gametes from diploid precursor cells (reviewed in refs. 1–4). Three major features of meiosis I
chromosomes ensure the reductional nature of chromosome segregation during meiosis I. The first is the formation of chiasmata,
which provide the physical link between homologous chromosomes. Chiasma formation depends on meiotic recombination,
which is initiated by Spo11/Rec12-induced double-strand breaks
(DSBs) (reviewed in refs. 5–9). The second meiosis I-specific feature is the attachment of sister kinetochores to microtubules emanating from the same spindle pole (mono-orientation) (reviewed
in refs. 10–12). Finally, cohesion between sister centromeres
must be protected during meiosis I. The protection of centromeric cohesion is mediated by the conserved Sgo1/MEI-S332
proteins that recruit a specific form of protein phosphatase 2A
(called PP2A-π) to centromeres.13-21 The Sgo1/PP2A complex
then protects centromeric cohesin from separase cleavage by
opposing phosphorylation of Rec8, the meiosis-specific alphakleisin subunit of cohesin.22-27 Coordination of these processes
is crucial for proper segregation of chromosomes during meiosis
and defects in these processes may lead to meiotic aneuploidy,
which is the leading cause of miscarriages and genetic disorders
such as Down syndrome in humans.28-30
In order to identify mutants defective in the mono-orientation of
sister kinetochores during meiosis I, Yokobayashi and Watanabe
performed an elegant genetic screen in a haploid S. pombe strain
that undergoes a single meiotic division and produces two
spored-asci immediately after meiosis I.31 These spores are mostly
non-viable, because sister chromatids co-segregate to the same
pole (reductional-like segregation) and only occasionally all three
chromosomes segregate to the same nucleus.32 Yokobayashi and
Watanabe reasoned that mutations affecting mono-orientation
of sister kinetochores should shift chromosome segregation from
reductional-like to equational and produce viable spores. This
screen led to the identification of Moa1 as well as other proteins
involved in sister-chromatid cohesion.31 However, this screen was
not ideal for identification of factors required specifically for the
mono-orientation process, because centromeric cohesion which
remains intact during the first meiotic division, may prevent segregation of bi-oriented sister chromatids to the opposite poles in
mutants defective in the mono-orientation, but not in the protection of centromeric cohesion. We therefore decided to carry out
a new screen in a haploid strain carrying an additional mutation
(sgo1Δ), which renders the centromeric cohesion sensitive to separase cleavage during meiosis I (reviewed in refs. 17 and 33). In
the absence of Sgo1, centromeric cohesion is resolved at the onset
of anaphase I and this should allow segregation of bi-oriented
sister chromatids to the opposite poles. However, we found that
this strain frequently segregated sister chromatids to opposite
poles during meiosis I and produced spores with high viability
(Fig. 1A). This is surprising, because during diploid meiosis,
*Correspondence to: Juraj Gregan; Email: [email protected]
Submitted: 11/18/10; Revised: 02/02/11; Accepted: 02/07/11
DOI: 10.4161/cc.10.6.15032
www.landesbioscience.com
Cell Cycle
951
Figure 1. Sgo1 is required for co-segregation of sister chromatids during achiasmate meiosis I. (A) Analysis of sister-chromatid segregation during
haploid meiosis I. The indicated strains were sporulated, stained with Hoechst 33342 and examined under the fluorescence microscope. Segregation
of chromosome I (labeled with lys1-GFP) was scored in 100 dyads. Spore viability was determined by dissection of dyads (80 spores were analyzed for
each strain). The genotypes of strains are listed in the Table 1. (B) Analysis of sister-chromatid segregation during anaphase I. The indicated strains
were sporulated, fixed, stained with Hoechst 33342 and antibodies against tubulin and GFP, and examined under the fluorescence microscope. Segregation of chromosome I (heterozygous lys1-GFP) and chromosome II (heterozygous cen2-GFP) was scored in 100 anaphase I cells. In wild-type cells, we
attribute the rare cases of segregation to opposite poles of sister lys1-GFP sequences to recombination taking place between cen1 and lys1. (C) Analysis
of sister chromatid cohesion during meiotic prophase. Cells were prepared as in (B) and sister chromatid cohesion was assayed in horsetail nuclei using
strains where one copy of either chromosome I (heterozygous lys1-GFP) or chromosome II (heterozygous cen2-GFP) was labeled with GFP.
sister chromatids efficiently co-segregate to the same pole in the
absence of Sgo1.17,18 We thus conclude that Sgo1 is required for
efficient co-segregation of sister chromatids during haploid meiosis I. The observed equational segregation of sister chromatids in
haploid sgo1Δ cells might be due to a defect in the protection of
centromeric cohesion, because we observed a similar phenotype
in cells lacking Par1 subunit of the PP2A, which is also required
for the protection of centromeric cohesion during meiosis I
(Fig. 1A).14,34 Although this unexpected finding prevented us from
pursuing our genetic screen, it raised an interesting question: why
952
is Sgo1 required for co-segregation of sister chromatids during
haploid meiosis I, but not during diploid meiosis I? One obvious
difference between haploid and diploid meiosis is that homologous chromosomes are linked by chiasmata in diploid meiosis.
We therefore decided to test the possibility that Sgo1 is required
for co-segregation of sister chromatids during meiosis I in the
absence of chiasmata. We scored segregation of sister chromatids
during diploid meiosis in sgo1Δ mutant strain lacking chiasmata
due to rec12Δ mutation.35 Indeed, sister chromatids frequently
segregated to opposite poles in sgo1Δ rec12Δ double mutant
Cell Cycle
Volume 10 Issue 6
(Fig. 1B). Similarly, we observed increased equational segregation of sister chromatids in rec12Δ mutant cells lacking Ppa2
subunit of the PP2A, which is also required for the protection of
centromeric cohesion during meiosis I (Fig. 1B).14,34 This equational segregation is likely caused by the absence of chiasmata
and not due to a potential role of Rec12 at centromeres, because
we observed a similar phenotype in mde2Δ mutant cells, which
are also defective in chiasma formation13 (Fig. 1B). The observed
equational segregation of sister chromatids in sgo1Δ rec12Δ and
ppa2Δ rec12Δ mutant cells is unlikely due to loss of sister chromatid cohesion prior to the onset of anaphase I, because sister
chromatids (visualized by heterozygous cen2-GFP or lys1-GFP)
were cohesed during meiotic prophase (horsetail stage) (Fig. 1C)
and metaphase I (data not shown). We therefore conclude that, in
fission yeast, Sgo1 is required for efficient co-segregation of sister
chromatids during achiasmate meiosis I.
Discussion
We envision the following two models, which are not mutually
exclusive, of how Sgo1 ensures co-segregation of sister chromatids
in the absence of chiasmata. First, Sgo1 might be directly involved
in the mono-orientation of sister kinetochores during achiasmate
meiosis I. However, this possibility is less likely, because neither
Sgo1 nor PP2A is required for the mono-orientation in diploid
meiosis when chiasmata are present.17,18 The second possibility is
that sister kinetochores are frequently bi-oriented in achiasmate
meiosis I. However, bi-oriented sister chromatids are not able to
segregate to opposite poles, because centromeric cohesion resists
pulling forces of the spindle. In the absence of Sgo1, centromeric
cohesion is resolved at the onset of anaphase I and this allows
segregation of bi-oriented sister chromatids to opposite poles.
Consistent with this model is our analysis of lagging chromosomes on anaphase I spindles in rec12Δ mutant cells. We analyzed those anaphase I cells where chromosome II was lagging
and observed that sister centromeres (labeled by heterozygous
cen2-GFP32) were separated in 15 out of 50 analyzed cells. In all
15 cells sister centromeres were separated along the spindle axis,
suggesting that these chromosomes were lagging due to bi-orientation of sister kinetochores (Fig. 2). Several lines of evidence
support the role of chiasmata in orientation of sister kinetochores
during meiosis I. Previous studies in fission yeast showed that
although recombination between homologous chromosomes is
not absolutely required for the co-segregation of sister chromatids during meiosis I, it increases the fidelity of this process.32
Moreover, bi-orientation of achiasmate chromosomes has been
observed during anaphase I in mammalian and plant cells.36-41
However, sister kinetochores are mono-oriented during meiosis
I in S. cerevisiae mutant cells defective in chiasma formation and
protection of centromeric cohesion (spo11Δ rts1Δ).15 Thus, it is
possible that bi-orientation of achiasmate chromosomes during
meiosis I is a general phenomenon, however, some organisms posses mechanisms that ensure mono-orientation of sister kinetochores during meiosis I in the absence of chiasmata. Although
our data are consistent with the notion that Sgo1-mediated
protection of centromeric cohesion prevents segregation of
www.landesbioscience.com
Figure 2. Lagging sister centromeres are frequently separated along
the spindle axis in anaphase I cells lacking chiasmata. The indicated
strains were sporulated, fixed, stained with Hoechst 33342 and antibodies against tubulin and GFP, and examined under the fluorescence
microscope. Anaphase I cells with lagging cen2-GFP signals (representing chromosome II) were scored (n = 50).
bi-oriented sister chromatids to opposite poles, other studies
indicate that protection of centromeric cohesion does not operate
when sister kinetochores are bi-oriented.42-44 On the other hand,
ectopic co-expression of Rec8 and Sgo1 in vegetative cells is sufficient to prevent anaphase, suggesting that under these conditions bi-orientation does not prevent Sgo1 from protecting Rec8
from separase cleavage.17 Therefore, further analysis is required
to decipher how Sgo1 ensures co-segregation of sister chromatids during achiasmate meiosis I. An important question which
remains to be answered is how chiasmata affect orientation of
sister kinetochores. One possibility is that processes leading to
chiasma formation alter kinetochore architecture such that sister
kinetochores are preferentially attached to microtubules emanating from the same spindle pole. An alternative, but not mutually exclusive, explanation is that the physical linkage between
homologous chromosomes mediated by chiasmata promotes
mono-orientation of sister kinetochores. Elucidating the molecular mechanisms of how chiasmata affect orientation of sister
kinetochores during meiosis I will be an important aim of future
studies.
Materials and Methods
The immunofluorescence, microscopy, media and growth conditions were as previously described in references 33 and 46. Images
were processed using Photoshop software (Adobe Systems).
Genes were deleted according to the protocol of Gregan et al.47
(see mendel.imp.ac.at/Pombe_deletion). Haploid meiosis was
analyzed as described in reference 31. Construction of lys1-GFP
and cen2-GFP constructs was described in references 48 and 32
respectively. The genotypes of S. pombe strains used in this study
are listed in the Table 1.
Acknowledgements
We thank F. Klein, J. Loidl, A. Amon, V. Katis, C. Rumpf,
A. Yamamoto and Y. Watanabe for helpful discussions and
K. Gull for the TAT1 antibody. We thank S. Westermann
and J.M. Peters for allowing us to use the tetrad dissection
Cell Cycle
953
Table 1. Strain list
Figure
Strain ­number
Genotype
Figure 1A
JG12771
h mat-M cdc2-L7 LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+
Figure 1A
JG12863
h+ mat-M cdc2-L7 LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ sgo1::natMX
Figure 1A
JG14611
h+ mat-M cdc2-L7 LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ par1::kanMX
Figure 1B
JG11338
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 1B
JG11339
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 1B
JG12226
h leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP
Figure 1B
JG11339
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 1B
JG11792
h LacO-lys1 GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 sgo1::natMX
Figure 1B
JG11793
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 sgo1::natMX
Figure 1B
JG12269
h- leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP sgo1::natMX
Figure 1B
JG12340
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX
Figure 1B
JG12342
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX
Figure 1B
JG14860
h cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP rec12::kanMX
Figure 1B
JG11798
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 mde2::natMX
Figure 1B
JG11799
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 mde2::natMX
Figure 1B
JG14952
h leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP mde2::natMX
Figure 1B
JG12986
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX sgo1::natMX
Figure 1B
JG12987
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX sgo1::natMX
Figure 1B
JG14957
h- cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP rec12::kanMXsgo1::hygMX
Figure 1B
JG14958
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 mde2::natMX sgo1::hygMX
Figure 1B
JG14959
h- leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP mde2::natMXsgo1::hygMX
Figure 1B
JG13988
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 ppa2::kanMX rec12::hygMX
Figure 1B
JG13989
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 ppa2::kanMX rec12::hygMX
Figure 1B
JG12828
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 ppa2::kanMX
Figure 1C
JG11338
h- LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 1C
JG11339
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 1C
JG12226
h leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP
Figure 1C
JG14957
h- cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP rec12::kanMXsgo1::hygMX
Figure 1C
JG12987
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX sgo1::natMX
Figure 1C
JG13988
h LacO-lys1+ GFP-LacI-his7+ leu1 ura4 ade6-210 ppa2::kanMX rec12::hygMX
Figure 1C
JG13989
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 ppa2::kanMX rec12::hygMX
Figure 2
JG12226
h leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::Kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP
Figure 2
JG11339
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210
Figure 2
JG14860
h leu1-32 lys1-131 ura4-D18 cen2(D107)::kan-ura4+-lacO his7+::lacI-GFP rec12::kanMX
Figure 2
JG12342
h+ lys1 his7 leu1 ura4 ade6-210 rec12::kanMX
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
microscope. This work was supported by Austrian Science
Fund grants (P18955, P20444, F3403) and HFSP grant
RGY0069/2010. A.D. is on leave from the Cancer Research
References
1. Marston AL, Amon A. Meiosis: cell cycle controls
shuffle and deal. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2004; 5:983-97.
2. Petronczki M, Siomos MF, Nasmyth K. Un menage a
quatre: the molecular biology of chromosome segregation in meiosis. Cell 2003; 112:423-40.
3. Yin S, Sun XF, Schatten H, Sun QY. Molecular insights
into mechanisms regulating faithful chromosome separation in female meiosis. Cell Cycle 2008; 7:29973005.
954
+
Institute, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, 83391, Bratislava,
Slovak Republic, supported by the FWF Lise Meitner Program
M1145.
4. Schvarzstein M, Wignall SM, Villeneuve AM.
Coordinating cohesion, co-orientation and congression
during meiosis: lessons from holocentric chromosomes.
Genes Dev 24:219-28.
5. Martinez-Perez E, Colaiacovo MP. Distribution of meiotic recombination events: talking to your neighbors.
Curr Opin Genet Dev 2009; 19:105-12.
6. Gerton JL, Hawley RS. Homologous chromosome
interactions in meiosis: diversity amidst conservation.
Nat Rev Genet 2005; 6:477-87.
7. Zickler D, Kleckner N. Meiotic chromosomes: integrating structure and function. Annu Rev Genet 1999;
33:603-754.
Cell Cycle
8.
Davis L, Smith GR. Meiotic recombination and chromosome segregation in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:8395-402.
9. Neale MJ, Keeney S. Clarifying the mechanics of DNA
strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature
2006; 442:153-8.
10. Sakuno T, Watanabe Y. Studies of meiosis disclose
distinct roles of cohesion in the core centromere
and pericentromeric regions. Chromosome Res 2009;
17:239-49.
11. Hauf S, Watanabe Y. Kinetochore orientation in mitosis and meiosis. Cell 2004; 119:317-27.
Volume 10 Issue 6
12. Brar GA, Amon A. Emerging roles for centromeres
in meiosis I chromosome segregation. Nat Rev Genet
2008; 9:899-910.
13. Gregan J, Rabitsch PK, Sakem B, Csutak O, Latypov
V, Lehmann E, et al. Novel genes required for meiotic chromosome segregation are identified by a highthroughput knockout screen in fission yeast. Curr Biol
2005; 15:1663-9.
14. Kitajima TS, Sakuno T, Ishiguro K, Iemura S, Natsume
T, Kawashima SA, et al. Shugoshin collaborates with
protein phosphatase 2A to protect cohesin. Nature
2006; 441:46-52.
15. Riedel CG, Katis VL, Katou Y, Mori S, Itoh T,
Helmhart W, et al. Protein phosphatase 2A protects
centromeric sister chromatid cohesion during meiosis
I. Nature 2006; 441:53-61.
16. Marston AL, Tham WH, Shah H, Amon A. A genomewide screen identifies genes required for centromeric
cohesion. Science 2004; 303:1367-70.
17. Kitajima TS, Kawashima SA, Watanabe Y. The
conserved kinetochore protein shugoshin protects
centromeric cohesion during meiosis. Nature 2004;
427:510-7.
18. Rabitsch KP, Gregan J, Schleiffer A, Javerzat JP,
Eisenhaber F, Nasmyth K. Two fission yeast homologs
of Drosophila Mei-S332 are required for chromosome
segregation during meiosis I and II. Curr Biol 2004;
14:287-301.
19. Kerrebrock AW, Moore DP, Wu JS, Orr-Weaver TL.
Mei-S332, a Drosophila protein required for sisterchromatid cohesion, can localize to meiotic centromere
regions. Cell 1995; 83:247-56.
20. Gregan J, Rumpf C, Li Z, Cipak L. What makes centromeric cohesion resistant to separase cleavage during
meiosis I but not during meiosis II? Cell Cycle 2008;
7:10-2.
21. Xu Z, Cetin B, Anger M, Cho US, Helmhart W,
Nasmyth K, et al. Structure and function of the PP2Ashugoshin interaction. Mol Cell 2009; 35:426-41.
22. Clift D, Marston AL. The Role of Shugoshin in
Meiotic Chromosome Segregation. Cytogenet Genome
Res 2011; In press.
23. Rumpf C, Cipak L, Dudas A, Benko Z, Pozgajova
M, Riedel CG, et al. Casein kinase 1 is required for
efficient removal of Rec8 during meiosis I. Cell Cycle 9.
24. Brar GA, Kiburz BM, Zhang Y, Kim JE, White F,
Amon A. Rec8 phosphorylation and recombination
promote the step-wise loss of cohesins in meiosis.
Nature 2006; 441:532-6.
www.landesbioscience.com
25. Kudo NR, Anger M, Peters AH, Stemmann O, Theussl
HC, Helmhart W, et al. Role of cleavage by separase of
the Rec8 kleisin subunit of cohesin during mammalian
meiosis I. J Cell Sci 2009; 122:2686-98.
26. Ishiguro T, Tanaka K, Sakuno T, Watanabe Y.
Shugoshin-PP2A counteracts casein-kinase-1-dependent cleavage of Rec8 by separase. Nat Cell Biol 2010;
12:500-6.
27. Katis VL, Lipp JJ, Imre R, Bogdanova A, Okaz E,
Habermann B, et al. Rec8 phosphorylation by casein
kinase 1 and Cdc7-Dbf4 kinase regulates cohesin cleavage by separase during meiosis. Dev Cell 18:397-409.
28. Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum
Mol Genet 2007; 16:203-8.
29. Handel MA, Schimenti JC. Genetics of mammalian
meiosis: regulation, dynamics and impact on fertility.
Nat Rev Genet 11:124-36.
30. Garcia-Cruz R, Roig I, Caldes MG. Maternal origin
of the human aneuploidies. Are homolog synapsis and
recombination to blame? Notes (learned) from the
underbelly. Genome Dyn 2009; 5:128-36.
31. Yokobayashi S, Watanabe Y. The kinetochore protein
Moa1 enables cohesion-mediated monopolar attachment at meiosis I. Cell 2005; 123:803-17.
32. Yamamoto A, Hiraoka Y. Monopolar spindle attachment of sister chromatids is ensured by two distinct
mechanisms at the first meiotic division in fission yeast.
EMBO J 2003; 22:2284-96.
33. Rabitsch KP, Petronczki M, Javerzat JP, Genier S,
Chwalla B, Schleiffer A, et al. Kinetochore recruitment
of two nucleolar proteins is required for homolog segregation in meiosis I. Dev Cell 2003; 4:535-48.
34. Riedel CG, Katis VL, Katou Y, Mori S, Itoh T,
Helmhart W, et al. Protein phosphatase 2A protects
centromeric sister chromatid cohesion during meiosis
I. Nature 2006; 441:53-61.
35. Davis L, Smith GR. Nonrandom homolog segregation
at meiosis I in Schizosaccharomyces pombe mutants lacking recombination. Genetics 2003; 163:857-74.
36. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the
genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001;
2:280-91.
37. Gonzalez-Sanchez M, Gonzalez-Garcia M, Vega JM,
Rosato M, Cuacos M, Puertas MJ. Meiotic loss of the
B chromosomes of maize is influenced by the B univalent co-orientation and the TR-1 knob constitution
of the A chromosomes. Cytogenet Genome Res 2007;
119:282-90.
Cell Cycle
38. Moore DP, Orr-Weaver TL. Chromosome segregation
during meiosis: building an unambivalent bivalent.
Curr Top Dev Biol 1998; 37:263-99.
39. Kouznetsova A, Lister L, Nordenskjold M, Herbert M,
Hoog C. Bi-orientation of achiasmatic chromosomes
in meiosis I oocytes contributes to aneuploidy in mice.
Nat Genet 2007; 39:966-8.
40. De Muyt A, Vezon D, Gendrot G, Gallois JL, Stevens
R, Grelon M. AtPRD1 is required for meiotic double
strand break formation in Arabidopsis thaliana. EMBO
J 2007; 26:4126-37.
41. Lukaszewski AJ. Behavior of centromeres in univalents
and centric misdivision in wheat. Cytogenet Genome
Res 129:97-109.
42. Vaur S, Cubizolles F, Plane G, Genier S, Rabitsch PK,
Gregan J, et al. Control of Shugoshin function during
fission-yeast meiosis. Curr Biol 2005; 15:2263-70.
43. Lee J, Kitajima TS, Tanno Y, Yoshida K, Morita T,
Miyano T, et al. Unified mode of centromeric protection by shugoshin in mammalian oocytes and somatic
cells. Nat Cell Biol 2008; 10:42-52.
44. Gomez R, Valdeolmillos A, Parra MT, Viera A, Carreiro
C, Roncal F, et al. Mammalian SGO2 appears at the
inner centromere domain and redistributes depending
on tension across centromeres during meiosis II and
mitosis. EMBO Rep 2007; 8:173-80.
45. Petronczki M, Matos J, Mori S, Gregan J, Bogdanova
A, Schwickart M, et al. Monopolar attachment of sister
kinetochores at meiosis I requires casein kinase 1. Cell
2006; 126:1049-64.
46. Rumpf C, Cipak L, Schleiffer A, Pidoux A, Mechtler K,
Tolic-Norrelykke IM, et al. Laser microsurgery provides
evidence for merotelic kinetochore attachments in fission yeast cells lacking Pcs1 or Clr4. Cell Cycle 9.
47. Gregan J, Rabitsch PK, Rumpf C, Novatchkova M,
Schleiffer A, Nasmyth K. High-throughput knockout
screen in fission yeast. Nat Protoc 2006; 1:2457-64.
48. Nabeshima K, Nakagawa T, Straight AF, Murray
A, Chikashige Y, Yamashita YM, et al. Dynamics
of centromeres during metaphase-anaphase transition
in fission yeast: Dis1 is implicated in force balance
in metaphase bipolar spindle. Mol Biol Cell 1998;
9:3211-25.
955