Meiosis
Kenneth J Hillers1§, Verena Jantsch2§, Enrique Martinez-Perez3§, Judith L
Yanowitz4§

1
Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
93407, United States
2
Department of Chromosome Biology, Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of
Vienna, Dr.-Bohrgasse 9, 1030, Vienna, Austria
3
MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Imperial College, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN,
United Kingdom
4
Magee-Womens Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and
Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 204 Craft Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States

Edited by Anne Villeneuve and David Greenstein

Last revised May 26, 2015

§
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];

WormBook Early Online, published on December 22, 2015 as doi:

10.1895/wormbook.1.178.1.
Abstract

Sexual reproduction requires the production of haploid gametes (sperm and egg)
with only one copy of each chromosome; fertilization then restores the diploid
chromosome content in the next generation. This reduction in genetic content is
accomplished during a specialized cell division called meiosis, in which two rounds of
chromosome segregation follow a single round of DNA replication. In preparation for the
first meiotic division, homologous chromosomes pair and synapse, creating a context
that promotes formation of crossover recombination events. These crossovers, in
conjunction with sister chromatid cohesion, serve to connect the two homologs and
facilitate their segregation to opposite poles during the first meiotic division. During the
second meiotic division, which is similar to mitosis, sister chromatids separate; the
resultant products are haploid cells that become gametes.
In C. elegans (and most other eukaryotes) homologous pairing and
recombination are required for proper chromosome inheritance during meiosis;
accordingly, the events of meiosis are tightly coordinated to ensure the proper execution
of these events. In this chapter, we review the seminal events of meiosis: pairing of
homologous chromosomes; the changes in chromosome structure that chromosomes
undergo during meiosis; the events of meiotic recombination; the differentiation of
homologous chromosome pairs into structures optimized for proper chromosome
segregation at Meiosis I; and the ultimate segregation of chromosomes during the
meiotic divisions. We also review the regulatory processes that ensure the coordinated
execution of these meiotic events during prophase I.

1. Overview

Sexual reproduction requires the generation of haploid gametes from diploid

precursors through the specialized cell division program of meiosis. This reduction in
ploidy is essential to ensure the restoration of diploidy upon fertilization and requires
completion of several key events (Figure 1). During early prophase (leptotene and
zygotene stages), each chromosome must locate and recognize its appropriate
homologous pairing partner and align with it. During the zygotene stage, a specialized
protein structure called the synaptonemal complex (SC) assembles between the aligned
chromosomes to hold homologs together; full synapsis of homologs defines the
pachytene stage. Crossover (CO) recombination events must be completed between
the DNA molecules of the aligned and synapsed homologs, a process started by the
deliberate formation of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). Crossing over is essential for
the formation of chiasmata, connections between homologs that become evident upon
structural remodeling of chromosomes during later stages of meiotic prophase
(diplotene and diakinesis). Therefore, there are multiple surveillance mechanisms that
act to ensure that each homolog pair undergoes an exchange. Late prophase
remodeling of chromosome pairs connected by chiasmata results in bivalents wherein
the connected homologs are oriented away from each other; this promotes bipolar
attachment of homologs to the meiosis I spindle, leading to segregation of homologous
chromosomes at anaphase I. The separation of sister chromatids on the meiosis II
spindle completes the meiotic program.

 
 Despite the fundamental importance of meiosis in sexual reproduction, many
basic questions about the process and the underlying mechanisms remain unanswered.
Over the past twenty years, C. elegans has emerged as a major model organism for
investigating meiotic mechanisms. Several features of C. elegans biology have
contributed to this emergence. The worm germ line is especially amenable to high-
resolution cytological analysis of chromosome and nuclear organization in the context of
whole mount preparations that preserve 3D nuclear architecture. Importantly, each
germ line contains a complete time course of meiosis, with nuclei organized in a
temporal/spatial gradient corresponding to the stages of meiotic prophase (Figures 1,
2). Further, the chromosomal basis of sex determination can be exploited to identify
meiotic mutants on the basis of sex chromosome missegregation. The availability of
worms expressing GFP::histone has also made it possible to screen for mutants based
on lack of chiasmata connecting homologs at the end of meiotic prophase. Mutant
hermaphrodites can still produce a few percent euploid survivors even if all six
chromosome pairs lack chiasmata, a feature that has greatly facilitated analysis of
meiotic mutants. Germline mRNA expression profiles have accelerated identification of
molecular defects associated with meiotic mutants and have provided a basis for
identification of candidate genes tested for meiotic roles in targeted RNAi screens.
Finally, C. elegans has a robust tradition of investigating the genetic behavior of
chromosome rearrangements, which has led to the discovery of cis-acting chromosome
features that govern meiotic chromosome behavior.
This chapter begins with a “parts list” of meiotic machinery components identified
in C. elegans, followed by a description of the events of meiosis that integrates
information about the roles of these components. We will focus on oocyte meiosis, as
later stages of prophase in oocytes are cytologically more accessible than during
spermatocyte meiosis. We will discuss the interrelated processes of chromosome
movement and pairing (Section 2), and the protein complexes that drive the dramatic
changes seen in chromosome structure during meiosis (Section 3; also see Germline
chromatin, http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.73.1). We will then discuss the
process of meiotic recombination (Section 4). Following chiasma formation, late
pachytene bivalents differentiate around the site of the chiasma in preparation for
subsequent segregation (Section 5). We round off the chapter with an overview of
surveillance mechanisms that monitor meiotic events for proper completion (Section 6)
and a description of the events that occur during meiotic chromosome segregation
(Section 7).

2. Chromosome pairing in prophase of meiosis I

Pairing of homologous chromosomes, which occurs during the leptotene and

zygotene stages of prophase I (transition zone of the germ line), is a crucial event in
meiosis. During this highly dynamic process, the two homologous copies of each
chromosome find each other within the nucleus through an active search process that
enables chromosomes to distinguish “self versus non-self” and assume a side-by-side
alignment. This pairing is a necessary prerequisite for CO formation, and thus
successful completion of meiosis. In many organisms, pairing is mediated by tethering
chromosome ends to the nuclear periphery where they become attached to cytoplasmic

 
motor proteins via SUN/KASH domain protein complexes that span the nuclear
envelope. The motor proteins then drive chromosome movement that is essential for the
timely completion of pairing. In C. elegans, cis-acting sequences near one end of each
chromosome, rather than the telomere itself, assemble a nucleoprotein complex that
tethers the chromosome ends to the nuclear envelope. These events occur in the
transition zone and coincide with chromatin adopting a special configuration with
chromosomes pushed to one side of the nucleus opposite the nucleolus, giving the
chromatin a half-moon shape (Figure 2). Pairing is complete by exit from the transition
zone (MacQueen and Villeneuve, 2001: PMID 11445542). Mutations that disrupt
chromosome movements also result in loss of this nuclear reorganization during
leptotene/zygotene (MacQueen and Villeneuve, 2001: PMID 11445542; Couteau et al.,
2004: PMID 15062099; Couteau and Zetka, 2005: PMID 16291647; Martinez-Perez and
Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646; Penkner et al., 2007b: PMID 17543861). The
process of pairing is normally coupled with SC assembly between homologs (Section
3). However, the chromosome alignment process is genetically separable from
synapsis, although both take place along the entire length of the chromosome
(Pasierbek et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; MacQueen et al., 2002: PMID 12231631;
Nabeshima et al., 2011: PMID 21876678).

2.1 Cis-acting sequences promote pairing

Each C. elegans chromosome has a localized cis-acting region near one end that
plays crucial roles in meiotic chromosome behavior. These regions have been termed
HRRs (homology recognition regions) or PCs (pairing centers) (Rosenbluth and Baillie,
1981: PMID 6953041; Rose et al., 1984: PMID 6593563; McKim et al., 1988: PMID
3224815; Herman and Kari, 1989: PMID 2721932; Villeneuve, 1994: PMID 8005443).
These HRRs/PCs (hereafter, PCs) are each comprised of repetitive DNA sequences
(Sanford and Perry, 2001: PMID 11452017; Phillips et al., 2009: PMID 19620970). The
PC ends of chromosomes are in close proximity to the nuclear envelope in the transition
zone, when the chromosome pairing process is initiated (Figure 3) (Goldstein, 1982:
PMID 7172867; MacQueen et al., 2005: PMID 16360034). Chromosomes lacking PCs
display severe defects in pairing and synapsis (MacQueen et al., 2005: PMID
16360034).

2.2 PCs/HRRs assemble as nucleoprotein complexes at the nuclear periphery

In C. elegans meiosis, each PC is bound by one of four C2H2 zinc finger proteins
(HIM-8; ZIM-1 – ZIM-3) (Figure 3). The genes encoding the HIM/ZIM proteins are found
within a single operon, ensuring their coordinated germline expression (Phillips et al.,
2005: PMID 16360035; Phillips and Dernburg, 2006: PMID 17141157). Pairing center
repeats are sufficient to recruit ZIM proteins as shown by the injection of plasmids
carrying synthetic repeats of the PC motifs (Sanford and Perry, 2001: PMID 11452017;
Phillips et al., 2009: PMID 19620970). Furthermore, PC proteins are required both for
aligning homologs and for homologous synapsis of the specific chromosomes to which
they are bound (Phillips et al., 2005: PMID 16360035; Phillips and Dernburg, 2006:
PMID 17141157; Phillips et al., 2009: PMID 19620970; Harper et al., 2011: PMID

 
22018922; Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921). HIM-8 appears to have an additional
role(s), as it is required for elongation of the X chromosomes in transition zone nuclei,
where all chromosomes start to occupy extended territories, a process that may
facilitate their lengthwise alignment (Nabeshima et al., 2011: PMID 21876678).
Although functionally similar, the X and autosome PCs differ with respect to the
persistence and regulation of NE attachment and association of their PC-binding
proteins. HIM-8 localizes to X chromosome PCs from premeiotic stages through late
pachytene (Phillips et al., 2005: PMID 16360035). Autosomal PC proteins, by contrast,
are detected at PCs primarily from leptotene to early pachytene (ZIM-1 on
chromosomes II and III, ZIM-2 on chromosome V and ZIM-3 on chromosomes I and IV).
In contrast to HIM-8, concentration of the autosomal PC proteins at PCs depends on the
CHK-2 protein kinase (Phillips et al., 2005: PMID 16360035; Phillips and Dernburg,
2006: PMID 17141157), a master regulator of early events of prophase (MacQueen and
Villeneuve, 2001: PMID 11445542).
The PC nucleoprotein complexes act as recruitment sites for polo kinase, PLK-2
(or PLK-1, if PLK-2 is absent). PLK-2 induces structural reorganization of the nuclear
envelope (Harper et al., 2011: PMID 22018922; Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921):
the inner and outer nuclear envelope proteins SUN-1 and ZYG-12 relocate into
pronounced aggregates corresponding to the sites where PCs localize to the nuclear
envelope (Figure 3) (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID
19913287). SUN-1 and ZYG-12 form a functional SUN/KASH protein–protein interaction
module, broadly conserved among eukaryotes (Malone et al., 2003: PMID 14697201;
Fridkin et al., 2004: PMID 15100407; Penkner et al., 2007b: PMID 17543861; Minn et
al., 2009: PMID 19759181), that spans the nuclear membranes and connects
chromosomes to the cytoskeleton.
If the SUN/KASH interaction is abrogated, ZYG-12 retention at the outer nuclear
envelope is lost (Malone et al., 2003: PMID 14697201; Penkner et al., 2007b: PMID
17543861) despite the assembly of SUN-1 aggregates with PCs at the inner nuclear
envelope (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286). Therefore, the trigger for SUN-1
aggregation is transmitted from the nucleus to the cytoplasm where ZYG-12 mirrors
SUN-1 aggregates. SUN-1 aggregate formation is independent of DSBs, recombination,
pairing, and synapsis, but requires CHK-2 (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Sato
et al., 2009: PMID 19913287). SUN-1/ZYG-12 aggregates at autosomal PC attachment
sites are found in leptotene/zygotene (TZ). In contrast the SUN-1/ZYG-12 aggregates
around the X chromosome pairing center persist throughout early pachytene. In mid-
and late pachytene, most nuclei lack SUN-1/ZYG-12 aggregates, despite the presence
of a HIM-8 focus at the nuclear envelope (Phillips et al., 2005: PMID 16360035;
Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287).
Disappearance of SUN-1/ZYG-12 aggregates correlates with the establishment of full
synapsis and relocalization of PLK-2 from PCs to the SC (Harper et al., 2011: PMID
22018922; Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921). The recruitment of PLK-2 to PCs and
the subsequent formation of dynamic SUN-1/ZYG-12 aggregates is essential to ensure
faithful SC assembly, as mutants defective in sun-1, zyg-12, plk-2 or him-8/zimΔ
(lacking all PC-binding proteins) display aberrant synapsis (Penkner et al., 2007b: PMID
17543861; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287; Harper et al., 2011: PMID 22018922;
Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921; Woglar et al., 2013: PMID 23505384).

 
 PCs play a prominent role in promoting homolog recognition, but several lines of
evidence suggest that they cannot be the sole determinants of chromosome identity.
Some PC proteins (ZIM-1 and ZIM-3) localize to more than one chromosome; despite
this, nonhomologous pairing between different ZIM-1 or ZIM-3 – binding PCs is not
detected in wild-type animals (Phillips et al., 2009: PMID 19620970). Moreover, pre-
synaptic alignment has been demonstrated along the entire length of chromosomes
(Nabeshima et al., 2011: PMID 21876678). The chromodomain protein MRG-1, present
on the autosomes, plays a role in the non-PC mediated homolog alignment and its
absence leads to defects in homolog alignment and synapsis of non-PC regions
(Dombecki et al., 2011: PMID 22172672). Mutations in the gene encoding the
serine/threonine phosphatase PPH-4.1 cause defective autosomal chromosome pairing
and synapsis between non-homologous chromosomes. The relevant targets for PPH-
4.1 are still unknown (Sato-Carlton et al., 2014: PMID 25340746). In C. elegans,
homologous recombination is not required for establishment of homolog alignment since
spo-11 mutants, in which meiotic DSBs are not formed, are proficient to pair and
synapse with their homologs (Dernburg et al., 1998: PMID 9708740).

2.3 Pairing center movements promote efficient homolog pairing

PCs display a highly dynamic behavior during leptotene/zygotene (Penkner et al.,

2009: PMID 19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287; Baudrimont et al., 2010:
PMID 21124819); in contrast, other chromosomal regions are relatively static (Wynne et
al., 2012: PMID 22232701). During leptotene/zygotene, PCs have a strong tendency to
come together into transient local clusters. From there they may continue to move in
groups/pairs or dissociate and resume independent movement (Figure 3). Tracking PC
movements showed that they comprise both small short-range tracks and long saltatory
trajectories (up to 2 µm) with an average track length of 0.5µm and an average speed of
0.19 µm/sec (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287;
Baudrimont et al., 2010: PMID 21124819; Wynne et al., 2012: PMID 22232701).
Chromosomes progressively pair and synapse while progressing through
leptotene/zygotene; in spite of this, the characteristics of chromosome movement
remain essentially the same (Baudrimont et al., 2010: PMID 21124819; Wynne et al.,
2012: PMID 22232701), suggesting that PC-mediated chromosome end movement
does not cease once synapsis of a given chromosome pair is achieved.
Chromosome movement in the gonad relies on microtubules (Sato et al., 2009:
PMID 19913287; Wynne et al., 2012: PMID 22232701). Further, ZYG-12 recruits
components of the dynein motor complex to the cytoplasmic side of the PC attachments
(Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287; Labrador et al., 2013: PMID 23671424) to mobilize
chromosome ends in leptotene/zygotene and to facilitate pairing and synapsis. Dynein
knock-down, ATP depletion or a specific allele affecting the mitochondria-localized
SPD-3 protein (with a likely role in energy production for dynein function) consistently
result in reduced pairing and in synapsis with non-homologs (Labrador et al., 2013:
PMID 23671424). However, a direct role of dynein-driven chromosome movements in
licensing SC assembly has also been proposed, since severe dynein knockdown
inhibited SC assembly (Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287). Sato et al. further propose

 
that dynein functions to oppose inappropriate chromosome interactions, enabling
dissociation of non-homologous chromosomes.
Upon completion of pairing and synapsis, meiocytes enter early pachytene and
chromosome clustering is loosened but not completely abrogated. SUN-1/ZYG-12
aggregates dissolve around the autosome PCs, whereas they persist longer at the X
chromosome PCs, which remain mobile in early pachytene (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID
19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287; Wynne et al., 2012: PMID 22232701).
The study of the him-19 mutant revealed that regulation of chromosome end
mobilization deteriorates with progressive age in this mutant (Penkner et al., 2009:
PMID 19913286; Tang et al., 2010: PMID 20071466). The decreased movement and
associated increase in nondisjunction with age might suggest an underlying cause for
age-related chromosomal abnormalities in systems where meiosis continues throughout
one’s lifetime, such as during human spermatogenesis.

3. Meiotic chromosome structure

The meiotic program involves dramatic changes in chromosome structure, which

are driven by the regulated association and dissociation of different protein complexes
from chromosomes. Some of these protein complexes represent meiosis-specific
elaborations upon structures that occur in mitotically cycling cells. Critically important is
the loading of multiple, partially redundant cohesin complexes (Section 3.1), which
tether sister chromatids together and serve as the basis for assembly of axial elements
containing four HORMA-domain proteins (Section 3.2). During pachytene, the axial
elements of paired homologous chromosomes are connected by yet another meiosis-
specific structure known as the synaptonemal complex (SC; Section 3.3); proper
assembly of the SC depends on axis assembly, and in turn is required for regulated
formation of meiotic COs between homologs (and thus, proper chromosome
segregation) (Sections 4 and 5). The correct execution of these structural changes is
essential to promote pairing, CO formation and chromosome segregation.

3.1 Meiosis-specific cohesin complexes

The acquisition of meiosis-specific chromosome features starts with DNA

replication, during which sister chromatid cohesion must be established. Meiotic S-
phase is twice as long as that of cells in the mitotic compartment of the germ line
(Jaramillo-Lambert et al., 2007: PMID 17599823), perhaps reflecting the time required
to adopt the unique chromosome configurations required for meiotic success. C.
elegans expresses three different meiosis-specific cohesin complexes differing in their
kleisin subunit: REC-8 and the nearly identical and functionally redundant COH-3 and
COH-4 (Pasierbek et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; Severson et al., 2009: PMID
19574299; Severson and Meyer, 2014: PMID 25171895). REC-8 is present during
meiotic DNA replication, provides cohesion independently of DSBs, and its loading onto
chromosomes depends on HORMA-domain protein HTP-3 and on TIM-1 (ortholog of
the TIMELESS clock protein) (Pasierbek et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; Chan et al.,
2003: PMID 12827206; Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299; Severson and Meyer,
2014: PMID 25171895). In contrast, COH-3/4 complexes are only detected in meiotic

 
nuclei following the completion of S-phase, their ability to provide cohesion requires
DSBs, and their loading is independent of HTP-3 and TIM-1 (Severson and Meyer,
2014: PMID 25171895). Loss of cohesion, evidenced by extensive separation of sister
chromatids in diakinesis oocytes, is observed in mutants lacking REC-8, COH-3 and
COH-4 but not in rec-8 single or coh-3 coh-4 double mutants (Severson et al., 2009:
PMID 19574299; Tzur et al., 2012: PMID 22927794; Severson and Meyer, 2014: PMID
25171895), demonstrating that both REC-8 and COH-3/4 complexes contribute to sister
chromatid cohesion.
Cohesin loading to meiotic chromosomes is not only essential for sister
chromatid cohesion, but also for successful completion of key meiotic prophase events.
REC-8 and COH-3/4 cohesin complexes associate with axial elements in the transition
zone of the germ line, where chromosomes become dramatically elongated compared
to mitotic cells (Pasierbek et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; Hayashi et al., 2007: PMID
17983271; Nabeshima et al., 2011: PMID 21876678; Severson and Meyer, 2014: PMID
25171895). Assembly of axial elements is fully dependent on cohesin loading, as
depletion of SMC-1 or SCC-3 (which are common to all meiotic cohesin complexes),
lack of all three meiotic kleisins, or lack of the cohesin loading factor SCC-2, prevent
association of HORMA-domain proteins with axial elements and cause severe meiotic
defects that prevent CO formation (Pasierbek et al., 2003: PMID 14499625; Wang et al.,
2003: PMID 14560015; Goodyer et al., 2008: PMID 18267094; Severson et al., 2009:
PMID 19574299; Lightfoot et al., 2011: PMID 21856158). Loading of different meiosis-
specific cohesin complexes is also required for the assembly of axial elements in mice
(reviewed in McNicoll et al., 2013: PMID 23287028). Furthermore, meiotic defects,
including impaired chiasma formation, are present in mutants that display a partial
reduction in the overall amount of cohesin associated with axial elements, such as in
worms carrying a hypomorphic smc-3 allele or mutants lacking the axis-associated LAB-
1 protein (Baudrimont et al., 2011: PMID 21957461; Tzur et al., 2012: PMID 22927794).
CO formation is impaired in mutants lacking either REC-8 or COH-3/4, demonstrating
that both types of cohesin play important roles during meiotic recombination (Pasierbek
et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; Hayashi et al., 2007: PMID 17983271; Severson et al.,
2009: PMID 19574299). Moreover, REC-8 and COH-3/4 cohesin also play different
roles in ensuring SC assembly between homologous chromosomes, since SC assembly
is greatly reduced in coh-3 coh-4 double mutants and SC installation is thought to occur
between sister chromatids in rec-8 mutants (Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299;
Severson and Meyer, 2014: PMID 25171895).

3.2 HORMA-domain proteins

Proteins containing a HORMA domain, a protein motif also found in spindle-

assembly checkpoint protein MAD2 (Aravind and Koonin, 1998: PMID 9757827), play
fundamental roles in establishing meiotic chromosome structure. The C. elegans
genome encodes four of these proteins - HIM-3, HTP-1, HTP-2 and HTP-3, with unique
and redundant functions. Collectively, these HORMA-domain proteins regulate almost
all key events of meiosis, ranging from homolog recognition to the correct release of
sister chromatid cohesion during the meiotic divisions.

 
 HIM-3 and HTP-1/2 consist mostly of a HORMA domain flanked by short N- and
C-terminal regions, while HTP-3 contains a long C-terminal tail that contains four
docking sites for HIM-3 and two for HTP-1/2 (Kim et al., 2014: PMID 25446517).
Therefore, HTP-3 is essential for the assembly of axial elements. In addition, HTP-1/2
can also be recruited to axial elements by binding directly to the C-terminal tail of HIM-3
(Kim et al., 2014: PMID 25446517). HTP-3 is also required to promote loading of REC-
8-containing cohesin complexes (Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299) and to
mediate the formation of DSBs (Goodyer et al., 2008: PMID 18267094), both of which
are independent of its requirement to recruit HIM-3 and HTP-1/2 (Kim et al., 2014: PMID
25446517). Interestingly, HTP-3 is the only meiotic HORMA-domain protein that
localizes to chromatin in the mitotic compartment of the germ line (Hayashi et al., 2007:
PMID 17983271; Goodyer et al., 2008: PMID 18267094). Finally, HTP-3 is required for
the acquisition of posttranslational modifications on axis-associated chromatin (Couteau
and Zetka, 2011: PMID 21397846). Thus, HTP-3 is not only essential to promote axial
element assembly, but may also orchestrate changes in chromatin structure for multiple
meiotic prophase events.
HIM-3 and HTP-1 are both required to ensure homolog recognition and to
promote faithful SC assembly; as a consequence, him-3 and htp-1 null mutants display
severe impairment in CO formation (Zetka et al., 1999: PMID 10485848; Couteau and
Zetka, 2005: PMID 16291647; Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646).
Although the mechanisms by which these two proteins promote homolog pairing are not
well understood, HTP-1 has been proposed to participate in two checkpoint-like
mechanisms: the first makes initiation of SC assembly contingent on successful
homology recognition, while the second prolongs the homology search process until
homolog interactions are stabilized by SC loading (Couteau and Zetka, 2005: PMID
16291647; Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646; Silva et al., 2014:
PMID 25455309). A mutant form of HTP-1 that fails to associate with axial elements still
supports the delayed exit from early prophase triggered by synapsis defects, suggesting
that nuclear soluble HTP-1 may participate in the quality control of SC assembly (Silva
et al., 2014: PMID 25455309). An important difference between htp-1 and him-3 null
mutants is that SC assembly is dramatically reduced in him-3 mutants, whereas lack of
HTP-1 results in high levels of SC assembly between non-homologous chromosomes.
Non-homologous synapsis is also observed in mutants expressing hypomorphic alleles
of him-3 (Couteau et al., 2004: PMID 15062099), demonstrating that both HTP-1 and
HIM-3 have regulatory roles in SC assembly. Removal of HTP-2, which shares 82%
identity at the amino acid level with HTP-1, from htp-1 mutants results in a dramatic
reduction in SC assembly, demonstrating that HTP-2 can promote homology-
independent SC assembly (Couteau and Zetka, 2005: PMID 16291647; Martinez-Perez
et al., 2008: PMID 18923085). However, the analysis of htp-2 single mutants failed to
identify obvious meiotic defects; thus, HTP-2 function appears largely redundant with
that of HTP-1 (Martinez-Perez et al., 2008: PMID 18923085).
In addition to promotion of pairing and synapsis between homologs, HTP-1 and
HIM-3 also directly affect meiotic recombination, presumably by making the sister
chromatid inaccessible for repair, thereby encouraging repair off the homolog (Couteau
et al., 2004: PMID 15062099; Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646)
(see also Sections 4.2.4, 4.5). htp-1 mutants show a reduction in RAD-51 foci (see

 
Section 4) which can be explained by a reduction in the overall number of DSBs formed
and/or faster DSB turnover (Couteau and Zetka, 2005: PMID 16291647; Martinez-Perez
and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646). Finally, HTP-1 and HTP-2 participate in the
two-step release of sister chromatid cohesion during the meiotic divisions, where they
act to ensure that a subset of REC-8-containing cohesin remains associated with
chromosomes during the first meiotic division (Martinez-Perez et al., 2008: PMID
18923085; Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299). Of note, the connection between
HORMA-domain proteins and the regulation of REC-8 complexes goes beyond the
release of sister chromatid cohesion in the meiotic divisions, since htp-1 htp-2 double
mutants, him-3 mutants and rec-8 mutants display premature centriole disengagement
during meiosis II in spermatogenesis (Schvarzstein et al., 2013: PMID 23401519).

3.3 The synaptonemal complex

The most prominent, and highly conserved, structural feature of meiotic prophase
is the SC. When observed by electron microscopy, the SC appears as a tripartite,
ladder-like structure consisting of a central region that contains transverse filaments that
bridge the axial elements of paired homologs (MacQueen et al., 2002: PMID 12231631;
Colaiácovo, 2006: PMID 16555015) (Figure 4). Although structurally similar, with long
coiled-coil domains, the major components of the SC in different organisms are poorly
conserved at the primary amino acid level. In C. elegans, four components of the central
region of the SC have been identified: SYP-1, SYP-2, SYP-3 and SYP-4. Analysis of the
corresponding single mutants reveals that these four proteins are interdependent for
their loading onto chromosomes; consequently, SC assembly is fully abrogated in each
one of the single mutants (MacQueen et al., 2002: PMID 12231631; Colaiácovo et al.,
2003: PMID 12967565; Smolikov et al., 2007b: PMID 17565948; Smolikov et al., 2009:
PMID 19798442). SC assembly is also abrogated in htp-3 mutants and in mutants
lacking all three meiotic kleisins (REC-8, COH-3 and COH-4) (Goodyer et al., 2008:
PMID 18267094; Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299). Investigation of the
interactions among the four SYP proteins by immunoprecipitation, yeast two-hybrid
experiments, and immuno-electron microscopy, suggests that SYP-1 and SYP-2 occupy
a central position within the SC, while SYP-3 interacts directly with axis components,
and SYP-4, the largest of these proteins, interacts with SYP-3 and reaches into the
center of the SC (Schild-Prüfert et al., 2011: PMID 21840865).

Once assembled, the SC stabilizes the pairwise association of homologous

chromosomes and promotes the formation of interhomolog COs (see also Sections
4.2.4, 4.5) (MacQueen et al., 2002: PMID 12231631; Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID
12967565; Smolikov et al., 2007a: PMID 17565963; Smolikov et al., 2009: PMID
19798442). In addition, the SC is required for normal levels of CO interference (see
Sections 4.4 and 4.5) (Hayashi et al., 2010: PMID 20592266; Libuda et al., 2013: PMID
24107990) and to promote normal meiotic progression, as evidenced by the persistence
of chromosome clustering in syp mutants (see Section 6.1) (MacQueen et al., 2002:
PMID 12231631; Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID 12967565).

3.3.1 Regulation of SC assembly

 
 SC assembly appears to be a cooperative process and occurs preferentially in a
pairwise fashion, linking the axis of two chromosomes (MacQueen et al., 2005: PMID
16360034; Hayashi et al., 2010: PMID 20592266; Mlynarczyk-Evans et al., 2013: PMID
24339786). In vivo imaging of GFP-tagged SYP-3 suggests that synapsis of each
homolog pair is initiated only once and that PCs are the primary sites for initiation; once
initiated, SC extension continues at a constant rate until full synapsis is achieved (Rog
and Dernburg, 2015: PMID 25772351). Whereas the SC normally assembles only
between correctly paired homologs, the SC structure itself is indifferent to homology, as
seen by the presence of normal-appearing SC structures between non-homologous
chromosomes in some meiotic mutants and in worms heterozygous for chromosome
rearrangements (Couteau et al., 2004: PMID 15062099; Couteau and Zetka, 2005:
PMID 16291647; Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646; Penkner et al.,
2007b: PMID 17543861; Henzel et al., 2011: PMID 21212235). Thus, SC assembly
must be tightly regulated to ensure a productive outcome. Regulation of SYP protein
loading involves axial element components HIM-3 and HTP-1 (See Section 3.2), but
proteins that do not become incorporated into the SC structure have also been reported
to control the loading of SYP proteins, both in a chromosome-specific and a nucleus-
wide manner. For example, the PC-binding HIM-8/ZIM proteins are required for proper
assembly of SC in a chromosome-specific manner (Phillips et al., 2005: PMID
16360035; Phillips and Dernburg, 2006: PMID 17141157; Rog and Dernburg, 2013:
PMID 23578368) (see also Section 2.2), and in the absence of all PC-binding proteins,
SC assembly becomes misregulated and non-homologous SC assembly takes place
(Harper et al., 2011: PMID 22018922; Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921). In addition,
the chromosome motions characteristic of early prophase have been shown to be
important for proper SC assembly; in their absence, SC assembly often occurs between
nonhomologous chromosomes (see Section 2.3). Factors that affect the loading of SYP
proteins in a nucleus-wide fashion include: the CHK-2 kinase, required to induce normal
levels of SC assembly in early prophase (MacQueen and Villeneuve, 2001: PMID
11445542; Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005: PMID 16291646); HAL-2, a
nucleoplasmic protein that prevents the inappropriate loading of SYP proteins, which
can interfere with the pairing process (Zhang et al., 2012: PMID 22912597); LAB-1, a
component of axial elements that targets protein phosphatase 1 and is required for full
SC assembly (Tzur et al., 2012: PMID 22927794); CRA-1, the C. elegans homolog of
the non-catalytic subunit of the N-terminal acetyltransferases B (NatB), which is
required to promote normal loading of SYP proteins (Smolikov et al., 2008: PMID
18535664; Gao et al., 2015: PMID 25768301)  ; the CSN/COP9 signalosome, which is
required to prevent the formation of extrachromosomal aggregates of SC proteins
during early prophase (Brockway et al., 2014: PMID 25375142); and the AAA+- ATPase
PCH-2, which localizes to the SC but is dispensable for SC formation and is proposed
to prevent synapsis defects by acting as a “brake” that limits the rate of SC assembly to
allow time for error correction (Deshong et al., 2014: PMID 24762417).
SC disassembly starts in late pachytene in a process that is linked to the
progression of meiotic recombination (see Section 5). Interestingly, the SC can be
locally disassembled in response to exogenous DNA damage (Couteau and Zetka,
2011: PMID 21397846) or can be completely disassembled from an X chromosome

 
without a CO (Meneely et al., 2012: PMID 22267496), demonstrating that the SC is a
dynamic structure.

4. Meiotic recombination

In most organisms, including C. elegans, successful chromosome segregation

during meiosis requires formation of CO recombination events between homologous
chromosomes; these COs, in conjunction with sister chromatid cohesion, serve to tether
homologs together. These connections between homologs, in turn, allow correct
(bipolar) attachment of homologs to the meiosis I spindle. Release of a subset of
cohesin complexes at anaphase I then allows separation of homologs, thereby
accomplishing the reduction in ploidy necessary for sexual reproduction.
Meiotic recombination is initiated through introduction of DSBs by the enzyme
SPO-11 (Section 4.1); repair of these DSBs can result in formation of COs (Section 4.2)
and the role of the meiotic machinery is to ensure that each chromosome receives at
least one CO (the obligate CO). COs do not occur randomly along the chromosomes:
each chromosome has a characteristic distribution of COs (Section 4.3); further, the
number of COs per chromosome pair, and their positions relative to each other, are not
random, reflecting several types of regulation (Section 4.4). In addition, chromosome
structure affects meiotic recombination (Section 4.5), as does the meiotic cell cycle
(Section 4.6). See Figure 5 for an overview of the key steps of meiotic recombination.

4.1 Double strand break formation

Recombination initiates with a DSB, introduced by the conserved topoisomerase-

like enzyme SPO-11 (Dernburg et al., 1998: PMID 9708740). Mutants defective in
genes required for DSB formation, such as spo-11, manifest 12 univalents at diakinesis
because the achiasmate homologs condense and separate from one another during
diplotene. A hallmark of this class of mutants is that bivalent formation can be restored
by exposing the mutant to sources of exogenous breaks such as ionizing radiation (IR).
In addition to spo-11 itself, genes that fall into this category include him-17 (Reddy and
Villeneuve, 2004: PMID 15315757), dsb-1 (Stamper et al., 2013: PMID 23990794), and
dsb-2 (Rosu et al., 2013: PMID 23950729). Two other genes, xnd-1 (Wagner et al.,
2010: PMID 20944745) and him-5 (Meneely et al., 2012: PMID 22267496), influence
DSB formation mainly on the X chromosome. MRE-11 (Chin and Villeneuve, 2001:
PMID 11238374), RAD-50 (Hayashi et al., 2007: PMID 17983271), and HTP-3
(Goodyer et al., 2008: PMID 18267094) are also required for efficient DSB induction,
but play additional roles in DSB repair (see below). Finally, CRA-1 regulates histone
acetylation and promotes efficient DSB formation (Gao et al., 2015: PMID 25768301),
suggesting that regulation of chromatin structure by histone modifications is an
important modulator of DSB, as observed in other organisms.

4.2 DSB repair by meiosis-specific adaptation of homologous recombination

Repair of DSBs during meiosis shares many features in common with

homologous recombination (HR) in mitotic cell cycles, with several meiosis-specific

 
modifications. Following DSB formation, 5’ ending DNA strands are resected, leaving 3’
single-stranded DNA flanking the DSB site. A 3’ end then invades an intact double-
stranded template DNA molecule (in meiosis, typically the homologous chromosome
rather than the sister chromatid, the preferred repair partner in other contexts) and
primes DNA synthesis. Following repair synthesis, this intermediate can be
disassembled (e.g. through the action of DNA helicases (Pâques and Haber, 1999:
PMID 10357855)); the released ssDNA end can then re-anneal to the other DSB end,
leading to repair of the DSB without CO formation. Alternatively, the intermediate can be
stabilized through the action of meiosis-specific CO-promoting factors, leading to
formation of more complex, branched CO recombination intermediates (Figure 5).
These intermediates must be enzymatically resolved by DNA strand cleavage; this can
result in crossing over (reciprocal exchange of information between chromosomes). We
depict these meiotic CO-intermediates as double Holliday junctions by analogy to S.
cerevisiae, where recombination intermediate structures have been analyzed using
physical assays; in most cases, the existence of specific DSB repair intermediates in C.
elegans is inferred rather than directly demonstrated.
Mutants defective in genes required for DSB repair cannot be rescued by IR.
Instead, exposure of repair-deficient mutants to IR leads to significant chromosomal
abnormalities including DNA fragmentation, chromosome aggregation and defects in
chromosome condensation, which are readily visible in diakinesis-stage oocytes (e.g.
Chin and Villeneuve, 2001: PMID 11238374).

4.2.1 Resection

The first step in the repair of meiotic DSBs is resection, the processing of ends
into 3’ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) overhangs. Based on the high degree of
conservation between SPO-11 homologs, it is believed that SPO-11 becomes
covalently attached to the DNA upon DSB formation, and that further processing
requires removal of the SPO-11:DNA nucleoprotein complexes to create short 3’
overhangs. The MRE-11 5’-3’ exonuclease is then normally required to generate long 3’
ssDNA tails (Yin and Smolikove, 2013: PMID 23671188) that ultimately gets coated with
the RAD-51 recombinase (Alpi et al., 2003: PMID 12684824; Colaiácovo et al., 2003:
PMID 12967565; Petalcorin et al., 2006: PMID 16843491). In the absence of mre-11,
the exonuclease EXO-1 has also been shown to contribute to resection of meiotic
DSBs, although resection is then delayed until mid-late pachytene (Yin and Smolikove,
2013: PMID 23671188).
Mutants defective in resection, such as mre-11 (Chin and Villeneuve, 2001:
PMID 11238374; Yin and Smolikove, 2013: PMID 23671188) and rad-50 (Hayashi et
al., 2007: PMID 17983271), are characterized by impaired loading of RAD-51 to SPO-
11-dependent DSBs and display diakinesis-stage oocytes with abnormal chromosome
aggregations. These aggregates arise from repair by non-homologous end joining
(NHEJ). The predominance of HR over NHEJ suggests that active mechanisms
suppress NHEJ in the meiotic germ line (Smolikov et al., 2007a: PMID 17565963;
Adamo et al., 2010: PMID 20598602; Lemmens et al., 2013: PMID 23408909). A key
player in this inhibition is COM-1 (the Sae2/CtIP homolog (Penkner et al., 2007a: PMID
18007596)) that actively inhibits the binding of Ku proteins to the DNA ends (Lemmens

 
et al., 2013: PMID 23408909). The involvement of MRE-11 in both DSB formation and
subsequent resection is another potential mechanism to ensure that DSBs are shunted
towards HR.

4.2.2 Strand exchange and formation of downstream repair intermediates

The RAD-51 nucleoprotein filament serves the important role of promoting the
homology search and strand invasion into the homologous duplex DNA (Figure 5).
Displacement of the homologous template strand forms a D loop structure wherein the
invading 3’ end is used to prime DNA synthesis. COs can result from subsequent
formation and cleavage of more complex intermediates (possibly double Holliday
junctions (dHJ)) made by second end capture. Non-crossovers (NCOs) are presumed to
arise from ejection of the invading strand and repair via synthesis-dependent strand
annealing (SDSA). Failure to execute these steps can allow for aberrant repair via
NHEJ and ultimately can cause chromosome fusions.
Due to the central role of RAD-51 to HR, it is no surprise that RAD-51 filament
formation is highly regulated (Rinaldo et al., 2002: PMID 11861554; Alpi et al., 2003:
PMID 12684824; Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID 12967565; Takanami et al., 2003: PMID
12733639). The worm homolog of the BRCA2 breast cancer associated protein, BRC-2,
facilitates nuclear localization of RAD-51, its loading onto ssDNA (Martin et al., 2005:
PMID 15798199), and D loop formation (Petalcorin et al., 2007: PMID 17483448). In
brc-2 mutants, RPA-coated ssDNA can be detected; this either reflects the fact that
RPA-1 loads onto resected ssDNA before RAD-51, as in other organisms, or is an
aberrant outcome resulting from the failure to load RAD-51. RTEL-1 may also influence
RAD-51 dynamics through its role as an anti-recombinase, disrupting D loops and
promoting alternative pathways of repair (Barber et al., 2008: PMID 18957201).
In order for HR to proceed, RAD-51 must also be removed from the D loop.
Three proteins have been thought to promote RAD-51 turnover: RAD-54 (Mets and
Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752), the helicase HELQ-1/HEL308, and the RAD-51 paralog,
RFS-1 (Ward et al., 2010: PMID 20122407), with the latter two having a redundant
function in wild-type cells. Cytological examination of both rad-54 single mutants and
helq-1 rfs-1 double mutants shows prolonged persistence of RAD-51 filaments,
indicating the persistence of unrepaired DSBs.

4.2.3 Crossover designation

Once strand exchange has occurred, additional regulation is required to ensure

that a subset of these intermediates become committed to a CO fate. Classically, two
CO pathways were described in model systems: the class I pathway, requiring the
meiosis-specific homologs of the mismatch repair protein MutS, MSH4 and MSH5, and
certain SC associated proteins is considered responsible for COs subject to interference
(see Section 4.4); the class II pathway, dependent on the structure-specific nuclease
components MUS81 and MMS4, accounts for the interference-independent COs
(reviewed in Kohl and Sekelsky, 2013: PMID 23733849). In C. elegans, the class I
pathway predominates, as mutations in the respective orthologs, msh-4, msh-5 (Winand
et al., 1998: PMID 9787078; Zalevsky et al., 1999: PMID 10545458; Kelly et al., 2000:

 
PMID 11014811; Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID 12967565), and zhp-3 (Zip3
homologous protein; Jantsch et al., 2004: PMID 15340062) leads to univalents at
diakinesis. It should be noted that MSH-4 and MSH-5 are first detected broadly, in
presumptive DSB repair foci that exceed the number of eventual COs; they then
become restricted to CO sites by late pachytene (Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID 22464324).
ZHP-3 is initially present along the entire SC in mid-pachytene and then gradually
becomes restricted to CO sites (Bhalla et al., 2008: PMID 18949042). Thus, additional
proteins must function in designating a subset of recombination intermediates for CO
fates. Anti-recombinases such as RTEL function at this step to shunt repair
intermediates into a NCO outcome (possibly by promoting SDSA); thus, in the absence
of rtel-1 function, additional COs are made (Youds et al., 2010: PMID 20203049).
COSA-1, a cyclin-like protein that is required for CO formation, has been proposed to
function in reinforcement of CO designation, as it is predominantly detected as a single
focus on each chromosome pair during late pachytene (Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID
22464324). Additional COSA-1 foci are observed on very large fusion chromosomes,
such at the X;IV fusion chromosome mnT12 (Libuda et al., 2013: PMID 24107990),
where multiple COs can be detected genetically (Hillers and Villeneuve, 2003: PMID
13678597).
Loss of function mutations in MSH-4, MSH-5, ZHP-3 or COSA-1 result in 12
univalents at diakinesis. Irradiation cannot restore bivalent formation in these mutants.
The mutants also do not show chromosome fusions indicative of mutations in strand
exchange proteins. The kinetics of RAD-51 foci turnover is slower in these mutants, but
they do disappear prior to diplotene indicating that DSB repair has occurred (Zalevsky
et al., 1999: PMID 10545458; Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID 12967565; Jantsch et al.,
2004: PMID 15340062; Song et al., 2010: PMID 20530576; Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID
22464324).
The emerging picture of CO formation from studies in C. elegans and other
systems is that an excess of DSBs are made; these get initially bound by repair proteins
and putative CO designation proteins and winnowed down to a small number of CO
sites. Understanding this selection process is an area of active research in many
organisms including C. elegans.

4.2.4 Partner Choice

Although many events of DSB repair are conserved between mitosis and
meiosis, a major difference is that the homolog is used as a repair template during
meiosis, whereas the sister chromatid is the preferred repair template for cells in S and
G2 of mitotic cell cycles. The preference for the homolog rather than the sister is
thought to be mediated in large part by axial element components (Section 3.2). Use of
the homolog as a recombination partner also appears to be a temporally regulated
feature of the meiotic program: access to the homolog as repair template for both CO
and non-CO repair is shut down upon transition into the late pachytene stage. Thus,
DSBs that are made or persist into late pachytene or beyond are presumed to be
repaired using the sister chromatid as a repair template (Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID
12967565; Rosu et al., 2011: PMID 22144627).

 
 During meiosis, an excess of DSBs is formed (relative to the number of COs).
Many of these breaks are repaired as NCOs using the homolog as a repair template
(Robert et al., 2008: PMID 18757928; Rosu et al., 2011: PMID 22144627), but repair
using the sister chromatid as a template likely also occurs. The SMC-5/6 complex and
the BRC-1 protein have been shown to be important for repair of meiotic DSBs under
conditions where inter-homolog CO formation is abrogated and/or in mutant situations
when inter-sister repair is the only option (Boulton et al., 2004: PMID 14711411; Adamo
et al., 2008: PMID 18219312; Bickel et al., 2010: PMID 20661436). These papers
provided evidence that SMC-5/6 and BRC-1 are important for inter-sister repair, but the
data are consistent with these proteins also participating in inter-homolog non-CO repair
as well.

4.2.5 Crossover resolution

The final step of CO recombination is cleavage of CO intermediates to yield

mature CO products. C. elegans contains several resolvase functions that are
scaffolded by the SLX-4/HIM-18 protein (Saito et al., 2009: PMID 19936019). These can
either act redundantly or can substitute for each other to resolve CO intermediates.
XPF-1 (in combination with HIM-6/BLM) and SLX-1 (in combination with MUS-81) are
proposed to define two mechanistically distinct pathways for resolving CO intermediates
(Agostinho et al., 2013: PMID 23901331; O’Neil et al., 2013: PMID 23874209; Saito et
al., 2013: PMID 23874210). Double mutants lacking both pathways exhibit defects in
post-pachytene chromosome reorganization and disassembly of the SC. Unique to
these mutants, diakinesis univalents appear closely apposed and connected by
chromatin bridges (Agostinho et al., 2013: PMID 23901331; O’Neil et al., 2013: PMID
23874209; Saito et al., 2013: PMID 23874210). These bridges are ultimately resolved in
meiosis II, however, suggesting that additional resolvase functions are present in the
worm germ line.
The HIM-6/BLM helicase may play a central role in ensuring that CO-designated
recombination intermediates are eventually resolved into COs. In the absence of HIM-6
protein, nuclei appear to carry out the early steps of meiotic recombination normally; CO
designation also seems normal, as 6 COSA-1 foci can be seen in late pachytene
oocytes. However, a subset of these CO-designated intermediates fail to form COs,
evidenced by the presence of univalents at diakinesis (Schvarzstein et al., 2014: PMID
25053665). It may be that HIM-6 acts to ensure the CO outcome by biasing resolution
of intermediates (by either XPF-1 or SLX-1/MUS-81) towards CO formation or by
protecting CO-designated intermediates from NCO resolution.

4.3 The recombination landscape

CO frequency and distribution can be assayed genetically, using either

phenotypic markers or DNA sequence polymorphisms; the latter approach allows a
more detailed analysis of crossing over, as a higher density of markers can be used in a
single experiment (Davis et al., 2005: PMID 16156901; Hillers and Villeneuve, 2009:
PMID 19799178). Next-generation DNA sequencing has the potential to allow genome-
wide determination of the recombination landscape but to date has only been used to

 
probe targeted genomic regions (Kaur and Rockman, 2014: PMID 24172135). Crossing
over can also be analyzed cytologically, by visualizing the number and distribution of
COSA-1 foci in late pachytene cells (Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID 22464324; Libuda et al.,
2013: PMID 24107990).
In many eukaryotes, COs are non-randomly distributed along chromosomes, with
a tendency to occur within small regions called hotspots (Nicolas et al., 1989: PMID
2537472; Baudat et al., 2010: PMID 20044539). No evidence for CO hotspots has been
found in C. elegans, however, despite considerable efforts (Kaur and Rockman, 2014:
PMID 24172135). Nevertheless, meiotic COs in C. elegans are not randomly distributed
along chromosomes. As described in the chapter “Karyotype, ploidy and gene dosage”
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.3.1), the distribution of COs along the autosomes
is uneven, with roughly the central third of each autosome having a paucity of events;
interestingly, the same region of each autosome has a higher density of genes (the
“central gene cluster”). Conversely, the arms of each chromosome have a higher
frequency of crossing over and a lower gene density, thus the physical and genetic
maps of C. elegans are said to “out of alignment”.. This type of CO density domain
structure is also observed on the X chromosome, but is much less pronounced (Barnes
et al., 1995: PMID 8536965; Rockman and Kruglyak, 2009: PMID 19283065). Together,
these features indicate that some aspect of CO formation is subject to regional
regulation; the DNA sequence determinants of this regulation (if any) are unclear.
Evidence that CO distribution is influenced by genetic factors came initially from
the isolation of a mutation in the rec-1 gene; this allele alters the distribution of COs
along autosomes without changing overall frequency. This redistribution of COs towards
the middle of each chromosome aligns the physical and genetic maps of C. elegans
(Rose and Baillie, 1979a: PMID 492325; Zetka and Rose, 1995: PMID 8601478).
Mutations in the him-5 gene also cause redistribution of meiotic COs along autosomes,
resulting in an increased incidence of COs in the central gene cluster; similar to rec-1,
there is not an overall increase of COs along autosomes (Meneely et al., 2012: PMID
22267496). In contrast to rec-1, however, HIM-5 also plays a role in facilitating meiotic
DSB formation on the X chromosomes; thus, in a him-5 mutant the frequency of COs on
the X is reduced, with a concomitant increase in X chromosome nondisjunction (the Him
phenotype).
The phenotypes of him-17, xnd-1, and condensin mutants suggest that chromatin
structure and condensation state are also critical determinants of DSB sites. him-17 and
xnd-1 mutants both show aberrant histone post-translational modifications and are
impaired in DSB formation (Reddy and Villeneuve, 2004: PMID 15315757; Wagner et
al., 2010: PMID 20944745). Both genes are also required for normal localization of HIM-
5, revealing interplay between chromatin and the recombination landscape (Meneely et
al., 2012: PMID 22267496). Likewise, condensin proteins, which play crucial roles in
chromosome condensation during cell divisions, play roles in establishing the wild-type
distribution of DSBs and COs. Heterozygosity for a null mutation in any of the subunits
of Condensin I (DPY-28, DPY-26, MIX-1, SMC-4, CAPG-1) or of KLE-2 (a subunit of
Condensin II) leads to HIM-3-dependent alterations in recombination and chromosome
structure: COs are redistributed along the X chromosome, the overall frequency of COs
is increased, and pachytene chromosome axis length is increased (Tsai et al., 2008:
PMID 18198337; Mets and Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752). Mutants homozygous for a

 
partial loss of function allele of dpy-28, which does not increase CO frequencies,
showed that CO distribution correlated with a shift in the distribution of RAD-51 foci
(Mets and Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752). Moreover, the dpy-28 partial loss of function
allele suppresses the defect in chiasma formation of him-17 mutants, suggesting that
higher-order chromosome structures promoted by condensin limit DSB formation (Tsai
et al., 2008: PMID 18198337). Together, this set of genes points to a complex interplay
between chromosome/ chromatin structure and the meiotic recombination machinery.

Despite these general features, CO frequency and position are not fixed within the
population, and the number and frequency of COs differs between the sexes, with
maternal age, and with temperature (Hodgkin et al., 1979: PMID 17248881; Rose and
Baillie, 1979b: PMID 17248928; Zetka and Rose, 1990: PMID 2245915; Lim et al.,
2008: PMID 18780748; Song et al., 2010: PMID 20530576). However, in all these
situations, the arm/cluster differences in CO distribution remain (Barnes et al., 1995:
PMID 8536965). Thus, at global level, there are defined regions of the genome that are
more or less prone to receive a CO.
CO distribution can also be influenced by events subsequent to DSB formation.
DSB sites can be mapped cytologically using anti-RAD-51 antibodies in a mutant such
as rad-54 that prevents further processing of the filament and effectively traps the
recombination intermediate (Mets and Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752; Nottke et al.,
2011: PMID 21768382; Rosu et al., 2011: PMID 22144627; Saito et al., 2012: PMID
22927825). Cytological examination of RAD-51-marked DSB sites in wild type failed to
detect an arm/cluster bias in DSB distribution (Saito et al., 2012: PMID 22927825),
which would be expected if CO distribution were predominantly enforced at the step of
DSB formation. Rather, it appears that CO formation in the central gene cluster is
actively inhibited at a step post-recruitment of RAD-51. The resolvase SLX-1 (Section
4.2.5) appears to function in this inhibition, as mutation of SLX-1 leads to a redistribution
of exchanges along chromosome V: there is an increase in COs in the central gene
cluster of chromosome V, with a compensatory decrease in COs in the arm regions
(Saito et al., 2012: PMID 22927825).

4.4 CO interference, assurance and homeostasis

Each of the 6 chromosome pairs in C. elegans has a genetic map size near 50
cM. A map size of 50 cM indicates that each chromosome pair experiences (on
average) only one CO per meiosis. Each homolog pair must receive the “obligate CO”,
to promote accurate chromosome segregation, and different mechanisms operate
during meiosis to ensure this outcome. The ability to ensure the formation of at least
one CO per homolog pair is known as CO assurance, while the ability to maintain CO
number in the face of variability in numbers of DSBs is known as CO homeostasis. As
homeostasis is a mechanism that promotes COs at the expense of NCOs in situations
where DSB numbers are limiting, CO homeostasis helps to achieve CO assurance,
suggesting that these two manifestations of CO regulation are mechanistically linked.
Evidence for the operation of these mechanisms during worm meiosis comes from
studies in which a limited number of DSBs are exogenously introduced in spo-11
mutants. For example, when a single DSB is generated by transposon excision, this

 
event is converted into a CO with high efficiency (Rosu et al., 2011: PMID 22144627).
This suggests that CO assurance can be achieved by ensuring that each chromosome
receives at least one DSB. Similarly, when a limited number of DSBs are generated by
irradiation, these are also efficiently converted into a single CO per chromosome pair;
further increases in the number of DSBs by increased irradiation does not result in the
formation of more COSA-1 marked events, providing evidence for CO homeostasis
(Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID 22464324). In addition, CO homeostasis may explain why
only the X chromosome is devoid of a CO in him-5 mutants whereas RAD-51 foci are
reduced over four-fold genome-wide (Meneely et al., 2012: PMID 22267496).
In C. elegans, most chromosome pairs undergo only a single CO per meiosis
(Hillers and Villeneuve, 2003: PMID 13678597; Hammarlund et al., 2005: PMID
16118192), but when multiple COs have been mapped, they tend to be widely spaced
along the chromosome (Hillers and Villeneuve, 2003: PMID 13678597; Lim et al., 2008:
PMID 18780748; Libuda et al., 2013: PMID 24107990). This non-random distribution of
COs is known as CO interference (Muller, 1916). The fact that most chromosome pairs
receive only a single CO suggests that CO interference operates over distances greater
than the length of a typical chromosome to discourage additional exchanges once one
has occurred. Indeed, studies with fusion chromosomes has demonstrated that end-to-
end fusions of two and even three chromosomes still frequently only received a single
CO in meiosis (Hillers and Villeneuve, 2003: PMID 13678597). Further, cytological
mapping of COs along the length of mnT12 (an end-to-end fusion of chromosomes IV
and X) enabled measurement of the distance along chromosomes over which CO
interference operates in C. elegans, and strengthened the idea that interference
operates over distances longer than the length of a typical chromosome (Libuda et al.,
2013: PMID 24107990).
While cytological evaluation of CO interference using COSA-1 foci suggests that
chromosome pairs rarely have more that one cytologically differentiated CO site, double
COs have been characterized using genetic recombination assays. Double CO data for
individual autosomes range between 2-10% per chromosome pair (Meneely et al.,
2002: PMID 12454064; Nabeshima et al., 2004: PMID 15579685; Lim et al., 2008:
PMID 18780748; Deshong et al., 2014: PMID 24762417; Gabdank and Fire, 2014:
PMID 24240780). Extrapolating these data for all 5 autosomes, this genetic evidence
suggests up to 35% of nuclei have at least one autosome that obtains a second CO.
These extra COs are cytologically distinct, however, as they are apparently not
associated with COSA-1 foci (Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID 22464324; Deshong et al.,
2014: PMID 24762417). The X chromosome, in contrast, appears particularly immune
to double COs in some studies (Lim et al., 2008: PMID 18780748; Tsai et al., 2008:
PMID 18198337; but see Deshong et al., 2014: PMID 24762417), perhaps due to its
heterochromatic-like state (Kelly et al., 2002: PMID 11807039). Further, the frequency
of double COs differs between oocyte and sperm meiosis (Zetka and Rose, 1990: PMID
2245915; Lim et al., 2008: PMID 18780748; Gabdank and Fire, 2014: PMID 24240780).
Data are only available for male sperm: they appear to have less stringent genetic
interference compared to oocytes, having both increased numbers of double COs and
more closely spaced COs (Lim et al., 2008: PMID 18780748; Gabdank and Fire, 2014:
PMID 24240780).

 
4.5 Interplay between recombination and chromosome structure

While the analysis of null mutants lacking any of the SYP proteins reveals that
these proteins are required for CO/chiasma formation, partial depletion of SYP proteins
by RNAi results in an increased incidence of double COs (Hayashi et al., 2010: PMID
20592266; Libuda et al., 2013: PMID 24107990). Similarly, a non-null allele of him-3
that allows partial synapsis of homologs also results in increased incidence of double
COs (Nabeshima et al., 2004: PMID 15579685). This apparent contradiction can be
explained by the proposal that the SC functions in the process of CO interference
(Section 4.4). Although the mechanism by which interference is transmitted along
chromosomes is not understood, Libuda et al. (2013: PMID 24107990) found that each
CO event is associated with a local extension of the axial element, suggesting that this
structural alteration may play a role in impeding the formation of further COs. CO
numbers are also increased when the structure of chromosomes is altered by reducing
the dose of components of the condensin I complex, although in this case the extra COs
are not associated with a COSA-1 marked, cytologically differentiated site (Tsai et al.,
2008: PMID 18198337; Mets and Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752; Yokoo et al., 2012:
PMID 22464324).

4.6 Window of opportunity for CO formation

DSB formation and repair are initiated in the transition zone; RAD-51 foci
continue to accumulate through mid-pachytene, suggesting that both the initiation and
cessation of DSB formation are controlled. DSB formation has been proposed to be
subject to feedback regulation; once all chromosome pairs have a CO-eligible
intermediate, DSB formation ceases (Section 6.2). In addition, it is clear that as nuclei
transition into late pachytene, there is a shift in repair mechanism utilization; even if
DSBs are formed in late pachytene germ cells (e.g. by gamma irradiation), these nuclei
are incapable of committing to CO formation (Yokoo et al., 2012: PMID 22464324).
Further, during early and mid-pachytene, RAD-50 is required for RAD-51 loading at
DSB sites; after the late pachytene transition, RAD-50 is no longer required for RAD-51
loading (Hayashi et al., 2007: PMID 17983271). Finally, access to the homolog as a
repair template is also shut down at the transition from mid- to late pachytene (Rosu et
al., 2011: PMID 22144627), presumably reflecting reversion to preferential use of the
sister chromatid as a repair partner. This transition to sister repair is accompanied by an
ability of DNA damage to trigger localized separation of the chromosome axes, a
feature that is antagonized by HTP-3 at earlier stages (Couteau and Zetka, 2011: PMID
21397846). Ultimately, this transition in DNA repair mode may allow for residual DSBs
to be repaired and the nucleus to escape apoptosis induced by the DNA damage
checkpoint. The transition zone to mid-pachytene region can thus be considered the
window of opportunity for the formation of DSBs and CO-designated events.

5. Bivalent differentiation

Following the formation of CO-fated recombination intermediates, meiotic

chromosomes undergo two major structural changes in preparation for the meiotic

 
divisions: the disassembly of the SC, which occurs in an asymmetric fashion around the
CO site; and condensation, a process that causes a dramatic reduction in chromosome
size (for detailed reviews see Schvarzstein et al., 2010: PMID 201233904; Wood et al.,
2010: PMID 20442714). Together, these lead to the formation of diakinesis bivalents,
highly condensed pairs of homologous chromosomes held together by sister chromatid
cohesion and COs. Bivalents contain two functional domains: a short arm where sister
chromatid cohesion will be released during the first meiotic division, and a long arm
where sister chromatids will remain attached until the onset of the second meiotic
division (Albertson and Thomson, 1993: PMID 8143084; Albertson et al., 1997: PMID
21413226).

5.1 CO-triggered chromosome remodeling

The creation of bivalents with two differentiated functional domains starts in late
pachytene with the redistribution of SC and axis-associated proteins that is triggered by
CO-fated recombination intermediates (Nabeshima et al., 2005: PMID 15738262; de
Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084; Martinez-Perez et al., 2008: PMID 18923085;
Agostinho et al., 2013: PMID 23901331) (Figure 6). At this stage HTP-1/2 and LAB-1
are depleted from the region of the chromosomes between the CO site and the closest
telomere, forming the short arm of the bivalent, while the SYP proteins and ZHP-3 are
depleted from the region between the CO and the farthest telomere, forming the long
arm (Nabeshima et al., 2005: PMID 15738262; Smolikov et al., 2007b: PMID 17565948;
Bhalla et al., 2008: PMID 18949042; de Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084;
Martinez-Perez et al., 2008: PMID 18923085). COH-3/4-containing cohesin complexes
are also largely removed from the long arm of each bivalent by late diakinesis and
become restricted to the short arm by prometaphase I (Severson and Meyer, 2014:
PMID 25171895). The short arm region undergoes a further change in protein
composition in the two most proximal oocytes in which SYP proteins are removed and
AIR-2 kinase is recruited (Kaitna et al., 2002: PMID 12015116; Rogers et al., 2002:
PMID 11940606; Nabeshima et al., 2005: PMID 15738262). AIR-2 recruitment to
diakinesis bivalents is required for homolog segregation during the first meiotic division
(Kaitna et al., 2002: PMID 12015116; Rogers et al., 2002: PMID 11940606). REC-8 is
phosphorylated by AIR-2 in vitro (Rogers et al., 2002: PMID 11940606), suggesting that
REC-8 phosphorylation may be important for cohesion release in vivo. In fact, REC-8
staining in the short arm of bivalents becomes weaker during late diakinesis and
prometaphase (Rogers et al., 2002: PMID 11940606; de Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID
18923084; Harper et al., 2011: PMID 22018922; Severson and Meyer, 2014: PMID
25171895), and this reduction in REC-8 staining requires AIR-2 (Severson and Meyer,
2014: PMID 25171895). By metaphase I, REC-8 staining is greatly reduced in the short
arm of bivalents (de Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084), but use of a different anti-
REC-8 antibody shows clearly detectable REC-8 staining in the short arm of most
metaphase I bivalents (Pasierbek et al., 2001: PMID 11390355; Rogers et al., 2002:
PMID 11940606;; Cortes et al., 2015: PMID 25848744). REC-8 and COH-3/4 cohesin
complexes that remain bound on the short arm of metaphase I chromosomes must be
removed at anaphase onset. A likely candidate for this activity is the conserved
protease separase, which is required for proper meiotic chromosome segregation

 
(Siomos et al., 2001: PMID 11728305). Interestingly, separase is not required for the
late prophase removal of REC-8 and COH-3/4 cohesin described above (Severson and
Meyer, 2014: PMID 25171895), suggesting that distinct mechanisms mediate cohesin
removal during C. elegans meiosis. Phosphorylation of kleisin subunits is required for
their cleavage by separase in yeast mitotic and meiotic cells (reviewed in Haarhuis et
al., 2014: PMID 25313959), and it has been proposed that AIR-2-dependent
phosphorylation of REC-8 complexes may render them sensitive to separase (Rogers et
al., 2002: PMID 11940606; de Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084). AIR-2 activity in
the long arms of diakinesis bivalents is antagonized by GSP-2 (protein phosphatase 1),
whose depletion leads to the premature separation of sister chromatids during
anaphase I (Kaitna et al., 2002: PMID 12015116; Rogers et al., 2002: PMID 11940606).
Similarly, HTP-1/2 and LAB-1 prevent the inappropriate recruitment of AIR-2 to the long
arm of the bivalents, and their absence causes untimely removal of REC-8 and
premature release of sister chromatid cohesion during the first meiotic division (de
Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084; Martinez-Perez et al., 2008: PMID 18923085).
Since the ability of LAB-1 to antagonize AIR-2 localization depends on the presence of
GSP-2, and since LAB-1 and GSP-2 physically interact, LAB-1 likely acts by recruiting
GSP-2 to chromosomes (de Carvalho et al., 2008: PMID 18923084; Tzur et al., 2012:
PMID 22927794).

5.2 Chromosome condensation

Concomitant with the changes in protein composition described above, the

overall structure of chromosomes is modified by a process of chromatin compaction that
starts in late pachytene and continues until the onset of the first meiotic division. This
process is mediated by condensin complexes, which are structurally similar to cohesin,
containing a core of two SMC proteins that associate with additional factors to modify
the topology of chromosomes (reviewed in Wood et al., 2010: PMID 20442714). The
condensin II complex (MIX-1, SMC-4, HCP-6, CAPG-2, KLE-2) associates with
chromosomes in diplotene and is required for the compaction and resolution of
chromosomes during diplotene and diakinesis, demonstrating that condensin II is
essential for the remodeling of chromosomes during late meiotic prophase (Hagstrom et
al., 2002: PMID 11914278; Chan et al., 2004: PMID 15557118; Csankovszki et al.,
2009: PMID 19119011; Mets and Meyer, 2009: PMID 19781752). In diakinesis oocytes,
condensin II decorates chromatin on the long and short arms of the bivalents. On the
other hand, depletion of condensin I (MIX-1, SMC-4, DPY-26, DPY-28, CAPG-1) does
not induce gross defects in the condensation or individualization of meiotic
chromosomes during late prophase, and condensin I components are only observed
associated with chromosomes on the short arm of the most proximal oocyte, loading
only after nuclear envelope breakdown (Tsai et al., 2008: PMID 18198337; Csankovszki
et al., 2009: PMID 19119011; Meyer, 2010: PMID 20381335; Collette et al., 2011: PMID
22025633; also see X-chromosome dosage compensation,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.8.1). During the meiotic divisions, depletion of
condensin I components induces mild defects that are only evident during the second
meiotic division (Csankovszki et al., 2009: PMID 19119011), while depletion of
condensin II induces dramatic defects in both meiotic divisions, including chromatin

 
bridges between separating chromosomes in anaphase I and II (Chan et al., 2004:
PMID 15557118; Csankovszki et al., 2009: PMID 19119011). Thus, the reshaping of
chromosomes by condensin during late prophase is an essential aspect of meiosis.

6. Surveillance mechanisms during prophase I

The formation of COs during prophase I of meiosis is essential to promote the

accurate segregation of chromosomes into the gametes. Therefore, multiple processes
that promote the formation of COs, including the establishment of the SC and the
progression of recombination, are closely monitored. Failures of those processes lead
to a meiotic progression delay for the correction of errors and/or the induction of
apoptosis to eliminate meiocytes where errors persist.

6.1 Monitoring of synaptonemal complex assembly

The assembly of the SC plays a central role in mediating meiotic progression.

The absence of synapsis on one or more chromosomes causes nuclei to delay exit from
zygotene, resulting in a prolongation of chromosome movement and chromosome
clustering (MacQueen et al., 2002: PMID 12231631; Phillips et al., 2005: PMID
16360035; Carlton et al., 2006: PMID 16462941; Phillips and Dernburg, 2006: PMID
17141157; Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Sato et al., 2009: PMID 19913287;
Baudrimont et al., 2010: PMID 21124819). This delay requires HTP-1: htp-1; syp-2
double mutants have no zygotene arrest, leading to the proposal that HTP-1
participates in the generation of an inhibitory signal that blocks exit from zygotene until
the SC is installed between all homologous pairs (Martinez-Perez and Villeneuve, 2005:
PMID 16291646). This inhibitory signal appears to involve a soluble pool of HTP-1,
since a mutant version of HTP-1 that fails to associate with axial elements still supports
zygotene arrest in SC-deficient mutants (Silva et al., 2014: PMID 25455309). SC
assembly appears to directly antagonize the inhibitory signal that blocks early meiotic
progression, as improper SC assembly between sister chromatids in syp-3(me42)
mutants results in normal meiotic progression (Smolikov et al., 2007b: PMID 17565948).
CHK-2 and PLK-2 protein kinases have essential roles in organizing and
monitoring features of chromosome end mobilization (Harper et al., 2011: PMID
22018922; Labella et al., 2011: PMID 22018921). Coincident with chromosome
movements in leptotene/zygotene, SUN-1 shows prominent phosphorylation at several
residues in its nuclear amino-terminus that are dependent on CHK-2 and PLK-2
(Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286; Harper et al., 2011: PMID 22018922; Labella et
al., 2011: PMID 22018921). SUN-1 serine-12 phosphorylation is restricted to SUN-1
molecules concentrated at PCs, whereas SUN-1 phosphorylated at other residues is
found throughout the entire nuclear envelope (Penkner et al., 2009: PMID 19913286).
Although PC mobilization still takes place when SUN-1 is rendered non-
phosphorylatable, synapsis proceeds at a slower rate. In addition, SUN-1
phosphorylation is required to sustain PLK-2 recruitment to PC attachments in the
absence of synapsis; this suggests that phosphorylation of SUN-1 can prolong the time
window of chromosome movement (Woglar et al., 2013: PMID 23505384). The
interdependency of SUN-1 phosphorylation by PLK-2 and PLK-2 recruitment by

 
phospho-SUN-1 therefore establishes a positive feedback loop to sustain chromosome
end-led mobility for as long as necessary to complete synapsis.
In addition to prolonging PC-mediated chromosome movement, the presence of
unsynapsed PCs also triggers apoptosis during oocyte meiosis. Induction of this
apoptosis by unpaired PCs requires PCH-2 (Bhalla and Dernburg, 2005: PMID
16339446). Synapsis at PCs is monitored with the help of MES-4 and MET-1 (MES-4
alone for the X chromosome) (Lamelza and Bhalla, 2012: PMID 23166523).
In males (chromosomally XO), the single X chromosome remains partnerless
during meiosis and thus needs to be shielded from the mechanisms that recognize
asynapsed chromosomes and induce delays in meiotic progression (Jaramillo-Lambert
et al., 2010: PMID 20008570). The single X chromosome in males assumes a
condensed state and is enriched for repressive chromatin modifiers that are important
for shielding the single X from the checkpoint machinery (Checchi and Engebrecht,
2011: PMID 21909284). Transient pseudosynapsis of X chromosome sister chromatids
has been observed and has been proposed to mask the X from being recognized as
partnerless (Checchi et al., 2014: PMID 24939994). Furthermore, SUN-1 aggregates at
the single X chromosome in males are not phosphorylated by PLK-2, despite its
localization to the X PC (Woglar et al., 2013: PMID 23505384).

6.2 Monitoring of recombination progression

Successful completion of meiosis requires formation of COs between each

chromosome pair; this in turn requires formation of at least one DSB per homolog pair.
However, DSBs also represent possible sources of damage to the genome; thus, C.
elegans has multiple mechanisms to monitor formation of DSBs and downstream
recombination intermediates in order to limit the numbers of DSBs that form, to assure
that sufficient DSBs are generated to ensure CO formation, and to prevent germ cells
with persistent DNA damage from proceeding to the oocyte meiotic divisions.
A growing body of evidence from multiple organisms suggests that CO
intermediates function as a rheostat for the DSB machinery, maintaining DSB formation
when levels are low and turning it off when DSBs are high (Lange et al., 2011: PMID
22002603; Gray et al., 2013: PMID 23902647; Kauppi et al., 2013: PMID 23599345;
Thacker et al., 2014: PMID 24717437; Garcia et al., 2015: PMID 25539084). In C.
elegans, evidence for such a feedback system comes from analysis of SUN-1 and from
DSB-1 and DSB-2 (Rosu et al., 2013: PMID 23950729; Stamper et al., 2013: PMID
23990794), two proteins that are required for efficient DSB formation and that localize to
chromosomes during early meiotic prophase concomitant with DSB formation. Similar to
SUN-1 phosphorylation, DSB-1/2 chromatin loading depends on CHK-2 (Rosu et al.,
2013: PMID 23950729; Stamper et al., 2013: PMID 23990794). In synapsis- or
recombination-defective mutants, the zone of SUN-1 phosphorylation and DSB-1/2
localization is extended (Stamper et al., 2013: PMID 23990794; Woglar et al., 2013:
PMID 23505384), suggesting the presence of a checkpoint-like feedback system that
monitors formation of CO intermediates and retains nuclei in a DSB permissive state
until enough CO-fated events are formed. Failure to form a CO intermediate between
the X chromosomes (as seen in him-5 and him-8 mutants) results in delayed meiotic
progression, suggesting that this feedback system is capable of detecting the absence

 
of crossing over (or a crossover-fated intermediate) on a single chromosome pair
(Meneely et al., 2012: PMID 22267496; Stamper et al., 2013: PMID 23990794).
(Checchi et al., 2014: PMID 24939994) found that the ATM-1 protein kinase plays a
conserved role in limiting DSB formation, as mutants defective in atm-1 have elevated
levels of RAD-51 foci; however, whether ATM-1 activation is part of the above-
described feedback mechanism or represents a distinct mechanism for limiting DSB
numbers remains an open question.
During oogenesis, cells with unrepaired recombination intermediates are
subjected to apoptosis dependent on the DNA damage sensors MRT-2, HPR-9, HUS-1,
and CEP-1, the p53 homolog (Gartner et al., 2000: PMID 10882129; Schumacher et al.,
2001: PMID 11696333); (also see Germline survival and apoptosis,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.145.1). Mutants with high levels of resected single
stranded DNA, such as rad-51, fcd-2, brc-1 or brc-2, elicit massive apoptosis (Gartner et
al., 2000: PMID 10882129; Martin et al., 2005: PMID 15798199; Adamo et al., 2008:
PMID 18219312; Adamo et al., 2010: PMID 20598602). Interestingly the pro-CO
factors MSH-4, MSH-5 and ZHP-3 are required for the induction of apoptosis,
irrespective of DNA damage checkpoint activation, as evaluated by the transcriptional
activation of egl-1 (Silva et al., 2013: PMID 23832114). The ability of unrepaired meiotic
DSBs to trigger DNA damage-checkpoint-mediated apoptosis also provides a means to
cull nuclei that had entered meiotic prophase with aneuploidy accumulated during the
preceding mitotic divisions (Stevens et al., 2013: PMID 24239117).
In males, where apoptosis is not triggered, many features of damage sensing
and signaling nevertheless are activated and thereby contribute to faithful processing of
recombination intermediates (Jaramillo-Lambert et al., 2010: PMID 20008570).

6.3 Proteins that promote normal prophase I progression

After meiotic entry (which is covered in the chapter “Germline proliferation and its
control” (http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.13.1)), oocytes remain in G2 throughout
their progression along the gonad. Progression through prophase I must be coordinated
with the cell cycle and oocyte growth for proper gamete development. prom-1 mutants
enter meiosis and express axis and SC proteins. However, the processes of pairing
and synapsis are defective: few nuclei display the asymmetrical chromatin distribution
characteristic of the transition zone (leptotene/zygotene), loading of axis and SC
proteins is delayed, and the synapsis that eventually does occur is often between
nonhomologous chromosomes (Jantsch et al., 2007: PMID 17914060). One known
function of the SCFprom-1 ubiquitin ligase is the degradation of CYE-1, which plays a
role in the germline proliferative zone (Fox et al., 2011: PMID 21558371). It is therefore
possible prom-1 connects meiotic events to cell cycle progression.
ERK/MAP kinase MPK-1 is required for progression to late pachytene; cells
lacking MPK-1 never enter a diplotene-like state (Church et al., 1995: PMID 7671816;
Lackner and Kim, 1998: PMID 9725833). This is consistent with accumulation of the
phosphorylated—hence activated—form of MPK-1 in mid-pachytene (Lee et al., 2007:
PMID 18073423). The transition from homolog-directed DSB repair to sister-directed
repair, with the accompanying loss of RAD-50 dependence for RAD-51 loading (Section
4.6), depends on MPK-1 (Hayashi et al., 2007: PMID 17983271). A key determinant of

 
the length of prophase during C. elegans oogenesis is the translational repressor LIN-
41, which coordinates oocyte growth with meiotic maturation. In lin-41 mutants
pachytene cells prematurely cellularize, diplotene does not occur, and oocytes
prematurely enter M phase. This premature M phase entry is elicited in part by
translational derepression of a CDK-1 inhibitor (Spike et al., 2014: PMID 25261698).
For further reading on oocyte maturation and oocyte release from prophase arrest,
please see Control of oocyte meiotic maturation and fertilization,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.53.1 , as well as (Kim et al., 2013: PMID
22872481).

7. Chromosome segregation during the meiotic divisions

Proper segregation of chromosomes at meiosis I requires orientation of

homologs toward opposite spindle poles and the localized release of sister chromatid
cohesion from the short arms of the bivalents at anaphase onset (see Section 5.1).
During metaphase I, outer kinetochore components are seen forming two opposing cup-
like structures that encase each half of the bivalent (Howe et al., 2001: PMID 11402066;
Monen et al., 2005: PMID 16273096). This organization promotes the mono-orientation
of sister chromatids on the spindle, since sister chromatids of the long arm of the
bivalent are encased within the same cup-like structure and thus behave as a single
unit. Mono-orientation of sister chromatids in metaphase I also requires normal sister
chromatid cohesion, as rec-8 mutants show premature separation of sisters at
anaphase I (Severson et al., 2009: PMID 19574299).
During oogenesis, meiotic chromosome segregation takes place in the context of
a barrel-shaped acentriolar spindle that needs to be correctly positioned, in close
association with the cortex, within the large volume of the fertilized embryo (Albertson
and Thomson, 1993: PMID 8143084). Proper spindle assembly in oocytes requires
MEI-1 and MEI-2, the components of the microtubule severing complex Katanin (Mains
et al., 1990: PMID 2249759; Clark-Maguire and Mains, 1994: PMID 8150281; Srayko et
al., 2000: PMID 10809666), the kinesin KLP-18 (Segbert et al., 2003: PMID 12937278),
and the calponin homology-domain protein ASPM-1 (van der Voet et al., 2009: PMID
19219036; Connolly et al., 2014: PMID 24554763). Correct positioning of the meiotic
spindle in oocytes is a two-step process that involves translocation of the spindle to the
cortex, which occurs before metaphase I, followed by a 90° rotation that renders the
spindle perpendicular to the cortex before the onset of anaphase I (reviewed in Fabritius
et al., 2011: PMID 20708397). Spindle translocation requires kinesin-1, MEI-1 and
microtubules (Yang et al., 2003: PMID 12885567; Yang et al., 2005: PMID 15883196),
while spindle rotation is promoted by the anaphase promoting complex, dynein and a
complex formed by LIN-5, ASPM-1 and CMD-1 (Yang et al., 2005: PMID 15883196;
Ellefson and McNally, 2009: PMID 19357192; van der Voet et al., 2009: PMID
19219036).

Detailed imaging of microtubules and kinetochores during meiosis I shows that

bivalents are surrounded by robust microtubule bundles running along their sides, and
that the mid-bivalent region is surrounded by a ring-like structure containing the
chromosome passenger complex and the chromokinesin KLP-19 (Wignall and

 
Villeneuve, 2009: PMID 19525937). This suggests that lateral associations with
microtubules (rather than canonical end-on kinetochore attachments) facilitate
chromosome movements prior to anaphase. Although kinetochores are required for
proper chromosome orientation during congression, potentially helping to align
chromosomes within the lateral bundles, the migration of chromosomes during
anaphase I is kinetochore independent (Dumont et al., 2010: PMID 20729837). Instead,
lateral microtubule associations remain intact during anaphase to facilitate segregation
(Muscat, et.al. 2015: PMID: 26026148). At anaphase onset, the mid-bivalent ring
structure containing KLP-19 is removed from chromosomes and is left behind in the
center of the spindle (Dumont et al., 2010: PMID 20729837), allowing minus-end forces
to drive poleward movement along lateral bundles (Muscat, et.al. 2015: PMID:
26026148). Moreover, spindle elongation also facilitates separation, potentially
stimulated by another ring component, CLS-2/CLASP (Dumont et al., 2010: PMID
20729837). Kinetochores are disassembled shortly after the onset of anaphase I, and
are reassembled by metaphase II. In meiosis II, each sister chromatid is encased in a
cup-like kinetochore, and KLP-19 and the chromosome passenger complex localize to a
ring-like structure that encircles the region of remaining contact between the two sister
chromatids (Wignall and Villeneuve, 2009: PMID 19525937; Dumont et al., 2010: PMID
20729837).
The processes that mediate meiotic chromosome segregation differ between
oogenesis and spermatogenesis (Albertson and Thomson, 1993: PMID 8143084;
Shakes et al., 2009: PMID 19696886; Wignall and Villeneuve, 2009: PMID 19525937;
Schvarzstein et al., 2013: PMID 23401519). In contrast to oocyte meiotic spindles,
spermatocyte meiotic spindles assume a more traditional configuration. They have
centrioles at their poles and the metaphase spindles have high microtubule density
adjacent to kinetochore domains at the ends of the bivalents, indicative of end-on
attachments between microtubules and kinetochores. Furthermore, anaphase
separation of chromosomes in spermatocytes is driven by separation of spindle poles.
Finally, completion of the meiotic divisions produces markedly different outcomes in
spermatogenesis, where four functional haploid gametes are produced, and oogenesis,
where one haploid gamete and two degenerate polar bodies are formed (Also see
Control of oocyte meiotic maturation and fertilization,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.53.1). Interestingly, the asymmetry of oocyte
meiosis can partially correct for pre-existing trisomies, since in triplo-X animals the extra
X chromosome is preferentially extruded into the first polar body, thus reducing the
incidence of aneuploid progeny (Cortes et al., 2015: PMID 25848744).

8. Summary

C. elegans has proven to be a very productive organism for the study of meiosis.
The excellent cytology, coupled with the ease of isolation of meiotic mutants, has
contributed to our understanding of the complex series of events necessary to produce
haploid gametes. However, understanding the molecular mechanisms that regulate
homolog pairing, meiotic recombination, the changes in structure that chromosomes
undergo during meiotic prophase, the process of chromosome segregation, and the
quality control of meiosis remain important goals for future studies. The recent

 
development of efficient transgenic tools, combined with super-resolution microscopy,
long-term in vivo imaging of meiotic chromosomes, rapid methods to map
recombination events, and the use of proteomic approaches means that C. elegans will
remain an excellent model organism to address these questions over the coming years.

9. Table 1: List of meiotic genes discussed in this chapter. (Link to Table 1 in

Excel format)

Genes are organized in alphabetical order and numbers in brackets indicate the
section(s) within the main text where the functions of a given protein are discussed.

10. Acknowledgements

We thank Barbara Meyer, Anne Villeneuve, and David Greenstein for critically
reading the manuscript and members of the Jantsch, Martinez-Perez and Yanowitz labs
for comments and discussions. We are grateful to Patricia Hamminger, Sophia
Millonigg, Alexander Woglar and Sarah Testori for figure preparation. The authors labs
were funded by the FWF (VJ), an MRC core funded grant (E M-P), NIH (JLY/VJ & KJH),
and the March of Dimes (JLY).

11. References cited

Adamo, A., Collis, S.J., Adelman, C.A., Silva, N., Horejsi, Z., Ward, J.D., et al. (2010).
Preventing nonhomologous end joining suppresses DNA repair defects of Fanconi
anemia. Mol. Cell 39: 25–35.

Adamo, A., Montemauri, P., Silva, N., Ward, J.D., Boulton, S.J., and La Volpe, A.
(2008). BRC-1 acts in the inter-sister pathway of meiotic double-strand break repair.
EMBO Rep. 9: 287–92.

Agostinho, A., Meier, B., Sonneville, R., Jagut, M., Woglar, A., Blow, J., et al. (2013).
Combinatorial regulation of meiotic holliday junction resolution in C. elegans by HIM-6
(BLM) helicase, SLX-4, and the SLX-1, MUS-81 and XPF-1 nucleases. PLoS Genet. 9:
e1003591.

Albertson, D.G., Rose, A.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (1997). Chromosome organization,
mitosis, and meiosis. In C. Elegans II, D.L. Riddle, T. Blumenthal, B.J. Meyer, and J.
Preiss, eds. (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press), pp. 47-78.

Albertson, D.G., and Thomson, J.N. (1993). Segregation of holocentric chromosomes at

meiosis in the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Chromosome Res. 1: 15–26.

Alpi, A., Pasierbek, P., Gartner, A., and Loidl, J. (2003). Genetic and cytological
characterization of the recombination protein RAD-51 in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Chromosoma 112: 6–16.
Aravind, L., and Koonin, E.V. (1998). The HORMA domain: a common structural
denominator in mitotic checkpoints, chromosome synapsis and DNA repair. Trends
Biochem. Sci. 23: 284–6.

Barber, L.J., Youds, J.L., Ward, J.D., McIlwraith, M.J., O’Neil, N.J., Petalcorin, M.I.R., et
al. (2008). RTEL1 maintains genomic stability by suppressing homologous
recombination. Cell 135: 261–71.

Barnes, T.M., Kohara, Y., Coulson, A., and Hekimi, S. (1995). Meiotic recombination,
noncoding DNA and genomic organization in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 141:
159–79.

Baudat, F., Buard, J., Grey, C., Fledel-Alon, A., Ober, C., Przeworski, M., et al. (2010).
PRDM9 is a major determinant of meiotic recombination hotspots in humans and mice.
Science 327: 836–40.

Baudrimont, A., Penkner, A., Woglar, A., Machacek, T., Wegrostek, C., Gloggnitzer, J.,
et al. (2010). Leptotene/zygotene chromosome movement via the SUN/KASH protein
bridge in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 6: e1001219.

Baudrimont, A., Penkner, A., Woglar, A., Mamnun, Y.M., Hulek, M., Struck, C., et al.
(2011). A new thermosensitive smc-3 allele reveals involvement of cohesin in
homologous recombination in C. elegans. PLoS One 6: e24799.

Bhalla, N., and Dernburg, A.F. (2005). A conserved checkpoint monitors meiotic
chromosome synapsis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 310: 1683–6.

Bhalla, N., Wynne, D.J., Jantsch, V., and Dernburg, A.F. (2008). ZHP-3 acts at
crossovers to couple meiotic recombination with synaptonemal complex disassembly
and bivalent formation in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 4: e1000235.

Bickel, J.S., Chen, L., Hayward, J., Yeap, S.L., Alkers, A.E., and Chan, R.C. (2010).
Structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) proteins promote homolog-independent
recombination repair in meiosis crucial for germ cell genomic stability. PLoS Genet. 6:
e1001028.

Boulton, S.J., Martin, J.S., Polanowska, J., Hill, D.E., Gartner, A., and Vidal, M. (2004).
BRCA1/BARD1 orthologs required for DNA repair in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr. Biol.
14: 33–9.

Brockway, H., Balukoff, N., Dean, M., Alleva, B., and Smolikove, S. (2014). The
CSN/COP9 signalosome regulates synaptonemal complex assembly during meiotic
prophase I of Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 10: e1004757.

Carlton, P.M., Farruggio, A.P., and Dernburg, A.F. (2006). A link between meiotic
prophase progression and crossover control. PLoS Genet. 2: e12.

 
de Carvalho, C.E., Zaaijer, S., Smolikov, S., Gu, Y., Schumacher, J.M., and Colaiácovo,
M.P. (2008). LAB-1 antagonizes the Aurora B kinase in C. elegans. Genes Dev. 22:
2869–85.

Chan, R.C., Chan, A., Jeon, M., Wu, T.F., Pasqualone, D., Rougvie, A.E., et al. (2003).
Chromosome cohesion is regulated by a clock gene paralogue TIM-1. Nature 423:
1002–9.

Chan, R.C., Severson, A.F., and Meyer, B.J. (2004). Condensin restructures
chromosomes in preparation for meiotic divisions. J. Cell Biol. 167: 613–25.

Checchi, P.M., and Engebrecht, J. (2011). Caenorhabditis elegans histone

methyltransferase MET-2 shields the male X chromosome from checkpoint machinery
and mediates meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. PLoS Genet. 7: e1002267.

Checchi, P.M., Lawrence, K.S., Van, M. V, Larson, B.J., and Engebrecht, J. (2014).
Pseudosynapsis and decreased stringency of meiotic repair pathway choice on the
hemizygous sex chromosome of Caenorhabditis elegans males. Genetics 197: 543–60.

Chin, G.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2001). C. elegans mre-11 is required for meiotic
recombination and DNA repair but is dispensable for the meiotic G(2) DNA damage
checkpoint. Genes Dev. 15: 522–34.

Church, D.L., Guan, K.L., and Lambie, E.J. (1995). Three genes of the MAP kinase
cascade, mek-2, mpk-1/sur-1 and let-60 ras, are required for meiotic cell cycle
progression in Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 121: 2525–35.

Clark-Maguire, S., and Mains, P.E. (1994). mei-1, a gene required for meiotic spindle
formation in Caenorhabditis elegans, is a member of a family of ATPases. Genetics
136: 533–46.

Colaiácovo, M.P. (2006). The many facets of SC function during C. elegans meiosis.
Chromosoma 115: 195–211.

Colaiácovo, M.P., MacQueen, A.J., Martinez-Perez, E., McDonald, K., Adamo, A., La
Volpe, A., et al. (2003). Synaptonemal complex assembly in C. elegans is dispensable
for loading strand-exchange proteins but critical for proper completion of recombination.
Dev. Cell 5: 463–74.

Collette, K.S., Petty, E.L., Golenberg, N., Bembenek, J.N., and Csankovszki, G. (2011).
Different roles for Aurora B in condensin targeting during mitosis and meiosis. J. Cell
Sci. 124: 3684–94.

Connolly, A.A., Osterberg, V., Christensen, S., Price, M., Lu, C., Chicas-Cruz, K., et al.
(2014). Caenorhabditis elegans oocyte meiotic spindle pole assembly requires
microtubule severing and the calponin homology domain protein ASPM-1. Mol. Biol.
Cell 25: 1298–311.

Cortes, D.B., McNally, K.L., Mains, P.E., and McNally, F.J. (2015). The asymmetry of
female meiosis reduces the frequency of inheritance of unpaired chromosomes. eLife 4:
e06056.

Couteau, F., Nabeshima, K., Villeneuve, A., and Zetka, M. (2004). A component of C.
elegans meiotic chromosome axes at the interface of homolog alignment, synapsis,
nuclear reorganization, and recombination. Curr. Biol. 14: 585–92.

Couteau, F., and Zetka, M. (2005). HTP-1 coordinates synaptonemal complex assembly
with homolog alignment during meiosis in C. elegans. Genes Dev. 19: 2744–56.

Couteau, F., and Zetka, M. (2011). DNA damage during meiosis induces chromatin
remodeling and synaptonemal complex disassembly. Dev. Cell 20: 353–63.

Csankovszki, G., Collette, K., Spahl, K., Carey, J., Snyder, M., Petty, E., et al. (2009).
Three distinct condensin complexes control C. elegans chromosome dynamics. Curr.
Biol. 19: 9–19.

Davis, M.W., Hammarlund, M., Harrach, T., Hullett, P., Olsen, S., and Jorgensen, E.M.
(2005). Rapid single nucleotide polymorphism mapping in C. elegans. BMC Genomics
6: 118.

Dernburg, A.F., McDonald, K., Moulder, G., Barstead, R., Dresser, M., and Villeneuve,
A.M. (1998). Meiotic recombination in C. elegans initiates by a conserved mechanism
and is dispensable for homologous chromosome synapsis. Cell 94: 387–98.

Deshong, A.J., Ye, A.L., Lamelza, P., and Bhalla, N. (2014). A quality control
mechanism coordinates meiotic prophase events to promote crossover assurance.
PLoS Genet. 10: e1004291.

Dombecki, C.R., Chiang, A.C.Y., Kang, H.-J., Bilgir, C., Stefanski, N.A., Neva, B.J., et
al. (2011). The chromodomain protein MRG-1 facilitates SC-independent homologous
pairing during meiosis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Cell 21: 1092–103.

Dumont, J., Oegema, K., and Desai, A. (2010). A kinetochore-independent mechanism

drives anaphase chromosome separation during acentrosomal meiosis. Nat. Cell Biol.
12: 894–901.

Ellefson, M.L., and McNally, F.J. (2009). Kinesin-1 and cytoplasmic dynein act
sequentially to move the meiotic spindle to the oocyte cortex in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Mol. Biol. Cell 20: 2722–30.

 
Fabritius, A.S., Ellefson, M.L., and McNally, F.J. (2011). Nuclear and spindle positioning
during oocyte meiosis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 23: 78–84.

Fox, P.M., Vought, V.E., Hanazawa, M., Lee, M.-H., Maine, E.M., and Schedl, T. (2011).
Cyclin E and CDK-2 regulate proliferative cell fate and cell cycle progression in the C.
elegans germline. Development 138: 2223–34.

Fridkin, A., Mills, E., Margalit, A., Neufeld, E., Lee, K.K., Feinstein, N., et al. (2004).
Matefin, a Caenorhabditis elegans germ line-specific SUN-domain nuclear membrane
protein, is essential for early embryonic and germ cell development. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 101: 6987–92.

Gabdank, I., and Fire, A.Z. (2014). Gamete-type dependent crossover interference
levels in a defined region of Caenorhabditis elegans chromosome V. G3 (Bethesda). 4:
117–20.

Gao, J., Kim, H.-M., Elia, A.E., Elledge, S.J., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2015). NatB
domain-containing CRA-1 antagonizes hydrolase ACER-1 linking acetyl-CoA
metabolism to the initiation of recombination during C. elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet.
11: e1005029.

Garcia, V., Gray, S., Allison, R.M., Cooper, T.J., and Neale, M.J. (2015). Tel1(ATM)-
mediated interference suppresses clustered meiotic double-strand-break formation.
Nature 520: 114–118.

Gartner, A., Milstein, S., Ahmed, S., Hodgkin, J., and Hengartner, M.O. (2000). A
conserved checkpoint pathway mediates DNA damage-induced apoptosis and cell cycle
arrest in C. elegans. Mol. Cell 5: 435–43.

Goldstein, P. (1982). The synaptonemal complexes of Caenorhabditis elegans:

pachytene karyotype analysis of male and hermaphrodite wild-type and him mutants.
Chromosoma 86: 577–93.

Goodyer, W., Kaitna, S., Couteau, F., Ward, J.D., Boulton, S.J., and Zetka, M. (2008).
HTP-3 links DSB formation with homolog pairing and crossing over during C. elegans
meiosis. Dev. Cell 14: 263–74.

Gray, S., Allison, R.M., Garcia, V., Goldman, A.S.H., and Neale, M.J. (2013). Positive
regulation of meiotic DNA double-strand break formation by activation of the DNA
damage checkpoint kinase Mec1(ATR). Open Biol. 3: 130019.

Haarhuis, J.H.I., Elbatsh, A.M.O., and Rowland, B.D. (2014). Cohesin and its regulation:
on the logic of X-shaped chromosomes. Dev. Cell 31: 7–18.

 
Hagstrom, K.A., Holmes, V.F., Cozzarelli, N.R., and Meyer, B.J. (2002). C. elegans
condensin promotes mitotic chromosome architecture, centromere organization, and
sister chromatid segregation during mitosis and meiosis. Genes Dev. 16: 729–42.

Hammarlund, M., Davis, M.W., Nguyen, H., Dayton, D., and Jorgensen, E.M. (2005).
Heterozygous insertions alter crossover distribution but allow crossover interference in
Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 171: 1047–56.

Harper, N.C., Rillo, R., Jover-Gil, S., Assaf, Z.J., Bhalla, N., and Dernburg, A.F. (2011).
Pairing centers recruit a Polo-like kinase to orchestrate meiotic chromosome dynamics
in C. elegans. Dev. Cell 21: 934–47.

Hayashi, M., Chin, G.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2007). C . elegans germ cells switch
between distinct modes of double-strand break repair during meiotic prophase
progression. PLoS Genet. 3: e191.

Hayashi, M., Mlynarczyk-Evans, S., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2010). The synaptonemal
complex shapes the crossover landscape through cooperative assembly, crossover
promotion and crossover inhibition during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Genetics
186: 45–58.

Henzel, J. V, Nabeshima, K., Schvarzstein, M., Turner, B.E., Villeneuve, A.M., and
Hillers, K.J. (2011). An asymmetric chromosome pair undergoes synaptic adjustment
and crossover redistribution during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis: implications for sex
chromosome evolution. Genetics 187: 685–99.

Herman, R.K., and Kari, C.K. (1989). Recombination between small X chromosome
duplications and the X chromosome in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 121: 723–37.

Hillers, K.J., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2003). Chromosome-wide control of meiotic crossing
over in C . elegans. Curr. Biol. 13: 1641–1647.

Hillers, K.J., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2009). Analysis of meiotic recombination in

Caenorhabditis elegans. Methods Mol. Biol. 557: 77–97.

Hodgkin, J., Horvitz, H.R., and Brenner, S. (1979). Nondisjunction mutants of the
nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 91: 67–94.

Howe, M., McDonald, K.L., Albertson, D.G., and Meyer, B.J. (2001). HIM-10 is required
for kinetochore structure and function on Caenorhabditis elegans holocentric
chromosomes. J. Cell Biol. 153: 1227–38.

Jantsch, V., Pasierbek, P., Mueller, M.M., Schweizer, D., Jantsch, M., and Loidl, J.
(2004). Targeted gene knockout reveals a role in meiotic recombination for ZHP-3, a
Zip3-related protein in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24: 7998–8006.

 
Jantsch, V., Tang, L., Pasierbek, P., Penkner, A., Nayak, S., Baudrimont, A., et al.
(2007). Caenorhabditis elegans prom-1 is required for meiotic prophase progression
and homologous chromosome pairing. Mol. Biol. Cell 18: 4911–20.

Jaramillo-Lambert, A., Ellefson, M., Villeneuve, A.M., and Engebrecht, J. (2007).

Differential timing of S phases, X chromosome replication, and meiotic prophase in the
C. elegans germ line. Dev. Biol. 308: 206–21.

Jaramillo-Lambert, A., Harigaya, Y., Vitt, J., Villeneuve, A., and Engebrecht, J. (2010).
Meiotic errors activate checkpoints that improve gamete quality without triggering
apoptosis in male germ cells. Curr. Biol. 20: 2078–89.

Kaitna, S., Pasierbek, P., Jantsch, M., Loidl, J., and Glotzer, M. (2002). The aurora B
kinase AIR-2 regulates kinetochores during mitosis and is required for separation of
homologous chromosomes during meiosis. Curr. Biol. 12: 798–812.

Kauppi, L., Barchi, M., Lange, J., Baudat, F., Jasin, M., and Keeney, S. (2013).
Numerical constraints and feedback control of double-strand breaks in mouse meiosis.
Genes Dev. 27: 873–86.

Kaur, T., and Rockman, M. V (2014). Crossover heterogeneity in the absence of

hotspots in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 196: 137–48.

Kelly, K.O., Dernburg, A.F., Stanfield, G.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2000).
Caenorhabditis elegans msh-5 is required for both normal and radiation-induced meiotic
crossing over but not for completion of meiosis. Genetics 156: 617–30.

Kelly, W.G., Schaner, C.E., Dernburg, A.F., Lee, M.-H., Kim, S.K., Villeneuve, A.M., et
al. (2002). X-chromosome silencing in the germline of C. elegans. Development 129:
479–92.

Kim, S., Spike, C., and Greenstein, D. (2013). Control of oocyte growth and meiotic
maturation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 757: 277–320.

Kim, Y., Rosenberg, S.C., Kugel, C.L., Kostow, N., Rog, O., Davydov, V., et al. (2014).
The chromosome axis controls meiotic events through a hierarchical assembly of
HORMA domain proteins. Dev. Cell 31: 487–502.

Kimble, J. and Crittenden, S.L. (2005). Germline proliferation and its control.
WormBook, ed. The C. elegans Research Community, WormBook,
doi/10.1895/wormbook.1.13.1, http://www.wormbook.org.

Kohl, K.P., and Sekelsky, J. (2013). Meiotic and mitotic recombination in meiosis.
Genetics 194: 327–34.
Labella, S., Woglar, A., Jantsch, V., and Zetka, M. (2011). Polo kinases establish links
between meiotic chromosomes and cytoskeletal forces essential for homolog pairing.
Dev. Cell 21: 948–58.

Labrador, L., Barroso, C., Lightfoot, J., Müller-Reichert, T., Flibotte, S., Taylor, J., et al.
(2013). Chromosome movements promoted by the mitochondrial protein SPD-3 are
required for homology search during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 9:
e1003497.

Lackner, M.R., and Kim, S.K. (1998). Genetic analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans
MAP kinase gene mpk-1. Genetics 150: 103–17.

Lamelza, P., and Bhalla, N. (2012). Histone methyltransferases MES-4 and MET-1
promote meiotic checkpoint activation in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 8:
e1003089.

Lange, J., Pan, J., Cole, F., Thelen, M.P., Jasin, M., and Keeney, S. (2011). ATM
controls meiotic double-strand-break formation. Nature 479: 237–40.

Lee, M.-H., Ohmachi, M., Arur, S., Nayak, S., Francis, R., Church, D., et al. (2007).
Multiple functions and dynamic activation of MPK-1 extracellular signal-regulated kinase
signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans germline development. Genetics 177: 2039–62.

Lemmens, B.B.L.G., Johnson, N.M., and Tijsterman, M. (2013). COM-1 promotes

homologous recombination during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis by antagonizing Ku-
mediated non-homologous end joining. PLoS Genet. 9: e1003276.

Libuda, D.E., Uzawa, S., Meyer, B.J., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2013). Meiotic chromosome
structures constrain and respond to designation of crossover sites. Nature 502: 703–6.

Lightfoot, J., Testori, S., Barroso, C., and Martinez-Perez, E. (2011). Loading of meiotic
cohesin by SCC-2 is required for early processing of DSBs and for the DNA damage
checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 21: 1421–30.

Lim, J.G.Y., Stine, R.R.W., and Yanowitz, J.L. (2008). Domain-specific regulation of
recombination in Caenorhabditis elegans in response to temperature, age and sex.
Genetics 180: 715–26.

MacQueen, A.J., Colaiácovo, M.P., McDonald, K., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2002).
Synapsis-dependent and -independent mechanisms stabilize homolog pairing during
meiotic prophase in C. elegans. Genes Dev. 16: 2428–42.

MacQueen, A.J., Phillips, C.M., Bhalla, N., Weiser, P., Villeneuve, A.M., and Dernburg,
A.F. (2005). Chromosome sites play dual roles to establish homologous synapsis during
meiosis in C. elegans. Cell 123: 1037–50.

 
MacQueen, A.J., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2001). Nuclear reorganization and homologous
chromosome pairing during meiotic prophase require C. elegans chk-2. Genes Dev. 15:
1674–87.

Mains, P.E., Kemphues, K.J., Sprunger, S.A., Sulston, I.A., and Wood, W.B. (1990).
Mutations affecting the meiotic and mitotic divisions of the early Caenorhabditis elegans
embryo. Genetics 126: 593–605.

Malone, C.J., Misner, L., Bot, N. Le, Tsai, M.-C., Campbell, J.M., Ahringer, J., et al.
(2003). The C. elegans hook protein, ZYG-12, mediates the essential attachment
between the centrosome and nucleus. Cell 115: 825–36.

Martin, J.S., Winkelmann, N., Petalcorin, M.I.R., McIlwraith, M.J., and Boulton, S.J.
(2005). RAD-51-dependent and -independent roles of a Caenorhabditis elegans
BRCA2-related protein during DNA double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25:
3127–39.

Martinez-Perez, E., Schvarzstein, M., Barroso, C., Lightfoot, J., Dernburg, A.F., and
Villeneuve, A.M. (2008). Crossovers trigger a remodeling of meiotic chromosome axis
composition that is linked to two-step loss of sister chromatid cohesion. Genes Dev. 22:
2886–901.

Martinez-Perez, E., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2005). HTP-1-dependent constraints

coordinate homolog pairing and synapsis and promote chiasma formation during C.
elegans meiosis. Genes Dev. 19: 2727–43.

McKim, K.S., Howell, A.M., and Rose, A.M. (1988). The effects of translocations on
recombination frequency in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 120: 987–1001.

McNicoll, F., Stevense, M., and Jessberger, R. (2013). Cohesin in gametogenesis. Curr.
Top. Dev. Biol. 102: 1–34.

Meneely, P.M., Farago, A.F., and Kauffman, T.M. (2002). Crossover distribution and
high interference for both the X chromosome and an autosome during oogenesis and
spermatogenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 162: 1169–77.

Meneely, P.M., McGovern, O.L., Heinis, F.I., and Yanowitz, J.L. (2012). Crossover
distribution and frequency are regulated by him-5 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics
190: 1251–66.

Mets, D.G., and Meyer, B.J. (2009). Condensins regulate meiotic DNA break
distribution, thus crossover frequency, by controlling chromosome structure. Cell 139:
73–86.
Meyer, B.J. (2005). X-chromosome dosage compensation. WormBook, ed. The C.
elegans Research Community, WormBook, doi/10.1895/wormbook.1.8.1,
http://www.wormbook.org.

Meyer, B.J. (2010). Targeting X chromosomes for repression. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
20: 179–89.

Minn, I.L., Rolls, M.M., Hanna-Rose, W., and Malone, C.J. (2009). SUN-1 and ZYG-12,
mediators of centrosome-nucleus attachment, are a functional SUN/KASH pair in
Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Biol. Cell 20: 4586–95.

Mlynarczyk-Evans, S., Roelens, B., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2013). Evidence that masking
of synapsis imperfections counterbalances quality control to promote efficient meiosis.
PLoS Genet. 9: e1003963.

Monen, J., Maddox, P.S., Hyndman, F., Oegema, K., and Desai, A. (2005). Differential
role of CENP-A in the segregation of holocentric C. elegans chromosomes during
meiosis and mitosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 7: 1248–55.

Muller, H.J. (1916). The mechanism of crossing-over. Am. Nat. 50: 193–221, 284–305,
350–366, 421–434.

Nabeshima, K., Mlynarczyk-Evans, S., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2011). Chromosome

painting reveals asynaptic full alignment of homologs and HIM-8-dependent remodeling
of X chromosome territories during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 7:
e1002231.

Nabeshima, K., Villeneuve, A.M., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2005). Crossing over is
coupled to late meiotic prophase bivalent differentiation through asymmetric
disassembly of the SC. J. Cell Biol. 168: 683–9.

Nabeshima, K., Villeneuve, A.M., and Hillers, K.J. (2004). Chromosome-wide regulation
of meiotic crossover formation in Caenorhabditis elegans requires properly assembled
chromosome axes. Genetics 168: 1275–92.

Nicolas, A., Treco, D., Schultes, N.P., and Szostak, J.W. (1989). An initiation site for
meiotic gene conversion in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 338: 35–9.

Nottke, A.C., Beese-Sims, S.E., Pantalena, L.F., Reinke, V., Shi, Y., and Colaiácovo,
M.P. (2011). SPR-5 is a histone H3K4 demethylase with a role in meiotic double-strand
break repair. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108: 12805–10.

O’Neil, N.J., Martin, J.S., Youds, J.L., Ward, J.D., Petalcorin, M.I.R., Rose, A.M., et al.
(2013). Joint molecule resolution requires the redundant activities of MUS-81 and XPF-
1 during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 9: e1003582.

 
Pâques, F., and Haber, J.E. (1999). Multiple pathways of recombination induced by
double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63: 349–
404.

Pasierbek, P., Födermayr, M., Jantsch, V., Jantsch, M., Schweizer, D., and Loidl, J.
(2003). The Caenorhabditis elegans SCC-3 homologue is required for meiotic synapsis
and for proper chromosome disjunction in mitosis and meiosis. Exp. Cell Res. 289:
245–255.

Pasierbek, P., Jantsch, M., Melcher, M., Schleiffer, A., Schweizer, D., and Loidl, J.
(2001). A Caenorhabditis elegans cohesion protein with functions in meiotic
chromosome pairing and disjunction. Genes Dev. 15: 1349–60.

Penkner, A., Portik-Dobos, Z., Tang, L., Schnabel, R., Novatchkova, M., Jantsch, V., et
al. (2007a). A conserved function for a Caenorhabditis elegans Com1/Sae2/CtIP protein
homolog in meiotic recombination. EMBO J. 26: 5071–82.

Penkner, A., Tang, L., Novatchkova, M., Ladurner, M., Fridkin, A., Gruenbaum, Y., et al.
(2007b). The nuclear envelope protein Matefin/SUN-1 is required for homologous
pairing in C. elegans meiosis. Dev. Cell 12: 873–85.

Penkner, A.M., Fridkin, A., Gloggnitzer, J., Baudrimont, A., Machacek, T., Woglar, A., et
al. (2009). Meiotic chromosome homology search involves modifications of the nuclear
envelope protein Matefin/SUN-1. Cell 139: 920–33.

Petalcorin, M.I.R., Galkin, V.E., Yu, X., Egelman, E.H., and Boulton, S.J. (2007).
Stabilization of RAD-51-DNA filaments via an interaction domain in Caenorhabditis
elegans BRCA2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104: 8299–304.

Petalcorin, M.I.R., Sandall, J., Wigley, D.B., and Boulton, S.J. (2006). CeBRC-2
stimulates D-loop formation by RAD-51 and promotes DNA single-strand annealing. J.
Mol. Biol. 361: 231–42.

Phillips, C.M., and Dernburg, A.F. (2006). A family of zinc-finger proteins is required for
chromosome-specific pairing and synapsis during meiosis in C. elegans. Dev. Cell 11:
817–29.

Phillips, C.M., Meng, X., Zhang, L., Chretien, J.H., Urnov, F.D., and Dernburg, A.F.
(2009). Identification of chromosome sequence motifs that mediate meiotic pairing and
synapsis in C. elegans. Nat. Cell Biol. 11: 934–42.

Phillips, C.M., Wong, C., Bhalla, N., Carlton, P.M., Weiser, P., Meneely, P.M., et al.
(2005). HIM-8 binds to the X chromosome pairing center and mediates chromosome-
specific meiotic synapsis. Cell 123: 1051–63.

 
Qiao, H., Prasada Rao, H.B.D., Yang, Y., Fong, J.H., Cloutier, J.M., Deacon, D.C., et al.
(2014). Antagonistic roles of ubiquitin ligase HEI10 and SUMO ligase RNF212 regulate
meiotic recombination. Nat. Genet. 46: 194–9.

Reddy, K.C., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2004). C. elegans HIM-17 links chromatin
modification and competence for initiation of meiotic recombination. Cell 118: 439–52.

Rinaldo, C., Bazzicalupo, P., Ederle, S., Hilliard, M., and La Volpe, A. (2002). Roles for
Caenorhabditis elegans rad-51 in meiosis and in resistance to ionizing radiation during
development. Genetics 160: 471–9.

Robert, V.J., Davis, M.W., Jorgensen, E.M., and Bessereau, J.-L. (2008). Gene
conversion and end-joining-repair double-strand breaks in the Caenorhabditis elegans
germline. Genetics 180: 673–9.

Rockman, M.V., and Kruglyak, L. (2009). Recombinational landscape and population

genomics of Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 5: e1000419.

Rog, O., and Dernburg, A.F. (2013). Chromosome pairing and synapsis during
Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 25: 349–56.

Rog, O., and Dernburg, A.F. (2015). Direct Visualization Reveals Kinetics of Meiotic
Chromosome Synapsis. Cell Rep. 10: 1639-45.

Rogers, E., Bishop, J.D., Waddle, J.A., Schumacher, J.M., and Lin, R. (2002). The
aurora kinase AIR-2 functions in the release of chromosome cohesion in Caenorhabditis
elegans meiosis. J. Cell Biol. 157: 219–29.

Rose, A.M., and Baillie, D.L. (1979a). A mutation in Caenorhabditis elegans that
increases recombination frequency more than threefold. Nature 281: 599–600.

Rose, A.M., and Baillie, D.L. (1979b). The Effect of Temperature and Parental Age on
Recombination and Nondisjunction in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 92: 409–18.

Rose, A.M., Baillie, D.L., and Curran, J. (1984). Meiotic pairing behavior of two free
duplications of linkage group I in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Gen. Genet. 195: 52–6.

Rosenbluth, R.E., and Baillie, D.L. (1981). The genetic analysis of a reciprocal
translocation, eT1(III; V), in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 99: 415–28.

Rosu, S., Libuda, D.E., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2011). Robust crossover assurance and
regulated interhomolog access maintain meiotic crossover number. Science 334: 1286–
9.

Rosu, S., Zawadzki, K.A., Stamper, E.L., Libuda, D.E., Reese, A.L., Dernburg, A.F., et
al. (2013). The C. elegans DSB-2 protein reveals a regulatory network that controls
competence for meiotic DSB formation and promotes crossover assurance. PLoS
Genet. 9: e1003674.

Saito, T.T., Lui, D.Y., Kim, H.-M., Meyer, K., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2013). Interplay
between structure-specific endonucleases for crossover control during Caenorhabditis
elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 9: e1003586.

Saito, T.T., Mohideen, F., Meyer, K., Harper, J.W., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2012). SLX-1
is required for maintaining genomic integrity and promoting meiotic noncrossovers in the
Caenorhabditis elegans germline. PLoS Genet. 8: e1002888.

Saito, T.T., Youds, J.L., Boulton, S.J., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2009). Caenorhabditis
elegans HIM-18/SLX-4 interacts with SLX-1 and XPF-1 and maintains genomic integrity
in the germline by processing recombination intermediates. PLoS Genet. 5: e1000735.

Sanford, C., and Perry, M.D. (2001). Asymmetrically distributed oligonucleotide repeats
in the Caenorhabditis elegans genome sequence that map to regions important for
meiotic chromosome segregation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29: 2920–6.

Sato, A., Isaac, B., Phillips, C.M., Rillo, R., Carlton, P.M., Wynne, D.J., et al. (2009).
Cytoskeletal forces span the nuclear envelope to coordinate meiotic chromosome
pairing and synapsis. Cell 139: 907–19.

Sato-Carlton, A., Li, X., Crawley, O., Testori, S., Martinez-Perez, E., Sugimoto, A., et al.
(2014). Protein Phosphatase 4 Promotes Chromosome Pairing and Synapsis, and
Contributes to Maintaining Crossover Competence with Increasing Age. PLoS Genet.
10: e1004638.

Schild-Prüfert, K., Saito, T.T., Smolikov, S., Gu, Y., Hincapie, M., Hill, D.E., et al. (2011).
Organization of the synaptonemal complex during meiosis in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Genetics 189: 411–21.

Schumacher, B., Hofmann, K., Boulton, S., and Gartner, A. (2001). The C. elegans
homolog of the p53 tumor suppressor is required for DNA damage-induced apoptosis.
Curr. Biol. 11: 1722–7.

Schvarzstein, M., Pattabiraman, D., Bembenek, J.N., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2013).
Meiotic HORMA domain proteins prevent untimely centriole disengagement during
Caenorhabditis elegans spermatocyte meiosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110:
E898–907.

Schvarzstein, M., Pattabiraman, D., Libuda, D.E., Ramadugu, A., Tam, A., Martinez-
Perez, E., et al. (2014). DNA helicase HIM-6/BLM both promotes MutSγ-dependent
crossovers and antagonizes MutSγ-independent interhomolog associations during
Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Genetics 198: 193–207.

 
Schvarzstein, M., Wignall, S.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2010). Coordinating cohesion,
co-orientation, and congression during meiosis: lessons from holocentric chromosomes.
Genes Dev. 24: 219–28.

Segbert, C., Barkus, R., Powers, J., Strome, S., Saxton, W.M., and Bossinger, O.
(2003). KLP-18, a Klp2 kinesin, is required for assembly of acentrosomal meiotic
spindles in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Biol. Cell 14: 4458–69.

Severson, A.F., Ling, L., Zuylen, V. van, and Meyer, B.J. (2009). 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. 23: 1763–78.

Severson, A.F., and Meyer, B.J. (2014). Divergent kleisin subunits of cohesin specify
mechanisms to tether and release meiotic chromosomes. eLife 3: e03467.

Shakes, D.C., Wu, J.-C., Sadler, P.L., Laprade, K., Moore, L.L., Noritake, A., et al.
(2009). Spermatogenesis-specific features of the meiotic program in Caenorhabditis
elegans. PLoS Genet. 5: e1000611.

Silva, N., Adamo, A., Santonicola, P., Martinez-Perez, E., and La Volpe, A. (2013). Pro-
crossover factors regulate damage-dependent apoptosis in the Caenorhabditis elegans
germ line. Cell Death Differ. 20: 1209–18.

Silva, N., Ferrandiz, N., Barroso, C., Tognetti, S., Lightfoot, J., Telecan, O., et al. (2014).
The fidelity of synaptonemal complex assembly is regulated by a signaling mechanism
that controls early meiotic progression. Dev. Cell 31: 503–11.

Siomos, M.F., Badrinath, A., Pasierbek, P., Livingstone, D., White, J., Glotzer, M., et al.
(2001). Separase is required for chromosome segregation during meiosis I in
Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr. Biol. 11: 1825–35.

Smolikov, S., Eizinger, A., Hurlburt, A., Rogers, E., Villeneuve, A.M., and Colaiácovo,
M.P. (2007a). Synapsis-defective mutants reveal a correlation between chromosome
conformation and the mode of double-strand break repair during Caenorhabditis
elegans meiosis. Genetics 176: 2027–33.

Smolikov, S., Eizinger, A., Schild-Prufert, K., Hurlburt, A., McDonald, K., Engebrecht, J.,
et al. (2007b). SYP-3 restricts synaptonemal complex assembly to bridge paired
chromosome axes during meiosis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 176: 2015–25.

Smolikov, S., Schild-Prüfert, K., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2008). CRA-1 uncovers a
double-strand break-dependent pathway promoting the assembly of central region
proteins on chromosome axes during C. elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 4: e1000088.

Smolikov, S., Schild-Prüfert, K., and Colaiácovo, M.P. (2009). A yeast two-hybrid screen
for SYP-3 interactors identifies SYP-4, a component required for synaptonemal complex
assembly and chiasma formation in Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. PLoS Genet. 5:
e1000669.

Song, A., Labella, S., Korneeva, N.L., Keiper, B.D., Aamodt, E.J., Zetka, M., et al.
(2010). A C. elegans eIF4E-family member upregulates translation at elevated
temperatures of mRNAs encoding MSH-5 and other meiotic crossover proteins. J. Cell
Sci. 123: 2228–37.

Spike, C.A., Coetzee, D., Eichten, C., Wang, X., Hansen, D., and Greenstein, D. (2014).
The TRIM-NHL protein LIN-41 and the OMA RNA-binding proteins antagonistically
control the prophase-to-metaphase transition and growth of Caenorhabditis elegans
oocytes. Genetics 198: 1535–58.

Srayko, M., Buster, D.W., Bazirgan, O.A., McNally, F.J., and Mains, P.E. (2000). MEI-
1/MEI-2 katanin-like microtubule severing activity is required for Caenorhabditis elegans
meiosis. Genes Dev. 14: 1072–84.

Stamper, E.L., Rodenbusch, S.E., Rosu, S., Ahringer, J., Villeneuve, A.M., and
Dernburg, A.F. (2013). Identification of DSB-1, a protein required for initiation of meiotic
recombination in Caenorhabditis elegans, illuminates a crossover assurance
checkpoint. PLoS Genet. 9: e1003679.

Stevens, D., Oegema, K., and Desai, A. (2013). Meiotic double-strand breaks uncover
and protect against mitotic errors in the C. elegans germline. Curr. Biol. 23: 2400–6.

Takanami, T., Mori, A., Takahashi, H., Horiuchi, S., and Higashitani, A. (2003).
Caenorhabditis elegans Ce-rdh-1/rad-51 functions after double-strand break formation
of meiotic recombination. Chromosome Res. 11: 125–35.

Tang, L., Machacek, T., Mamnun, Y.M., Penkner, A., Gloggnitzer, J., Wegrostek, C., et
al. (2010). Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans him-19 show meiotic defects that
worsen with age. Mol. Biol. Cell 21: 885–96.

Thacker, D., Mohibullah, N., Zhu, X., and Keeney, S. (2014). Homologue engagement
controls meiotic DNA break number and distribution. Nature 510: 241–6.

Tsai, C.J., Mets, D.G., Albrecht, M.R., Nix, P., Chan, A., and Meyer, B.J. (2008). Meiotic
crossover number and distribution are regulated by a dosage compensation protein that
resembles a condensin subunit. Genes Dev. 22: 194–211.

Tzur, Y.B., de Carvalho, C.E., Nadarajan, S., Bostelen, I. Van, Gu, Y., Chu, D.S., et al.
(2012). LAB-1 targets PP1 and restricts Aurora B kinase upon entrance into meiosis to
promote sister chromatid cohesion. PLoS Biol. 10: e1001378.

Villeneuve, A.M. (1994). A cis-acting locus that promotes crossing over between X
chromosomes in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 136: 887–902.

 
van der Voet, M., Berends, C.W.H., Perreault, A., Nguyen-Ngoc, T., Gönczy, P., Vidal,
M., et al. (2009). NuMA-related LIN-5, ASPM-1, calmodulin and dynein promote meiotic
spindle rotation independently of cortical LIN-5/GPR/Galpha. Nat. Cell Biol. 11: 269–77.

Wagner, C.R., Kuervers, L., Baillie, D.L., and Yanowitz, J.L. (2010). xnd-1 regulates the
global recombination landscape in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 467: 839–43.

Wang, F., Yoder, J., Antoshechkin, I., and Han, M. (2003). Caenorhabditis elegans
EVL-14/PDS-5 and SCC-3 are essential for sister chromatid cohesion in meiosis and
mitosis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23: 7698–707.

Ward, J.D., Muzzini, D.M., Petalcorin, M.I.R., Martinez-Perez, E., Martin, J.S., Plevani,
P., et al. (2010). Overlapping mechanisms promote postsynaptic RAD-51 filament
disassembly during meiotic double-strand break repair. Mol. Cell 37: 259–72.

Wignall, S.M., and Villeneuve, A.M. (2009). Lateral microtubule bundles promote
chromosome alignment during acentrosomal oocyte meiosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 11: 839–44.

Winand, N.J., Panzer, J.A., and Kolodner, R.D. (1998). Cloning and characterization of
the human and Caenorhabditis elegans homologs of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MSH5 gene. Genomics 53: 69–80.

Woglar, A., Daryabeigi, A., Adamo, A., Habacher, C., Machacek, T., La Volpe, A., et al.
(2013). Matefin/SUN-1 phosphorylation is part of a surveillance mechanism to
coordinate chromosome synapsis and recombination with meiotic progression and
chromosome movement. PLoS Genet. 9: e1003335.

Wood, A.J., Severson, A.F., and Meyer, B.J. (2010). Condensin and cohesin
complexity: the expanding repertoire of functions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11: 391–404.

Wynne, D.J., Rog, O., Carlton, P.M., and Dernburg, A.F. (2012). Dynein-dependent
processive chromosome motions promote homologous pairing in C. elegans meiosis. J.
Cell Biol. 196: 47–64.

Yang, H., Mains, P.E., and McNally, F.J. (2005). Kinesin-1 mediates translocation of the
meiotic spindle to the oocyte cortex through KCA-1, a novel cargo adapter. J. Cell Biol.
169: 447–57.

Yang, H., McNally, K., and McNally, F.J. (2003). MEI-1/katanin is required for
translocation of the meiosis I spindle to the oocyte cortex in C elegans. Dev. Biol. 260:
245–59.

Yin, Y., and Smolikove, S. (2013). Impaired resection of meiotic double-strand breaks
channels repair to nonhomologous end joining in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Cell.
Biol. 33: 2732–47.
Yokoo, R., Zawadzki, K.A., Nabeshima, K., Drake, M., Arur, S., and Villeneuve, A.M.
(2012). COSA-1 reveals robust homeostasis and separable licensing and reinforcement
steps governing meiotic crossovers. Cell 149: 75–87.

Youds, J.L., Mets, D.G., McIlwraith, M.J., Martin, J.S., Ward, J.D., ONeil, N.J., et al.
(2010). RTEL-1 enforces meiotic crossover interference and homeostasis. Science 327:
1254–8.

Zalevsky, J., MacQueen, A.J., Duffy, J.B., Kemphues, K.J., and Villeneuve, A.M. (1999).
Crossing over during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis requires a conserved MutS-based
pathway that is partially dispensable in budding yeast. Genetics 153: 1271–83.

Zetka, M.C., Kawasaki, I., Strome, S., and Muller, F. (1999). Synapsis and chiasma
formation in Caenorhabditis elegans require HIM-3, a meiotic chromosome core
component that functions in chromosome segregation. Genes Dev. 13: 2258–2270.

Zetka, M.C., and Rose, A.M. (1990). Sex-related differences in crossing over in
Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 126: 355–63.

Zetka, M.C., and Rose, A.M. (1995). Mutant rec-1 eliminates the meiotic pattern of
crossing over in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 141: 1339–49.

Zhang, W., Miley, N., Zastrow, M.S., MacQueen, A.J., Sato, A., Nabeshima, K., et al.
(2012). HAL-2 promotes homologous pairing during Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis by
antagonizing inhibitory effects of synaptonemal complex precursors. PLoS Genet. 8:
e1002880.
Table 1
Table 1: List of meiotic genes discussed in this chapter. Genes are organized in alphabetical order and numbers in brackets indicate the section(s) within the main
text where the functions of a given protein are discussed.
Molecular  Function  (known  or    Subcellular  Localization  (if  
Gene  Name Ortholog/Homolog Meiotic  Role
inferred) known)
Recruited  to  the  short  arm  of    Loss  impairs  chromosome  segregation  at  meiosis  I;  phosphorylates  REC-­‐8  in  vitro.  
air-­‐2 Aurora/IPL  Kinase Kinase
diakinesis  bivalents (5.1)
Interaction  with  Calmodulin  and   Required  for  proper  spindle  assembly  in  oocytes  and  to  promote  spindle  rotation  in  a  
aspm-­‐1 ASPM Meiotic  spindles
microtubules complex  with  CMD-­‐1  and  LIN-­‐5.  (7)
Required  for  intersister  DSB  repair  (4.2.4);  mutation  results  in  high  levels  of  resected  
brc-­‐1 BRCA1 DNA  repair
ssDNA  and  massive  germline  apoptosis  (6.2).
Facilitates  nuclear  entry  of  RAD-­‐51,  loading  of  RAD-­‐51  on  ssDNA,  and  D  loop  formation  
brc-­‐2 BRCA2 DNA  repair (4.2.2).      Mutation  results  in  high  levels  of  resected  ssDNA  and  massive  germline  
apoptosis  (6.2).
Nuclear  localization  in  
mitotic  and  meiotic  prophase  
nuclei.  Asscociates  with  short    Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
capg-­‐1 hCAP-­‐G Condensin  I  complex arm  of  bivalants  during  late   frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).  Required  for  chromosome  
diakinesis  and  metaphase  I,   segregation  (5.2).
and  between  sister  
chromatids  at  metaphase  II
Decorates  chromatin  in  
capg-­‐2 hCAP-­‐G2 Condensin  II  complex diakinesis  oocytes  and  during   Required  for  chromosome  condensation  and  segregation.  (5.2)
metaphase  I  and  II
DNA  binding,  transciptional     DNA  damage  sensing,  involved  in  DNA  damage-­‐induced  apoptosis  in  the  germ  line.  
cep-­‐1 p53
activation (6.2)
Master  regulator  of  early  prophase  events.    Required  for  loading  of  autosomal  PC  
proteins  (ZIMs);  required  for  formation  of  SUN-­‐1  aggregates  (2.2).      Required  for  
chk-­‐2 CHK2 Kinase homolog  pairing  and  normal  loading  of  SC  in  early  prophase  (3.3.1).    Required  for  N-­‐
terminal  phosphorylation  of  SUN-­‐1  shortly  after  meiotic  entry  (6.1).    Required  for  DSB  
formation  and  loading  of  DSB-­‐1/2  (6.2).
Highly  identical  and  functionally  reduntant  with  COH-­‐4.    Loss  of  COH-­‐3  and  COH-­‐4  
Meiosis  specific  kleisin  subunit  
coh-­‐3 Rad21/Rec8 Chromosome  axes impairs  CO  formation  and    SC  assembly.  Loss  of  COH-­‐3,  COH-­‐4  and  REC-­‐8  causes  gross  
of  cohesin  complex
defects  in  sister  chromatid  cohesion  and  prevents  assembly  of  axial  elements.  (3.1)
Highly  identical  and  functionally  reduntant  with  COH-­‐3.    Loss  of  COH-­‐3  and  COH-­‐4  
Meiosis  specific  kleisin  subunit  
coh-­‐4 Rad21/Rec8 Chromosome  axes impairs  CO  formation  and    SC  assembly.  Loss  of  COH-­‐3,  COH-­‐4  and  REC-­‐8  causes  gross  
of  cohesin  complex
defects  in  sister  chromatid  cohesion  and  prevents  assembly  of  axial  elements.  (3.1)
Promotes  processing  of  SPO-­‐11  DSBs  to  facilitate  RAD-­‐51  loading;  suppresses  NHEJ.    
com-­‐1 CtlP  /  Sae2 DNA  repair;  resection  of  DSBs
(4.2.1)
 Late  pachytene  -­‐  one  focus  
per  chromosome  pair      Designates  recombination  intermediates  for  CO  formation;  required  for  CO  
cosa-­‐1 CTND1 CO  designation
(presumed  to  mark  CO   formation.  (4.2.3)
position)
Localizes  to  meiotic  nuclei   Required  to  promote  normal  loading  of  SC  proteins  (3.3.1)  and  for  regulation  of  
cra-­‐1 NAA25 N(alpha)-­‐acetyltransferase
throughout  prophase histone  acetylation  and  DSB  formation  (4.1).
Promotes  mitotic  proliferation  in  the  distal  germ  line.    Negatively  regulated  in  meiotic  
cye-­‐1 CCNE1 E-­‐type  cyclin
cells  by  PROM-­‐1  ubiquitin  ligase.  (6.3)
Nuclear  localization  in  
mitotic  and  meiotic  prophase  
 Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
nuclei.  Associates  with  short  
dpy-­‐26 hCAP-­‐H Condensin  I  complex frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).  Required  for  chromosome  
arm  of  metaphase  I  bivalents  
segregation  (5.2).
and  between  sister  
chromatids  at  metaphase  II

Nuclear  localization  in  

mitotic  and  meiotic  prophase    Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
nuclei.  Associates  with  short   frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).  Homozygous  mutants  of  
dpy-­‐28 hCAP-­‐D2 Condensin  I  complex
arm  of  metaphase  I  bivalents   hypomorph  allele  show  changes  in  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs  without  altering  CO  
and  between  sister   frequency  (4.3).  Required  for  chromosome  segregation  (5.2).
chromatids  at  metaphase  II
Localizes  to  chromatin  in   Involved  in  DSB  formation;  regulates  competence  for  DSB  formation  (4.1).    Localizes  to  
dsb-­‐1 transition  zone  and  early   chromosomes,  dependent  on  CHK-­‐2.    Localization  prolonged  in  synapsis  or  
pachytene  nuclei recombination  mutants;  suggests  a  role  in  maintenance  of  DSB-­‐permissive  state  (6.2).
Involved  in  DSB  formation;  regulates  competence  for  DSB  formation  (4.1).      Localizes  
Localizes  to  chromatin  in   to  chromosomes,  dependent  on  CHK-­‐2.    Localization  prolonged  in  synapsis  or  
dsb-­‐2 transition  zone  and  early   recombination  mutants;  suggests  a  role  in  maintenance  of  DSB-­‐permissive  state.  Loss  
pachytene  nuclei of  DSB-­‐2  from  chromosomes  may  correlate  with  switch  from  homolog  to  sister  repair  
(6.2).
egl-­‐1 Positive  regulation  of  apoptosis Positive  regulator  of  apoptosis.  (6.2)
exo-­‐1 exo1 DNA  repair;  exonuclease Involved  in  resection  of  meiotic  DSBs.  (4.2.1)
Mutations  result  in  high  levels  of  resected  ssDNA  and  massive  germline  apoptosis.  
fcd-­‐2 FANCD2 DNA  repair
(6.2)
Antagonizes  AIR-­‐2  recruitment  to  chromosomes  and  physically  interacts  with  LAB-­‐1;  
gsp-­‐2 PP1CA Protein  Phosphatase  I
loss  leads  to  premature  sister  chromatid  separation  at  Anaphase  I.  (5.1)
 Molecular  Function  (known  or    Subcellular  Localization  (if  
Gene  Name Ortholog/Homolog Meiotic  Role
inferred) known)
Promotes  homolog  pairing,  prevents  inappropriate  loading  of  SYP  proteins;  required  
Localized  to  the  nucleoplasm  
hal-­‐2 for  DSB  formation;  required  for  mechanism  that  couples  cessation  of  chromosome  
in  all  germline  nuclei.
movement  with  SC  assembly  .  (3.3.1)
Associates  with  chromatin  
hcp-­‐6 hCAP-­‐D3 Condensin  II  complex from  diplotene,  persisting   Required  for  chromosome  condensation  and  segregation.  (5.2)
during  metaphase  I  and  II
Promotes  RAD-­‐51  turnover  (removal  of  RAD-­‐51  from  D  loops);  redundant  with  RFS-­‐1.  
helq-­‐1 HELQ DNA  repair;  helicase
(4.2.2)
HORMA  domain  flanked  by  short  N-­‐  and  C-­‐  termini;  required  for  homolog  recognition.  
Promotes  use  of  homolog  as  DSB  repair  template;  absence  leads  to  dramatic  
HORMA-­‐domain  protein;   Localizes  to  axial  elements  
him-­‐3 HORMAD1;  Hop1   reduction  in  SC.    Required  to  prevent  premature  centriole  disengagement  in  
Component  of  chromosome  axis throughout  meiotic  prophase
spermatocyte  meiosis  II  (3.2.)  Non-­‐null  mutations  can  affect  chromosome  axis  
integrity  and  regulation  of  meiotic  recombination  (4.5).
Required  for  normal  DSB  formation  on  X  chromosomes.  mutation  reduces  DSB  levels  4-­‐
Localizes  to  autosomes  from  
fold,  but  only  X  typically  lacks  CO.    Required  for  normal  distribution  of  COs  genome-­‐
him-­‐5 promotion  of  DSB  formation mitotic  region  through  late  
wide  (4.1,  4.3,  4.4).  In  absence,  chromosome  clustering/mobility  extended  and  meiotic  
pachytene
progression  delayed  (6.2).
DNA  repair;  Holliday  junction   Resolvase  activity  (in  conjunction  with  XPF-­‐1).  Thought  to  enforce  crossover-­‐biased  
him-­‐6 BLM;  RecQ
resolvase resolution  of  CO-­‐designated  intermediates  (4.2.5)
X  chromosome  pairing  and   Required  for  homolog  alignment  and  synapsis  of  X.  Recruitment  site  for  polo-­‐like  
him-­‐8 Binds  X  pairing  center
synapsis kinases  PLK-­‐2/PLK-­‐1  (2.2,  3.3).
Localizes  to  chromatin   Mutants  accumulate  aberrant  histone  modifications  and  display  impaired  DSB  
him-­‐17 promotion  of  DSB  formation
throughout  the  germ  line formation.    Required  for  HIM-­‐5  localization  to  chromosomes.  (4.1,  4.3)
DNA  repair;  Holliday  junction  
him-­‐18 SLX4 Scaffold  for  resolvases.  (4.2.5)
resolution
him-­‐19 Involved  in  homolog  recognition,  defects  in  him-­‐19  mutans  worsen  with  age.    (2.3)
DNA  damage  sensing;  9-­‐1-­‐1   DNA  damage  sensing,  involved  in  DNA  damage-­‐induced  apoptosis  in  the  germ  line.  
hpr-­‐9 RAD9
complex (6.2)
Localizes  to  axial  elements  
HORMA  domain  flanked  by  short  N-­‐  and  C-­‐  termini.    82%  identical  to  HTP-­‐2.  Required  
throughout  meiotic  
for  homolog  recognition,  to  prevent  non-­‐homologous  synapsis  and  for  CO  formation.  
prophase,  but  becomes  
Promotes  use  of  homolog  as  DSB  repair  template  (3.2).  Together  with  HTP-­‐2  required  
HORMAD1;  Hop1   HORMA-­‐domain  protein;   restricted  to  the  long  arms  of  
htp-­‐1 for  regulated  cohesion  release  during  meiotic  divisions  (5.1)  and  to  prevent  premature  
(yeast) Component  of  chromosome  axis bivalents  during  late  
centriole  disengagement  during  meiosis  II  in  spermatogenesis  (3.2).  Thought  to  help  
pachytene.  Large  pool  also  
generate  inhibitory  signal  that  blocks  zygotene  exit  until  all  homologous  pairs  have  SC  
present  as  nuclear  soluble  
installed  (6.1).  
protein.
Localizes  to  axial  elements  
HORMA  domain  flanked  by  short  N-­‐  and  C-­‐  termini.  82%  identical  to  HTP-­‐1;  largely  
throughout  meiotic  
redundant  with  HTP-­‐1.  Loss  of  HTP-­‐2  does  not  affect  pairing  or  CO  formation  (3.2).  
HORMAD1;  Hop1   HORMA-­‐domain  protein;   prophase,  but  becomes  
htp-­‐2 Together  with  HTP-­‐1  required  for  regulated  cohesion  release  during  meiotic  divisions  
(yeast) Component  of  chromosome  axis restricted  to  the  long  arms  of  
(5.1)  and  to  prevent  premature  centriole  disengagement  during  meiosis  II  in  
bivalents  during  late  
spermatogenesis  (3.2).
pachytene.
HORMA  domain  flanked  by  short  N-­‐terminus  and  long  C-­‐terminus.    Component  of  
Localizes  to  nuclei  in  the  
meiotic  chromosome  axis,  required  for  efficient  DSB  induction.    Required  for  loading  
mitotic  comportmnet  of  the  
HORMAD1;  Hop1   HORMA-­‐domain  protein;   of  HIM-­‐3,  HTP-­‐1/2    and  REC-­‐8  cohesin,  for  SC  assembly,  and  for  acquisition  of  
htp-­‐3 germ  line.  Localizes  to  axial  
(yeast) Component  of  chromosome  axis posttranslational  modifications  on  axis-­‐associated  chromatin.  (3.2,  3.3).    Promotes  
elements  throughout  meiotic  
DSB  formation  (4.1).  Antagonizes  separation  of  axial  elements  in  early-­‐mid  pachytene  
prophase
(4.6).
DNA  damage  sensing;  9-­‐1-­‐1   Localizes  to  chromatin   DNA  damage  sensing,  involved  in  DNA  damage-­‐induced  apoptosis  in  the  germ  line.  
hus-­‐1 HUS1
complex following  DNA  damage (6.2)
Decorates  chromatin  in    Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
kle-­‐2 hCAP-­‐H2 Condensin  II  complex diakinesis  oocytes  and  during   frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).    Required  for  chromosome  
metaphase  I  and  II condensation  and  segregation.  (5.2)
Meiotic  spindles;  higher  
klp-­‐18 Kinesin concentration  at  spindle   Required  for  assembly  of  acentrosomal  spindles  in  oocytes.  (7)
poles
Forms  ring-­‐like  structure  
around  mid-­‐bivalent  region  
in  meiosis  I,  and  around    Mediates  chromosome  anti-­‐poleward  chromosome  movement  via  lateral  
klp-­‐19 Chromokinesin
region  of  remaining  contact   microtubules.  (7)
between  sister  chromatids  in  
meiosis  II
Associates  with  axial   Axial  element  component.  Targets  phosphatase  1  (GSP-­‐2)  to  chromosomes  and  
elements  and  becomes   antagonizes  AIR-­‐2  recruitment  (5.1).  Required  for  full  SC  assembly  and  for  normal  
lab-­‐1 Targets  GSP-­‐2  to  chromosomes
restricted  to  the  long  arms  of   sister  chromatid  cohesion  (3.1,  3.3.1).  Regulates  release  of  sister  chromatid  cohesion  
diakinesis  bivalents during  the  first  meiotic  division  (5.1).  
Present,  mostly  in  cytoplasm,    
Coordinates  oocyte  growth  with  meiotic  maturation.  Required  to  prevent  premature  
lin-­‐41 Translational  represor from  mid  pachytene  until  
entrance  into  M  phase.  (6.3)
oocyte  maturation
Spindles  and  chromosomes   With  MEI-­‐2  forms  the  katanin  microtubule  severing  complex.  Required  for  proper  
mei-­‐1   KATNAL1 Microtubule  severing
during  the  meiotic  divisions assembly  and  positioning  of  meiotic  spindle  in  oocytes.  (7)  
Localizes  in  the  cytoplasm  of  
late  diakinesis  oocytes  and  to     With  MEI-­‐1  forms  the  katanin  microtubule  severing  complex.  Required  for  proper  
mei-­‐2 Microtubule  severing
spindles  and  chromatin   assembly  and  positioning  of  meiotic  spindle  in  oocytes.  (7)  
during  meiotic  divisions  
 Molecular  Function  (known  or    Subcellular  Localization  (if  
Gene  Name Ortholog/Homolog Meiotic  Role
inferred) known)
Localizes  to  autosomes  in  
mes-­‐4 WHSC1;  SETDB1 Histone  methyltransferase mitotic  region,  late   Involved  in  monitoring  synapsis  of  autosomes  and  X  chromosomes.  (6.1)
pachytene,  and  oocytes
Associates  with  chromatin  
from  diplotene  (condensin  
II),  and  with  the  short  arm  of    Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
mix-­‐1 SMC2 Condensin  I  and  II  complexes metaphase  I    bivalents  and   frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).  Required  for  chromosome  
between  sister  chomatids   condensation  and  segregation  (5.2).
during  metaphase  II  
(condensin  I)
met-­‐1 SETD2 Histone  methyltransferase Involved  in  monitoring  synapsis  of  autosomes.  (6.1)
met-­‐2 SETDB1 Histone  methyltransferase Shields  univalent  X  in  males  from  synapsis  checkpoint.    (6.1)
Phosphorylated  form  (active)   Required  for  progression  to  late  pachytene;  mutants  never  enter  diplotene-­‐like  state.    
mpk-­‐1 ERK MAP  kinase
present  in  mid  pachytene Regulates  transition  in  mode  of  DSB  repair.  (6.3)
DNA  repair.  Nuclease;  forms   Required  for  efficient  formation  of  meiotic  DSBs  and  for  RAD-­‐51  loading  to  SPO-­‐11  
mre-­‐11 MRE11A
complex  with  RAD-­‐50 DSBs  (4.1,  4.2.1).
Chromodomain  
mrg-­‐1 Localizes  to  autosomes Plays  a  role  in  non-­‐pairing  center  mediated  homolog  alignment.  (2.2)
protein
Early  pachytene  -­‐  multiple  
foci  per  chromosome.    Late  
msh-­‐4  (him-­‐ Forms  a  heterodimer  with  MSH-­‐5.    Stabilizes  CO  intermediates  to  promote  CO  
MSH4 DNA  repair;  CO  designation   pachytene,  one  focus  per  
14) outcomes  (4.2.3).  Required  for  induction  of  apoptosis    (6.2).
chromsome  (presumed  to  
mark  CO  position)
Early  pachytene  -­‐  multiple  
foci  per  chromosome.    Late  
Forms  a  heterodimer  with  MSH-­‐4.    Stabilizes  CO  intermediates  to  promote  CO  
msh-­‐5 MSH5 DNA  repair;  CO  designation   pachytene,  one  focus  per  
outcomes  (4.2.3).  Required  for  induction  of  apoptosis    (6.2).
chromsome  (presumed  to  
mark  CO  position)
DNA  repair;  Holliday  junction  
mus-­‐81 MUS81 Resolvase  activity  (in  conjunction  with  SLX-­‐1).  (4.2.5)
resolvase
Forms  foci  in  germline  nuclei  
before  transition  zone,  and   Restricts  SC  assembly:  SC  assembly  accelerated  in  mutants  (3.3.1).    Required  for  
pch-­‐2 TRIP13 AAA-­‐ATPase
SC-­‐like  tracks  during   induction  of  apoptosis  when  synapsis  fails  (6.1).
pachytene
Localizes  to  pairing  centers,   Can  partially  replace  meiotic  functions  of  PLK-­‐2  in  promoting  pairing  and  SC  assembly.  
plk-­‐1 PLK1 Polo-­‐like  kinase
specially  in  absence  of  PLK-­‐2 (2.2)
Induces  nuclear  envelope  reorganization;  SUN-­‐1  and  ZYG-­‐12  relocate  into  aggregates  
Localizes  to  pairing  centers  in  
at  clustered  PC  ends  of  chromosomes.    Required  for  N-­‐terminal  phosphorylation  of  
plk-­‐2 PLK1 Polo-­‐like  kinase early  pachytene  and  to  the  
SUN-­‐1  shortly  after  meiotic  entry  (2.2).  Involved  in  feedback  loop  to  sustain  
SC  in  mid  pachytene
chromosome  end-­‐led  mobility  until  completion  of  synapsis  (6.1).
Required  for  homolog  pairing,  normal  assembly  of  SC,  DSB  repair;  involved  in  
prom-­‐1 FBXO47 F-­‐box  protein
degradation  of  CYE-­‐1.  (6.3)
DNA  damage  sensing;  9-­‐1-­‐1   DNA  damage  sensing,  involved  in  DNA  damage-­‐induced  apoptosis  in  the  germ  line.  
mrt-­‐2 RAD1
complex (6.2)
Required  for  formation  and  repair  of  meiotic  DSBs  (4.1,  4.2.1).  Required  for  RAD-­‐51  
DNA  repair;  forms  complex  with   loading  to  DSBs  (and  interholog  CO  formation)  (4.2.1),  but  only  in  early  to  mid-­‐
rad-­‐50 RAD50
MRE-­‐11 pachytene;  in  late  pachytene,  RAD-­‐50  is  not  required  for  repair  (which  is  preferentially  
targeted  to  sister)  (4.6,    6.3).
DNA  repair;  catalyzes  strand   Promotes  DNA  strand  invasion  (4.2.1,  4.2.2,  4.6).    Mutation  results  in  high  levels  of  
rad-­‐51 Rad51;  DMC1 Localizes  to  sites  of  DSBs
invasion resected  ssDNA  and  massive  germline  apoptosis  (6.2).
DNA  repair;  DEAD-­‐like  helicase   Promotes  removal  of  RAD-­‐51  from  recombination  intermediates  (4.2.2).  Mutation  
rad-­‐54 Rad54
family traps  DSBR  intermediates    as  RAD-­‐51  filaments  (4.3).
rec-­‐1 Required  for  normal  distribution  of  COs  (but  not  frequency).  (4.3)
Required  for  CO  formation  and  to  prevent  SC  formation  between  sister  chromatids  
(3.1).  Loss  of  REC-­‐8,  COH-­‐3  and  COH-­‐4  impairs  axial  element  assembly  and  causes  
gross  defects  in  sister  chromatid  cohesion    (3.1).  Regulated  REC-­‐8  removal  during  late  
Meiosis  specific  kleisin  subunit  
rec-­‐8 Rec8 Chromosome  axes prophase  and  metaphase  I  required  for  two  step-­‐release  of  cohesion  (5.1).  Required  
of  cohesin  complex
for  mono-­‐orientation  of  sister  chromatids  on  the  first  meiotic  spindle  (7).  Required  to  
prevent  premature  centriole  disengagement  during  meiosis  II  in  spermatogenesis  
(3.2).
DNA  repair;  interacts  with  RAD-­‐ RAD-­‐51  paralog;  Promotes  RAD-­‐51  turnover  (removal  of  RAD-­‐51);  redundant  with  helq-­‐
rfs-­‐1 RAD51C
51 1  (4.2.2).
DNA  repair;  single-­‐strand  
rpa-­‐1 RPA1 Binds  to  ssDNA  at  DSB  sites  in  brc-­‐2  mutants;  may  also  bind  in  WT.  (4.2.2)
binding  protein
Anti-­‐recombinase:  disrupts  D  loops  in  vitro,  promotes  alternative  forms  of  repair  
rtel-­‐1 RTEL1 DNA  repair;  DNA  helicase
(most  likely  SDSA;  shunts  a  subset  of  DSBR  intermediates  into  NCO  repair)  (4.2.2,  4.3).
scc-­‐2 SCC2 Cohesin  loader Mutants  fail  to  load  to  cohesin  and  to  assemble  axial  elements  and  the  SC.  (3.1)
Common  to  all  cohesin  complexes.    Required  for  loading  of  axial  element  and  SC  
scc-­‐3 SCC3 Cohesin  component Chromosome  axes
components.  (3.1)
DNA  repair;  Holliday  junction   Resolvase  activity  (in  conjunction  with  MUS-­‐81)  (4.2.5).    Inhibits  CO  formation  in  the  
slx-­‐1 SLX1
resolution central  gene  clusters  of  autosomes  (4.3).
Common  to  all  cohesin  complexes.    Required  for  loading  of  axial  elements  and  SC  
smc-­‐1 SMC1 Cohesin  component Chromosome  axes
components.  (3.1)
 Molecular  Function  (known  or    Subcellular  Localization  (if  
Gene  Name Ortholog/Homolog Meiotic  Role
inferred) known)
Common  to  all  cohesin  complexes.  Hypomorph  allele  causes  reduction  in  axis-­‐
smc-­‐3 SMC3 Cohesin  component Chromosome  axes
associated  cohesin  (3.1).
Associates  with  chromatin  
from  diplotene  (condensin  
II),  and  with  the  short  arm  of    Heterozygous  null  mutants  show  altered  distribution  of  DSBs  and  COs,  increased  CO  
smc-­‐4 SMC4 Condensin  I  and  II  complexes metaphase  I    bivalents  and   frequencies,  and  increased  pachytene  axis  length  (4.3).  Required  for  chromosome  
between  sister  chomatids   condensation  and  segregation  (5.2).
during  metaphase  II  
(condensin  I)
smc-­‐5 SMC5 Forms  complex  with  SMC-­‐6 Involved  in  intersister  DSB  repair  and/or  interhomolog  NCO  repair.  (4.2.4)
smc-­‐6 SMC6 Forms  complex  with  SMC-­‐5 Involved  in  intersister  DSB  repair  and/or  interhomolog  NCO  repair.  (4.2.4)
Required  for  normal  chromosome  movements  during  meiosis;  mutation  results  in  non-­‐
spd-­‐3 Mitochondrial
homologous  synapsis.  (2.3)
spo-­‐11 SPO11 Formation  of  meiotic  DSBs Catalyzes  formation  of  meiotic  double-­‐strand  breaks  (2.2,  4.1,  4.4).    

Binds  lamins  and  KASH  domain  proteins  forming  aggregates  in  transition  zone  nuclei  
Transmembrane  protein,   Nuclear  envelope,  forms   at  sites  of  chromosome  attachment.    Required  for  homolog  pairing  and  recombination  
sun-­‐1 SUN-­‐domain  family interaction  with  KASH-­‐domain   aggregates  in  transition  zone   (2.2).    Shows  CHK-­‐2  and  PLK-­‐2  -­‐  dependent  phosphorylation  at  N  terminus  during  
proteins nuclei leptone-­‐zygotene.  Phospho-­‐SUN-­‐1  required  for  normal  rate  of  SC  assembly  (slower  in  
absence)  and  to  sustain  PLK-­‐2  recruitment  to  chromosome  ends  (6.1,  6.2).  Phospho  
SUN-­‐1  persists  into  pachytene  in  absence  of  DSBs  or  CO  intermediates    (6.2).
Structural  component  of  synaptonemal  complex  required  for  loading  of  other  SYPs  
Localizes  along  
Synaptonemal  Complex  central   and  for  CO  formation.    Stabilizes  interhomolog  interactions  during  pachytene;  
syp-­‐1 chromosomes  during  
region  component promotes  interhomolog  DSB  repair  and  normal  meiotic  progression  (3.3,  6.1).  Partial  
prophase  I
depletion  alters  CO  distribution    (4.5).
Localizes  along   Structural  component  of  synaptonemal  complex  required  for  loading  of  other  SYPs  
Synaptonemal  Complex  central  
syp-­‐2 chromosomes  during   and  for  CO  formation.    Stabilizes  interhomolog  interactions  during  pachytene;  
region  component
prophase  I promotes  interhomolog  DSB  repair  and  normal  meiotic  progression  (3.3,  6.1).
Structural  component  of  synaptonemal  complex  required  for  loading  of  other  SYPs  
Localizes  along   and  for  CO  formation.    Stabilizes  interhomolog  interactions  during  pachytene;  
Synaptonemal  Complex  central  
syp-­‐3 chromosomes  during   promotes  interhomolog  DSB  repair  and  normal  meiotic  progression  (3.3,  6.1).  May  
region  component
prophase  I interact  directly  with  axis  components  (3.3).  Allele  syp-­‐3(me42)  leads  to  SC  assembly  
between  sisters    (6.1).
Structural  component  of  synaptonemal  complex  required  for  loading  of  other  SYPs  
Localizes  along  
Synaptonemal  Complex  central   and  for  CO  formation.    Stabilizes  interhomolog  interactions  during  pachytene;  
syp-­‐4 chromosomes  during  
region  component promotes  interhomolog  DSB  repair  and  normal  meiotic  progression  (3.3,  6.1).  
prophase  I
Interacts  with  SYP-­‐3,  spans  into  center  of  SC  (3.3).
Nuclear  localization  in  
mitotic  compartment  of  the  
tim-­‐1 TIMELESS Cohesin  loading Required  for  loading  of  REC-­‐8  cohesin  complexes.  (3.1)
germ  line  and  in  diplotene  
and  diakinesis  oocytes
unc-­‐116 Kinesin  1 Kinesin Required  for  translocation  of  the  oocyte  spindle  to  the  cortex  of  the  embryo.  (7)
localizes  to  autosomes  from   Required  for  subset  of  DSBs  (mostly  on  X)  (4.1).    Mutants  accumulate  aberrant  histone  
xnd-­‐1 AT-­‐hook  containing  protein mitotic  region  through  late   modifications,  and  result  in  impaired  DSB  formation.    Required  for  HIM-­‐5  localization  
pachytene to  chromosomes  (4.3).
DNA  repair;  Nuclear  Excision  
xpf-­‐1 ERCC4 Resolvase  activity  (in  conjunction  with  HIM-­‐6).  (4.2.5)
Repair
Early  pachytene  -­‐  broadly  
distributed  along  SC.  End  of  
Required  for  CO  formation,  role  in  stabilizing  CO-­‐fated  intermediates  (4.2.3).    Also  
RING  finger  protein;  possible   pachytene,  diplotene  -­‐  one  
zhp-­‐3 RNF212;  Zip3  (yeast) required  for  induction  of  apoptosis  irrespective  of  DNA  damage  checkpoint  activation  
SUMO  ligase focus  per  chromosome  pair  
(6.2).    
(presumed  to  mark  CO  
position)
Pairing  center  of   Required  for  homolog  alignment  and  synapsis  of  II  and  III.    Binds  to  PC  ends  only  from  
zim-­‐1 Zinc-­‐finger  protein chromosomes  II  and  III  in   leptotene  to  early  pachytene.    Localization  depends  on  CHK-­‐2.    Recruitment  site  for  
early  prophase  nuclei polo-­‐like  kinases  PLK-­‐2/PLK-­‐1.  (2.2)
Pairing  center  of   Required  for  homolog  alignment  and  synapsis  of  V.    Binds  to  PC  ends  only  from  
zim-­‐2 Zinc-­‐finger  protein chromosome  V  in  early   leptotene  to  early  pachytene.    Localization  depends  on  CHK-­‐2.    Recruitment  site  for  
prophase  nuclei polo-­‐like  kinases  PLK-­‐2/PLK-­‐1.  (2.2)
Pairing  center  of   Required  for  homolog  alignment  and  synapsis  of  I  and  IV.    Binds  to  PC  ends  only  from  
zim-­‐3 Zinc-­‐finger  protein chromosomes  I  and  IV  in   leptotene  to  early  pachytene.    Localization  depends  on  CHK-­‐2.    Recruitment  site  for  
early  prophase  nuclei polo-­‐like  kinases  PLK-­‐2/PLK-­‐1.  (2.2)
Interacts  with  SUN-­‐1  in  nuclear   Nuclear  envelope,  forms   Connects  nucleus  to  cytoskeleton  (via  dynein).    Binds  SUN-­‐1.    Required  for  homolog  
zyg-­‐12 KASH-­‐domain  family envelope-­‐spanning  protein   aggregates  in  transition  zone   pairing  and  recombination  (2.2).    Recruits  Dynein  motor  complex  to  cytoplasmic  side  
complex nuclei of  SUN-­‐1/ZYG-­‐12  aggregates  in  leptotene/zygotene;  facilitates  proper  synapsis  (2.3).
Figure 1: Diagram of meiotic events during oogenesis in the C. elegans germ line.
For simplicity, a single pair of homologous chromosomes is shown. DNA replication
occurs at the onset of meiosis. During the transition zone in early meiotic prophase
(leptotene and zygotene), homologue pairing is achieved and DSBs are formed. By
early pachytene, synaptonemal complex assembly is completed, and by late pachytene,
the process of homologous recombination leads to the formation of inter-homolog
crossover events. Following synaptonemal complex disassembly during late prophase,
homologous chromosomes remain linked by chiasmata, physical attachments provided
by crossovers in combination with sister chromatid cohesion. In the first meiotic division
parental homologs are disjoined to reduce ploidy to the haploid state, and in the second
division, sister chromatids are disjoined. Recombination leads to genetic exchange as
indicated by the different coloring of the chromosomes. Note: during oocyte meiosis,
one of the two end products of each division gets extruded as a polar body.
  
 
 
 
Figure 2: The hermaphrodite germ line contains a complete time course of
meiotic prophase. Projection of a dissected, three-dimensionally intact, hermaphrodite
germ line stained with DAPI to visualize chromatin. Stages of meiotic prophase and
magnification of a representative nucleus of each meiotic prophase stage are depicted
below the germ line. White lines indicate boundaries between germline regions
containing nuclei at indicated stages of meiotic prophase. Left end of the germ line
contains a compartment of mitotically proliferating cells, followed by nuclei undergoing
meiotic DNA replication (meiotic entrance). The transition zone contains nuclei in
leptotene/ zygotene, with chromatin tightly clustered in one half of the nucleus, giving a
characteristic half-moon shape appearance. As nuclei move from the transition zone
into the pachytene region, paired and aligned homologous chromosomes can be seen
distributed around the periphery of each nucleus. Diplotene is characterized by
chromatin condensation; at this stage, bivalents (pairs of homologous of chromosomes
attached by chiasmata) become visible as 6 separate chromatin structures.
Chromosome condensation continues during diakinesis, when the 6 bivalents can be
easily visualized within the nucleus. Nuclei move down the gonad tube, transitioning
between the stages described above with a speed of approximately one cell row per
hour. Inset nuclei from the various stages of prophase I are shown to scale with each
other.
 

 
  
 
Figure 3: Chromosome movements and homolog pairing during early prophase I.
(A) Model depicting the attachment of chromosomes to the nuclear envelope and their
movement in transition zone nuclei. Model shows two pairs of homologous
chromosomes (one pair depicted in black and a second pair depicted in brown) with
their pairing center-bearing region associated with the nuclear envelope. See key on
figure for molecular components. Inset on the left hand side of the panel shows a
detailed model of the attachment site of a single chromosome. When chromosomes
enter the transition zone they are connected to the nuclear envelope via interactions
between pairing center-associated proteins (PC proteins) and a nuclear envelope-
spanning SUN/KASH protein complex. Microtubule-mediated forces in the cytoplasm
result in movement of these SUN/KASH complexes, causing movement of attached
chromosome ends. Chromosome ends move vigorously, and tend to come together into
local clusters (presumably to allow homology between adjacent chromosomes to be
assessed). When homologs have identified each other and initiated pairing, the
synaptonemal complex (depicted as thin black lines connecting the homologs) is
established. Both synapsed and unsynapsed chromosomes continue to move until all
chromosomes are synapsed. (B) Diagram showing the position of the pairing center
region (grey boxes) on each chromosome and the pairing center-binding proteins that
load to each chromosome.

 
  
 
 
Figure 4. Structure of the synaptonemal complex. (A) TEM images of nuclei from
the late pachytene regions of a wild-type germ line (reproduced with permission from
Colaiácovo et al., 2003: PMID 12967565). (A’) Equatorial section of a wild-type
pachytene nucleus containing a very long continuous stretch of SC, visible as a zipper-
like track flanked by electron-dense patches of chromatin; the large dark body centered
in the upper half of the panel is the nucleolus. (B’) Detail of SC structure from a different
wild-type nucleus. Scale bars equal 500 nm. (B) Diagram of SC structure assembled
between a pair of homologous chromosomes. Note that each homolog (depicted as a
pair of closely associated sister chromatids) assembles an axial element (red), and that
central region components (green) link together homologous axial elements. (C)
Projections of pachytene nuclei stained with anti-HIM-3 and anti-SYP-1 antibodies,
counterstained with DAPI and imaged with a DeltaVision system. Note that axial
elements from the homologs can not be resolved as two separate structures since the
distance between them (<100 nm) is below the resolution of conventional fluorescence
microscopy (200 nm). Scale bar equals 5 µm.
 

 
  
 
Figure 5. Model depicting the key events of meiotic recombination. Homologous
chromosomes are represented in red and blue, and the two sister chromatids of each
homolog are represented as pairs of double stranded DNA molecules indicated by two
parallel lines in close proximity. Proteins required for specific steps of meiotic
recombination are indicated on the left and right hand side of the diagram. Note that the
existence of some of the recombination intermediates represented in this diagram has
not been directly demonstrated in C. elegans, but are inferred from studies in yeast. The
molecular events of recombination are represented in temporal progression starting at
the top of the diagram with the formation of a DSB by SPO-11 in a single chromatid of
one of the homologs. Resection of DNA ends and RAD-51 loading promote the invasion
of a chromatid from the homologous chromosome, the formation of a D loop and the
start of DNA synthesis. These intermediates can be destabilized by the activity of RTEL-
1, which leads to repair as non-crossover products, or they can be stabilized by
crossover promoting factors that promote the formation of double Holliday junctions.
Note that although MSH-4, MSH-5, ZHP-3 and COSA-1 are all required for crossover
formation and eventually become associated with crossover-fated recombination
events, there are clear differences in the timing of loading of these proteins that are not
depicted on this model (see Section 4.2.3 for a detailed description). The asymmetric
cleavage of double Holliday junctions by different endonucleases promotes the
formation of inter-homolog crossover events.

 
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Asymmetric re-distribution of SC components during bivalent
differentiation. Top row shows projections of individual bivalents taken from nuclei at
the indicated stages and stained with anti-HTP-1/2 and anti-SYP-1 antibodies and
counterstained with DAPI. The bottom row shows a diagram of the process of bivalent
differentiation. During pachytene HTP-1/2 and SYP-1 colocalize along the whole length
of fully synapsed bivalents, but by late pachytene HTP-1/2 and SYP-1 acquire a
reciprocal staining pattern, with a CO (or a CO-fated event) marking the boundary of the
two domains. SC disassembly and chromosome condensation start during diplotene,
when the regions lacking SYP proteins become separated. By diakinesis, bivalents
undergo further condensation and the long arms, containing HTP-1/2, and short arms,
containing SYP-1, are clearly differentiated. For a detailed description of bivalent
differentiation see section 5.1.