Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Microtubule-driven nuclear rotations promote meiotic chromosome dynamics

Abstract

At the onset of meiosis, each chromosome needs to find its homologue and pair to ensure proper segregation. In Drosophila, pairing occurs during the mitotic cycles preceding meiosis. Here we show that germ cell nuclei undergo marked movements during this developmental window. We demonstrate that microtubules and Dynein are driving nuclear rotations and are required for centromere pairing and clustering. We further found that Klaroid (SUN) and Klarsicht (KASH) co-localize with centromeres at the nuclear envelope and are required for proper chromosome motions and pairing. We identified Mud (NuMA in vertebrates) as co-localizing with centromeres, Klarsicht and Klaroid. Mud is also required to maintain the integrity of the nuclear envelope and for the correct assembly of the synaptonemal complex. Our findings reveal a mechanism for chromosome pairing in Drosophila, and indicate that microtubules, centrosomes and associated proteins play a crucial role in the dynamic organization of chromosomes inside the nucleus.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Centromeres and nuclei of 8-cell cysts exhibit a dynamic rotation behaviour.
Figure 2: Microtubules drive centromere movements.
Figure 3: sas-4, asl and Dynein loss of function affects centromere dynamics.
Figure 4: Microtubules, centrosomes and Dynein are required for centromere pairing in 8-cell cysts (8cc) and assembly of the synaptonemal complex.
Figure 5: Klarsicht and Klaroid are present near centromeres in the mitotic region and are differentially required for chromosome movements.
Figure 6: klarsicht and klaroid loss of function affects centromeric pairing in 8-cell cyst (8cc) and synaptonemal complex assembly in pachytene nuclei.
Figure 7: Mud associates with Klarsicht and Klaroid in 8-cell cysts close to centromeres, but is not required for chromosome movements.
Figure 8: mud plays a minor role in centromere pairing in the 8-cell cyst (8cc) but is required to maintain the nuclear envelope integrity and for the assembly of the synaptonemal complex.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhalla, N. & Dernburg, A. F. Prelude to a division. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 24, 397–424 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lake, C. M. & Hawley, R. S. The molecular control of meiotic chromosomal behavior: events in early meiotic prophase in Drosophila oocytes. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 74, 425–451 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Page, S. L. & Hawley, R. S. The genetics and molecular biology of the synaptonemal complex. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 20, 525–558 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Obeso, D., Pezza, R. J. & Dawson, D. Couples, pairs, and clusters: mechanisms and implications of centromere associations in meiosis. Chromosoma 123, 43–55 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsai, J. H. & McKee, B. D. Homologous pairing and the role of pairing centers in meiosis. J. Cell Sci. 124, 1955–1963 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gerton, J. L. & Hawley, R. S. Homologous chromosome interactions in meiosis: diversity amidst conservation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 477–487 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boateng, K. A., Bellani, M. A., Gregoretti, I. V., Pratto, F. & Camerini-Otero, R. D. Homologous pairing preceding SPO11-mediated double-strand breaks in mice. Dev. Cell 24, 196–205 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, P. W. et al. Meiotic synapsis proceeds from a limited number of subtelomeric sites in the human male. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 77, 556–566 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. MacQueen, A. J. et al. Chromosome sites play dual roles to establish homologous synapsis during meiosis in C. elegans. Cell 123, 1037–1050 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Takeo, S., Lake, C. M., Morais-de-Sa, E., Sunkel, C. E. & Hawley, R. S. Synaptonemal complex-dependent centromeric clustering and the initiation of synapsis in Drosophila oocytes. Curr. Biol. 21, 1845–1851 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanneti, N. S., Landy, K., Joyce, E. F. & McKim, K. S. A pathway for synapsis initiation during zygotene in Drosophila oocytes. Curr. Biol. 21, 1852–1857 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scherthan, H. A bouquet makes ends meet. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 621–627 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zickler, D. From early homologue recognition to synaptonemal complex formation. Chromosoma 115, 158–174 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zickler, D. & Kleckner, N. The leptotene–zygotene transition of meiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 32, 619–697 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baudrimont, A. et al. Leptotene/zygotene chromosome movement via the SUN/KASH protein bridge in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001219 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shibuya, H., Ishiguro, K. & Watanabe, Y. The TRF1-binding protein TERB1 promotes chromosome movement and telomere rigidity in meiosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 145–156 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Shibuya, H., Morimoto, A. & Watanabe, Y. The dissection of meiotic chromosome movement in mice using an in vivo electroporation technique. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004821 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee, C. Y. et al. Mechanism and regulation of rapid telomere prophase movements in mouse meiotic chromosomes. Cell Rep. 11, 551–563 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ding, D. Q., Chikashige, Y., Haraguchi, T. & Hiraoka, Y. Oscillatory nuclear movement in fission yeast meiotic prophase is driven by astral microtubules, as revealed by continuous observation of chromosomes and microtubules in living cells. J. Cell Sci. 111, 701–712 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Trelles-Sticken, E., Adelfalk, C., Loidl, J. & Scherthan, H. Meiotic telomere clustering requires actin for its formation and cohesin for its resolution. J. Cell Biol. 170, 213–223 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cahoon, C. K. & Hawley, R. S. Flies get a head start on meiosis. PLoS Genet. 9, e1004051 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Christophorou, N., Rubin, T. & Huynh, J. R. Synaptonemal complex components promote centromere pairing in pre-meiotic germ cells. PLoS Genet. 9, e1004012 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Joyce, E. F., Apostolopoulos, N., Beliveau, B. J. & Wu, C. T. Germline progenitors escape the widespread phenomenon of homolog pairing during Drosophila development. PLoS Genet. 9, e1004013 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Huynh, J. R. & St Johnston, D. The origin of asymmetry: early polarisation of the Drosophila germline cyst and oocyte. Curr. Biol. 14, R438–R449 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mathieu, J. et al. Aurora B and cyclin B have opposite effects on the timing of cytokinesis abscission in Drosophila germ cells and in vertebrate somatic cells. Dev. Cell 26, 250–265 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fichelson, P. et al. Live-imaging of single stem cells within their niche reveals that a U3snoRNP component segregates asymmetrically and is required for self-renewal in Drosophila. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 685–693 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huynh, J. R., Shulman, J. M., Benton, R. & St Johnston, D. PAR-1 is required for the maintenance of oocyte fate in Drosophila. Development 128, 1201–1209 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schuh, M., Lehner, C. F. & Heidmann, S. Incorporation of Drosophila CID/CENP-A and CENP-C into centromeres during early embryonic anaphase. Curr. Biol. 17, 237–243 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yoshida, M. et al. Microtubule-organizing center formation at telomeres induces meiotic telomere clustering. J. Cell Biol. 200, 385–395 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheehan, M. & Pawlowski, W. P. Live imaging of rapid chromosome movements in meiotic prophase I in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20989–20994 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bolivar, J. et al. Centrosome migration into the Drosophila oocyte is independent of BicD and egl, and of the organisation of the microtubule cytoskeleton. Development 128, 1889–1897 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Grieder, N. C., de Cuevas, M. & Spradling, A. C. The fusome organizes the microtubule network during oocyte differentiation in Drosophila. Development 127, 4253–4264 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Theurkauf, W. E. & Hazelrigg, T. I. In vivo analyses of cytoplasmic transport and cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis: characterization of a multi-step anterior localization pathway. Development 125, 3655–3666 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mahowald, A. P. & Strassheim, J. M. Intercellular migration of centrioles in the germarium of Drosophila melanogaster. An electron microscopic study. J. Cell Biol. 45, 306–320 (1970).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Stevens, N. R., Raposo, A. A., Basto, R., St Johnston, D. & Raff, J. W. From stem cell to embryo without centrioles. Curr. Biol. 17, 1498–1503 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Basto, R. et al. Flies without centrioles. Cell 125, 1375–1386 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Blachon, S. et al. Drosophila asterless and vertebrate Cep152 are orthologs essential for centriole duplication. Genetics 180, 2081–2094 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ni, J. Q. et al. A genome-scale shRNA resource for transgenic RNAi in Drosophila. Nat. Methods 8, 405–407 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hiraoka, Y. & Dernburg, A. F. The SUN rises on meiotic chromosome dynamics. Dev. Cell 17, 598–605 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rothballer, A. & Kutay, U. The diverse functional LINCs of the nuclear envelope to the cytoskeleton and chromatin. Chromosoma 122, 415–429 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Starr, D. A. & Fridolfsson, H. N. Interactions between nuclei and the cytoskeleton are mediated by SUN-KASH nuclear-envelope bridges. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 26, 421–444 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Tapley, E. C. & Starr, D. A. Connecting the nucleus to the cytoskeleton by SUN-KASH bridges across the nuclear envelope. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 25, 57–62 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kracklauer, M. P., Banks, S. M., Xie, X., Wu, Y. & Fischer, J. A. Drosophila klaroid encodes a SUN domain protein required for Klarsicht localization to the nuclear envelope and nuclear migration in the eye. Fly 1, 75–85 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kracklauer, M. P. et al. The Drosophila SUN protein Spag4 cooperates with the coiled-coil protein Yuri Gagarin to maintain association of the basal body and spermatid nucleus. J. Cell Sci. 123, 2763–2772 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Technau, M. & Roth, S. The Drosophila KASH domain proteins Msp-300 and Klarsicht and the SUN domain protein Klaroid have no essential function during oogenesis. Fly 2, 82–91 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fischer-Vize, J. A. & Mosley, K. L. Marbles mutants: uncoupling cell determination and nuclear migration in the developing Drosophila eye. Development 120, 2609–2618 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Volk, T. A new member of the spectrin superfamily may participate in the formation of embryonic muscle attachments in Drosophila. Development 116, 721–730 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yu, J. et al. The KASH domain protein MSP-300 plays an essential role in nuclear anchoring during Drosophila oogenesis. Dev. Biol. 289, 336–345 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mosley-Bishop, K. L., Li, Q., Patterson, L. & Fischer, J. A. Molecular analysis of the klarsicht gene and its role in nuclear migration within differentiating cells of the Drosophila eye. Curr. Biol. 9, 1211–1220 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jeffress, J. K. et al. The formation of the central element of the synaptonemal complex may occur by multiple mechanisms: the roles of the N- and C-terminal domains of the Drosophila C(3)G protein in mediating synapsis and recombination. Genetics 177, 2445–2456 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Bowman, S. K., Neumuller, R. A., Novatchkova, M., Du, Q. & Knoblich, J. A. The Drosophila NuMA homolog Mud regulates spindle orientation in asymmetric cell division. Dev. Cell 10, 731–742 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Izumi, Y., Ohta, N., Hisata, K., Raabe, T. & Matsuzaki, F. Drosophila Pins-binding protein Mud regulates spindle-polarity coupling and centrosome organization. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 586–593 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Merdes, A., Ramyar, K., Vechio, J. D. & Cleveland, D. W. A complex of NuMA and cytoplasmic dynein is essential for mitotic spindle assembly. Cell 87, 447–458 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nguyen-Ngoc, T., Afshar, K. & Gonczy, P. Coupling of cortical dynein and G alpha proteins mediates spindle positioning in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 1294–1302 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Siller, K. H., Cabernard, C. & Doe, C. Q. The NuMA-related Mud protein binds Pins and regulates spindle orientation in Drosophila neuroblasts. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 594–600 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yu, J. X., Guan, Z. & Nash, H. A. The mushroom body defect gene product is an essential component of the meiosis II spindle apparatus in Drosophila oocytes. Genetics 173, 243–253 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Page, S. L. & Hawley, R. S. c(3)G encodes a Drosophila synaptonemal complex protein. Genes Dev. 15, 3130–3143 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Page, S. L. et al. Corona is required for higher-order assembly of transverse filaments into full-length synaptonemal complex in Drosophila oocytes. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000194 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Paddock, S. W. & Albrecht-Buehler, G. The degree of coupling of nuclear rotation in binucleate 3T3 cells. Exp. Cell Res. 166, 113–126 (1986).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Paddock, S. W. & Albrecht-Buehler, G. Distribution of microfilament bundles during rotation of the nucleus in 3T3 cells treated with monensin. Exp. Cell Res. 163, 525–538 (1986).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pomerat, C. M. Rotating nuclei in tissue cultures of adult human nasal mucosa. Exp. Cell Res. 5, 191–196 (1953).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Szikora, S., Gaspar, I. & Szabad, J. ‘Poking’ microtubules bring about nuclear wriggling to position nuclei. J. Cell Sci. 126, 254–262 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Koszul, R. & Kleckner, N. Dynamic chromosome movements during meiosis: a way to eliminate unwanted connections? Trends Cell Biol. 19, 716–724 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Woglar, A. & Jantsch, V. Chromosome movement in meiosis I prophase of Caenorhabditis elegans. Chromosoma 123, 15–24 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sanchez, T., Chen, D. T., DeCamp, S. J., Heymann, M. & Dogic, Z. Spontaneous motion in hierarchically assembled active matter. Nature 491, 431–434 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhao, T., Graham, O. S., Raposo, A. & St Johnston, D. Growing microtubules push the oocyte nucleus to polarize the Drosophila dorsal–ventral axis. Science 336, 999–1003 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Cain, N. E., Tapley, E. C., McDonald, K. L., Cain, B. M. & Starr, D. A. The SUN protein UNC-84 is required only in force-bearing cells to maintain nuclear envelope architecture. J. Cell Biol. 206, 163–172 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Jauffred, B. et al. Regulation of centrosome movements by numb and the collapsin response mediator protein during Drosophila sensory progenitor asymmetric division. Development 140, 2657–2668 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gepner, J. et al. Cytoplasmic dynein function is essential in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 142, 865–878 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank F. Llense for observing that Mud co-localized with centromeres and E. Heard for suggesting ‘rolling’ nuclei. We are grateful to S. Roth (University of Cologne, Germany), M. Welte, J. Fischer and the Bloomington Stock centre for flies and reagents. We acknowledge great technical support from the PICT@BDD imaging platform. This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC EPIGENETIX No 250367). N.C. is supported by Institut Curie, FRM post-doctoral fellowship (SPF20111223331) and DEEP LabEx; T.R. is supported by an FRM Ingenieur Fellowship (no ING20140129247); the J.-R.H. laboratory is funded by CNRS, Ville de Paris, ANR and FSER (Schlumberger).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

N.C., T.R. and J.-R.H conceived and designed the experiments. N.C., T.R. and M.A. performed the experiments. N.C., T.R. and J.-R.H. analysed the data. I.B. conceived and performed centromere correlation analysis. T.P. performed SIM microscopy. J.-R.H. and N.C. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-René Huynh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1

(A) Mean nuclear volume for each cell stage in region 1 in Nup::GFP/+; CID::RFP/+ living germarium. For each nucleus, its longest diameter (D) and its smallest diameter (d) were determined by measuring the distance between two diametrically opposed Nup::GFP signals on projected images along the xy axis. The height of the nucleus (h) was determined on z-series that range from the first Nup foci until the last Nup foci seen. The volume (μm3) was calculated using the formula: V = 4 × D × d × h × π/3. The number of analyzed nuclei (n value) is indicated under each stage. Centre and error bars are mean ± SD. (B) The coordinated motion between centromeres doublets at stem cell and 8cc stages. Distances between centromeres were measured in 3D time-lapse images (SC, n = 41; 8cc, n = 52). On the basis of the following criteria, centromere doublets were classified according to their attachment coefficient. Only doublets displaying 15 common time points and with a correlation coefficient < 0.95 were taken into account for calculation of the attachment coefficient. 25% of centromere doublets display an attachment coefficient superior to 0.75 (red line) at 8cc stage (blue bars), whereas none of centromere doublets reach this value at stem cell stage (grey bars). GSC: n = 49 pairs of tracks having more than 15 common time-points and correlation coefficient smaller than 0.75. 8cc: n = 39 pairs of tracks having more than 15 common time-points and correlation coefficient smaller than 0.95).

Supplementary Figure 2

(A) Inactivation by UV of the microtubule inhibitor colcemid does not affect CID foci dynamics in stem cells. Selected projections of Z-sections of single stem cells are shown. In the first two projections colcemid is active, microtubules are depolymerized and centromeric foci movement is very limited. In the last three projections colcemid was inactivated with a 5 s UV pulse and centromeric movement is not altered. For each time point, the cumulative tracking is represented in the bottom half picture. The yellow and white dotted circles indicate the nuclear surface of two nuclei in each image. (B,B’) 3D representations indicating the covered volume of the selected representative track corresponding to the yellow nucleus for all time points, the ellipsoid is arbitrarily centered into a sphere representing the nuclear volume of the stem cell nucleus before the UV pulse (B) and the same 8cc after UV pulse (B’).

Supplementary Figure 3 Developmental changes in the number of CID foci in region 2a and 2b in fixed germarium.

For each genotype, the mean number of CID foci in region 2a (blue bars) and in region 2b (red bars) is indicated. P < 0.05 (data collected across 3 independent experiments for each genotype; centre and error bars are mean ± S.D). wt region 2a n = 89 nuclei from 13 germarium; wt region 2b n = 55 from 21 germarium; nos>Dhc-shRNAi region 2a n = 75 nuclei from 5 germarium; Dhc64c3−2/Dhc64c6−12 region 2a n = 224 nuclei from 6 germarium; wt+ colcemid region 2a n = 49 nuclei from 13 germarium; wt + colcemid in region 2b n = 24 nuclei from 13 germarium; Sas4s2214 region 2a n = 68 from 23 germarium; Sas4s2214 region 2b n = 23 from 14 germarium; AslMecD region 2a n = 52 nuclei from 12 germarium; AslMecD region 2b n = 21 from 12 germarium; Sas4-RNAi region 2a n = 78 from 12 germarium; Sas4-RNai region 2b n = 22 from 11 germarium; asl-RNAi region 2a n = 96 from 12 germarium; asl-RNAi region 2b n = 22 from 12 germarium; klarmarbCD4 region 2a n = 102 nuclei from 13 germarium; klarmarbCD4 region 2b n = 45 from 30 germarium; koi80 region 2a n = 71 nuclei from 13 germarium; koi80 region 2b n = 47 from 29 germarium; klarmarbCD4;koi80 region 2a n = 199 nuclei from 21 germarium; klarmarbCD4;koi80 region 2b n = 46 nuclei from 28 germarium; klar-RNAi region 2a n = 70 nuclei from 7 gerrmaria; klar-RNAi region 2b n = 21 nuclei from 11 germarium; koi-RNAi region 2a n = 79 nuclei from 10 germarium; koi-RNAi region 2b n = 29 from 16 germarium; mudfO1205 region 2a n = 131 nuclei from 15 germarium; mudfO1205 region 2b n = 45 nuclei from 28 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:35044) region 2a n = 62 nuclei from 6 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:35044) region 2b n = 17 nuclei from 12 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:38190) region 2a n = 51 nuclei from 6 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:38190) region 2b n = 13 nuclei from 9 germarium; klarmbCD4/+ region 2a n = 81 nuclei from 18 germarium; klarmbCD4/+ region 2b n = 34 nuclei from 22 germarium; koi80/+ region 2a n = 87 nuclei from 18 germarium; koi80/+ region 2b n = 36 nuclei from 19 germarium; mudfO1205; klarmbCD4/+ region 2a n = 257 nuclei from 40 germarium; mudfO1205; klarmbCD4/+ region 2b n = 59 nuclei from 38 germarium; mudfO1205; koi80/+ region 2a n = 86 nuclei from 19 germarium; mudfO1205; koi80/+ region 2b n = 41 nuclei from 26 germarium.

Supplementary Figure 4

Projections of Z-sections obtained by DV microscopy of a wild-type stem cell nucleus (AaAc), a 4-cell cyst nucleus (BaBc), an 8-cell cyst nucleus (CaCc), a 16-cell cyst nucleus (DaDc) and a stage 3 ovocyte nucleus (EaEc) stained for centromere (CID, orange), Klarsicht (Klar, green), Klaroid (Koi, magenta) and DNA (DAPI, blue). Koi and klar display a perinuclear localization in SCs and stage3 ovocytes (A,E). In some 4-cell cysts and 16-cell cysts koi and klar localize as dots at the nuclear membrane (B,D). In 8-cell cysts koi and klar localize as dots at the nuclear membrane.

Supplementary Figure 5

(A,B) 3D representations indicating the relative covered volume of one selected representative track for all time points of a CID::RFP;nos/klar-shRNA (A), and a CID::RFP, nos/koi-shRNA (B) 8cc selected nucleus. The ellipsoid is arbitrarily centered into a sphere representing the nuclear volume (gold sphere). (C) Distributions of the relative covered volume per second for centromeric foci in CID::RFP;w-shRNA, CID::RFP;nos/klar-shRNA, and CID::RFP, nos/koi-shRNA 8cc nuclei (mean ± S.D. Mann–Whitney U-test comparing CID::RFP;w-shRNA with CID::RFP;nos/klar-shRNA: p ≤ 1 × 10−4 and with CID::RFP, nos/koi-shRNA: p = 0.1622). nos>w-shRNA = 44 centromeric foci/4 experiments; nos>klar-shRNA = 94 centromeric foci/6 experiments; nos>koi-shRNA = 43 centromeric foci/4 experiments.

Supplementary Figure 6 Changes in the percentages of germarium displaying Polycomplexes in wild-type, koi80; klarmarb−CD4, mudf01205, nos>mud-shRNA38190 and nos>mud-shRNA35044.

The number of analyzed germarium is indicated under each stage.

Supplementary Figure 7

(A) Changes in the percentage of germarium displaying SC defects in wild-type, klarmarb−CD4, koi80, koi80; klarmarb−CD4 and mudf01205 and their respective sh-RNAs (in all cases except koi80 and koi-shRNA khi2 < 0.0005). The number of analyzed germarium is indicated for each stage. wt n = 145 germarium collected across 3 independent preparations; mudf01205n = 280 germarium; 3 independent preparations; mud-RNai (Bl:38190) n = 88; 3 independent preparations; mud-RNAi (Bl:35044) n = 98; 3 independent preparations (B) SC fluorescence intensity was quantified in all mutant and sh-RNA conditions. Each one was normalized to the intensity of wt controls (dotted red line equal to 1) introduced in the mutant or sh-RNA preparations (3 independent experiments, error bars are mean ± SD, two-tailed Student’s t-tests p ≤ 5 × 10−2, p ≤ 5 × 10−5, p ≤ 5 × 10−8) wt n = 22 measurements from 22 germarium; mudf0 n = 24 measurements from 24 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:38190) n = 23 measurements from 23 germarium; mud-RNAi (Bl:35044) n = 23 measurements from 23 germarium.

Supplementary Figure 8

Projections of Z-sections obtained by confocal microscopy of fixed wild type (A) and mudf01205 (B) stage 3 egg chambers stained for C(3)G in red, the nuclear membrane (lectin, green), and DNA. When PCs are observed in mudf01205 the DNA in the corresponding oocyte is diffuse and lectin staining is absent.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2013 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Supplementary Information (XLSX 11 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

Supplementary Information (XLSX 11 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Supplementary Information (XLSX 11 kb)

Dynamics of centromere clusters in region 1.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red) and the fusome marker Par1::GFP (green). Three germinal stem cells (GSC) are identified by their position close to the niche and their spectrosome. The upper cystoblast (CB) is identified by its round fusome, and the 2-cell cyst (2cc), whose cells are linked by a snowman-shaped fusome. Four nuclei of an 8-cell cyst (8cc), whose cells are linked by a branched-shaped fusome, demonstrating that they are from the same cyst. Arrow points towards rotating centromeres cluster in an 8cc. Frames were taken every 10 s. The video is shown at 3 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 1083 kb)

Dynamics of Nuclear membrane in a rotating 8cc nucleus.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red), the nuclear membrane marker Nup::GFP (green). Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 789 kb)

Dynamics of chromatin in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red) and the histone marker H2::dendra (green, red). Photo-conversion occurred just after the first z-acquisition, by applying 10 pulses of 0.054 s of 405 nm laser on the ROI. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 470 kb)

Centrosome and microtubules dynamics in living wild-type 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red), the centrosome marker asl::YFP and the microtubule associated protein Jupiter::GFP (green). The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 1013 kb)

Microtubule dynamics in UV pulse and Colcemid treated living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red) and the microtubule-associated protein jupiter::GFP (green). A 5 s UV pulse was performed at t = 10: 00, illustrated by a light blue flash. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 1333 kb)

Microtubule, centrosomes and centromeres dynamics in UV pulse and Colcemid treated living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red), the microtubule-associated protein jupiter::GFP (green) and the centrosome associated protein asterless::YFP (green). A 5 s UV pulse was performed at t = 2: 00, illustrated by a light blue flash. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). Filled arrowheads point to the fusome, empty arrowheads point to centrosome, and arrows point to the cell membrane (MPEG4). (MP4 370 kb)

Centrosomes rotate in the same direction and with the same speed as centromeres in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red) and the centrosome marker asl::YFP (green). Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 134 kb)

Colcemid treatment leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 251 kb)

Centromere dynamics in UV pulse and Colcemid treated in living 8-cell cysts.

Upper panel: Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. A 5 s UV pulse was performed at t = 10: 00, illustrated by a light blue flash. Bottom panel: Tracking of two CID::RFP clusters before and after the UV pulse. The circles illustrates the maximal area covered before (yellow) and after (pink) UV pulse. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 528 kb)

Centrosome dynamics in UV pulse and Colcemid treated in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a living colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red), the centrosome marker asl::YFP and the microtubule associated protein Jupiter::GFP (green). A 5 s UV pulse was performed at t = 2: 00, illustrated by a light blue flash. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 445 kb)

Centromere dynamics in UV pulse and Colcemid treated in living stem cell.

Upper panel: Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a colcemid-treated germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. A 5 s UV pulse was performed at t = 10: 00, illustrated by a light blue flash. Bottom panel: Tracking of two CID::RFP clusters before and after the UV pulse. The circles illustrates the maximal area covered before (yellow) and after (pink) UV pulse. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 622 kb)

white loss of function by RNAi does not affect CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a w-shRNA35573 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 399 kb)

sas-4 loss of function by shRNA leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a sas-4-shRNA35049 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 451 kb)

asl loss of function by shRNA leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a asl-shRNA35039 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 285 kb)

Dynein loss of function by shRNA leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a Dhc64C-shRNA36583 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 204 kb)

Dynein loss of function in Dhc64C3−2/Dhc64C6−12 mutant leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a Dhc64C3−2/Dhc64C6−12 mutant germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 168 kb)

Centrosome and microtubule dynamics in living Dynein mutant 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a Dhc64c6−12/Dhc64c3−2 mutant germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red), the centrosome marker asl::YFP and the microtubule associated protein Jupiter::GFP (green). The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 1018 kb)

CID-RFP and KASH-GFP remain in close proximity in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP (red) and the KASH domain KASH::GFP (green). Frames were taken every 20 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 201 kb)

klarsicht loss of function leads to inhibition of CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a klarmarbCD4 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 219 kb)

klaroid loss of function displays CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a koi80 germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 10 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 363 kb)

CID foci dynamics in wild type 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 121 kb)

mud loss of function does not affect CID foci dynamics in living 8-cell cysts.

Time lapse microscopy (spinning disc) of a mudf01205 mutant germarium expressing the centromere marker CID::RFP. Frames were taken every 30 s. The movie is shown at 7 frames s−1 (MPEG4). (MP4 11 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christophorou, N., Rubin, T., Bonnet, I. et al. Microtubule-driven nuclear rotations promote meiotic chromosome dynamics. Nat Cell Biol 17, 1388–1400 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3249

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3249

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing