Protocol


Nature Protocols 3, 41 - 50 (2008)
Published online: 20 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.491

Subject Categories: Genetic analysis | Model organisms | Plant biology

Fluorescent Arabidopsis tetrads: a visual assay for quickly developing large crossover and crossover interference data sets

Luke E Berchowitz1 & Gregory P Copenhaver1

In most organisms, one crossover (CO) event inhibits the chances of another nearby event. The term used to describe this phenomenon is 'CO interference'. Here, we describe a protocol for quickly generating large data sets that are amenable to CO interference analysis in the flowering plant, Arabidopsis thaliana. We employ a visual assay that utilizes transgenic marker constructs encoding pollen-expressed fluorescent proteins of three colors in the quartet mutant background. In this genetic background, male meiotic products—the pollen grains—remain physically attached thereby facilitating tetrad analysis. We have developed a library of mapped marker insertions that, when crossed together, create adjacent intervals that can be rapidly and simultaneously screened for COs. This assay system is capable of detecting and differentiating single COs as well as two-, three- and four-strand double COs. We also describe how to analyze the data that are produced by this method. To generate and score a double interval in a wild-type and mutant background using this protocol will take 22–27 weeks.

Top

Introduction

Meiosis is a specialized type of cell division in which a prior round of DNA replication is followed by two successive rounds of chromosome segregation. The resulting cells have half of the original chromosomal complement. During fertilization, these cells fuse to reconstitute the original complement thereby completing the sexual cycle. In most eukaryotes, a feature of the first meiotic division (MI) is crossing over, in which homologous chromosomes interact physically, exchanging material between the paternal and maternal copies1. Crossing over provides a connection between homologs that is required in most organisms for the accurate segregation of chromosomes during MI (ref. 2). Chromosomes that fail to have at least one crossover (CO) often segregate aberrantly, resulting in aneuploidy. In addition, crossing over generates genetic diversity by creating new combinations of paternal and maternal alleles3.

Cells undergoing meiosis regulate recombination at multiple levels. To ensure that each chromosome pair is physically connected, COs are distributed among chromosomes nonrandomly such that each chromosome pair typically undergoes at least one CO even if the total number of COs per chromosome is less4, 5. The distribution of COs along chromosomes is also tightly regulated. In most organisms, COs are distributed such that one CO event inhibits the chances of another nearby event6. The term used to describe this phenomenon, first observed by Drosophila melanogaster researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century, is CO interference7, 8.

One of the challenges of studying CO interference is that it is a probabilistic phenomenon of populations. CO interference does not result in a complete lack of closely spaced COs, but instead reduces the proportion of these events in a population compared with what one would expect if the events were randomly positioned9. For this reason, making statistically significant claims often requires large data sets. Patterns of CO interference vary widely from organism to organism with regards to strength versus distance relationships and in some organisms there appear to be both interfering and noninterfering COs10, 11, 12, 13. Even within organisms, parameters such as sex and chromosomal location have been shown to have a profound effect on CO interference14, 15.

Using Arabidopsis thaliana as a model, we present here a fluorescent pollen tetrad method for quick and relatively easy production of data sets that can be used to analyze CO interference. Using this method, one can assay almost any chromosomal region, customize interval size and examine the effects of mutants and experimental treatments on CO interference. This method has been used to assay wild-type levels of CO interference on a region of chromosome 5 and also to determine a small but detectable difference in CO interference between wild-type plants and Atmus81 mutant plants16, 17.

Measuring multiple COs simultaneously

In addition to the fluorescent tetrad method described here, several other methods exist for measuring multiple COs simultaneously. These methods can be classified into two general categories: genetic, in which the researcher monitors the segregation of markers that define intervals, and cytologic, in which the researcher uses microscopy techniques to visualize structures that mark COs.

Genetic methods. These generally involve a crossing scheme in which an individual, heterozygous for multiple markers, gives rise to a set of progeny that possess chromosomes reflecting the recombination history of the parent10, 18, 19. In some organisms, researchers can also monitor recombination directly in the products of meiosis by analyzing markers in such cell types as fungal spores20, 21 or sperm of mammals22, 23. Genetic systems in which the four meiotic products are fused in a tetrad (or octad in some cases) are especially powerful because the researcher can account for all of the parental genetic material in each unit of data rather than analyzing a pool of random meiotic products24, 25, 26, 27. This allows, among other things, the identification of nonparental ditype (NPD) tetrads, in which a four-strand double CO (DCO) has occurred in a single interval24. Genetic methods allow for the unambiguous characterization of COs in multiple intervals, but the generation of large data sets can be time- and labor-intensive. The analysis of genetic markers can involve PCR genotyping, DNA blot hybridization, or a combination, which has to be done for every marker in each individual28, 29.

Cytological methods. These entail looking at structures on chromosomes that are known to be involved in the CO process30, 31. The most common method is immunostaining the meiotic prophase I chromosome spreads using antibodies for proteins that are known to be present in the complexes responsible for the formation of COs, such as Mlh1p32, 33. Because these proteins are part of the complex present at CO sites, the antibodies that bind to these proteins form foci, which can be counted. Often, this is done in conjunction with a differently labeled antibody that recognizes the synaptonemal complex so that the chromosomes can be visualized and distinguished. This method allows the researcher to monitor all chromosomes at once in each meiotic spread, but only offers a snapshot in time, which may not be indicative of all of the COs that will form. In addition, closely spaced double COs can be potentially difficult to resolve. Other cytological methods for interference analysis include the monitoring of late recombination nodules (LNs) and chiasmata34, 35, 36. LNs are electron-dense structures that form during the late meiotic prophase I and are generally thought to represent CO complexes that will eventually become chiasmata35, 37. The correlation between LNs and COs is based on the observation that LN frequency and positional data closely matches that of genetic CO data38. Chiasmata are mature COs that have created physical linkages between homologous chromosomes before MI division, which can be visualized in diplotene bivalents36, 39. Monitoring chiasmata is a good way to determine the total number of COs formed during each meiotic cycle40, and in some systems it is possible to map them to a precise location34. These elegant cytological methods allow the researcher to observe physical structures involved in crossing over directly. However, the detailed technical nature of these methods as well as the amount of time and labor involved is not amenable to the creation of very large data sets.

Fluorescent tetrad analysis in A. thaliana

Our lab has developed a unique pollen-based visual assay for meiotic recombination in A. thaliana that can be used to generate large data sets amenable to interference analysis quickly16, 17. A. thaliana quartet (qrt) mutants produce pollen tetrads in which the four meiotic products are held together, allowing all products of a single meiotic event to be studied relative to one another41, 42. This assay system is based on a collection of transgenic lines, in the qrt background, each carrying a gene encoding either a red, cyan or yellow fluorescent protein that can be excited by different wavelengths of light. Expression of these markers is directed by a postmeiotic pollen-specific promoter (LAT52)43. Researchers can construct visually assayable genetic intervals by crossing lines that carry linked markers. Lines carrying two or more marker genes on the same chromosome expressing differently colored proteins produce tetrads that segregate the marker genes (and thus the proteins they encode) in the pollen tetrads in patterns that reflect whether or not a recombination event has happened between them. This system, can detect CO events directly in the pollen grains, and through the construction of double intervals delineated by three colors, can be used to measure CO interference throughout the A. thaliana genome.

We have constructed a genome-wide library of single-insertion fluorescent-tagged lines (FTLs) by transforming A. thaliana (Col) with these marker genes16. All the markers shown in Figure 1 map outside genes. There are currently 113 FTLs available including 35 DsRed2, 41 eYFP and 37 eCFP. Combinations of these three groups can be crossed to create lines with three different markers. Pollen from plants that are heterozygous for these markers is viewed using an epi-fluorescence microscope with three different filters. Such a set of three linked markers on chromosome 5 has been used by our lab to detect subtle differences in interference between wild-type and mus81 mutant plants17.

Figure 1: Map of fluorescent transgenes.
Figure 1 : Map of fluorescent transgenes.

The chromosomal (green bars) insertion site of the transgene carried by each fluorescent-tagged line (FTL) is indicated by a red (DsRed2), yellow (eYFP) or cyan (eCFP) circle. The identification number of each insertion is given above the circle. The genetic intervals (I1a, I1b, I1c, I2a, I2b, I2c, I3a, I3b, I3c, I3d, I5a, I5b, I5c and I5d) that are available by request from G.P.C. are delineated by brackets. The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR) 'chromosome map tool' (http://www.arabidopsis.org/) was used to place T-DNA insertion points on the map. T-DNA, transferred DNA.

Full size image (97 KB)

Advantages and limitations of FTL interference analysis

The FTL system is capable of generating large data sets rapidly. An experienced student can score approx500 three-color tetrads in an hour. In addition, the FTL system is flexible in that it is possible to assay interference in almost any genomic location using the extensive collection of marker lines. These characteristics make comparative experiments designed to detect differences in interference levels between sample populations, such as mutants or experimental treatments, routinely feasible.

Although it is possible to score interference in most genomic locations, some sections of the genome have few or no mapped FTL insertions. An insert of each color is necessary in any particular region, and some regions do not meet this requirement. Markers in regions near centromeres are particularly sparse, and chromosomes 2 and 4 do not have the marker density of chromosomes 1, 3 and 5 (see Fig. 1). In Addition, the FTL system produces data only from male recombination, and in A. thaliana, male and female CO levels, as well as interference, are significantly different14, 28.

Meiotic-recombination mutants often exhibit lower levels of pollen viability when compared with wild type due to inaccurate chromosome segregation or chromosome fragmentation. Chromosomes that experience an aberrant number of exchanges are more likely to segregate improperly and thus produce inviable products, so the viable products of a mutant meiosis can be enriched for COs compared with inviable products. At present, the FTL system can be used only to assay COs in viable pollen grains, so it is possible that when analyzing mutant tetrads, the total change in COs can be underestimated. However, in an example in which a mutant (Atmsh4) has been analyzed by both the FTL and cytological methods (which are not thought to artificially enrich for COs), the CO data were very similar and the conclusions also similar17, 31.

Using this system, it is possible to analyze two intervals simultaneously. Available genetic methods in some organisms allow the researcher to analyze simultaneously as many intervals as they have distinguishable markers, so these other methods may be better for whole-chromosome views of interference. Drouaud et al. recently monitored the segregation of 44 markers on a single A. thaliana chromosome and used a sliding window analysis system to analyze sex-specific interference levels on a single chromosome14. This type of analysis is not currently possible using the FTL system.

Applications of the fluorescent tetrad system

Other than assaying CO interference in adjacent intervals, this system can be used to assay CO rates in single intervals (which is a requisite for interference analysis in this system). The constructs created in this protocol can also be used in a visual assay for pollen viability.

Analysis of CO interference

Several methods have been described for analyzing interference19, 25, 44, 45, 46, but here, we will use the method described by Malkova et al., to measure interference using pollen tetrad data. In brief, the Malkova et al. method compares the map distance of one interval when an adjacent interval has no CO to the map distance of the first interval when the adjacent interval does have a CO19. If the genetic distance in the interval in question is significantly lower with the presence of a CO in the adjacent interval, one can conclude interference extends from one interval to the other. The ratio of distance (without adjacent CO/with adjacent CO) gives a measure of interference. A value of 1 indicates no interference; a value of 0 indicates complete interference and values between 1 and 0 correlate with the strength of interference.

Map distances can be calculated using the Perkins mapping function: X = 100[(1/2T + 3NPD)/n] (ref. 47). This equation calculates an approximation of map distance in a single interval, but its validity diminishes for intervals that sometimes contain more than two COs. For this equation, tetrads are designated as PD, NPD or tetratype (T), depending on the segregation of the marker pair defining each interval.

The Malkova et al. method can also be used to compare interference data from two data sets (e.g., wild type and mutant) from the same intervals. One first calculates the ratio of map distance without adjacent CO/map distance with adjacent CO as above for each data set. These ratios can be statistically compared by obtaining a Z-score using the following equation:

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

where R1 is the ratio in treatment 1 (e.g., wild type) and R2 is the ratio in treatment 2 (e.g., mutant).

The significance of the difference between these two ratios can be assessed using a one-tailed test as described on the Stahl Lab Online Tools (http://molbio.uoregon.edu/~fstahl).

When working with tetrad data, it is also possible to calculate interference using a single interval25. One can estimate the fraction of NPD tetrads expected in the case of no interference from the fraction of T tetrads observed in an interval using the formula developed by Papazian25:

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

where fT is the fraction of tetratypes observed.

As in the methods described above, one can then divide the observed fraction of NPDs by the expected to get a measurement of the strength of interference in this interval. The Papazian method, relying as it does on just the T frequency to calculate expected NPDs, uses data inefficiently. A method for detecting interference that uses tetrad data more efficiently is available online at Stahl Lab Online Tools: (http://molbio.uoregon.edu/~fstahl).

Interference can also be measured directly from meiotic chromosomes that have been appropriately labeled such that the chromosomes are distinguishable from one another and CO sites are visible32, 33. Inter-CO distances can be measured using a computer software such as NIH image (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/nih-image/). The distribution of these distances can be fit to gamma distributions that simulate CO placements with varying degrees of interference. The best fit distribution can be used to estimate the interference parameter v6, 11, 32, 33, 48.

In this protocol, we describe a method for using the FTL system to generate large data sets amenable to CO interference analysis quickly in the flowering plant A. thaliana. We describe how to create adjacent intervals by crossing marker-insertion lines from the FTL library and how to visually screen and score these intervals for COs.


Top

Materials

Reagents

Equipment

Reagent setup

  • PGM screening solution To 950 ml H2O, add 170 g sucrose (17% wt/vol), 2 ml 1 M CaCl2 (2 mM), 3.25 ml 0.5 M boric acid (1.625 mM) and 100 mul Triton-X (0.1% vol/vol).

Equipment setup

  • Fluorescence microscope A Nikon Eclipse E1000 epi-fluorescence microscope equipped with a motorized filter set including eCFP, DsRed2 and eYFP filters was used to develop these methods. No special setup of the microscope is necessary. Any epi-fluorescent microscope equipped with these filters will allow the researcher to execute this protocol, but we recommend the use of motorized filters.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top

Procedure

  1. Selection of appropriate FTLsFrom the FTL insert library, select the appropriate lines that will define two adjacent intervals (5 cM per Mb is a reasonable estimate for the average genetic-to-physical ratio in A. thaliana).
    Critical step One line for each of the eCFP, DsRed2 and eYFP markers needs to be selected, but they may occur in any order. The sizes of the two intervals do not have to be similar, but it will slightly complicate analysis if either of the intervals is large enough such that an abundance of NPD tetrads in either single interval is observed. Note that for the remainder of the protocol, the line that carries an insert closest to the North end of the chromosome will be referred to as 'A', the next will be 'B' and the line with an insert closest to the South end will be 'C'.
  2. Construction of first interval (I1)Plant at least 12 seeds each from line A and line B (seeds will usually be heterozygous for the interval). Grow plants on Metro-mix 400 soil in an environmentally controlled growth chamber with a long photoperiod (16 h light at 20 °C/8 h dark at 20 °C).
    Critical step Steps 2–11 can be omitted if the researcher wishes to use interference intervals that our lab has already constructed (see Fig. 1). These lines will be supplied as a segregating population of seeds from an ABC/+++ parent and are available by request from G.P.C.
    Critical step If the study includes analysis of interference in mutant backgrounds, it will save time to cross the mutants into the qrt1 background during the construction of the three-color interval. We recommend maintaining and crossing meiotic mutants in the heterozygous state to avoid genomic abnormalities. Useful plants will have the genotype mutant/+; qrt1/qrt1.
  3. As each marker will be segregating 1:2:1 in this generation, it is necessary to determine the marker genotype of each plant by examining the pollen under the epi-fluorescence microscope when plants begin flowering (4–5 weeks). As this step is diagnostic and does not require any counting, use the simplified screening process outlined in Box 1. Plants homozygous (4:0 fluorescent pollen, see Fig. 2) for their respective markers will be used for the next crossing step. Collect seeds from 2:2 plants (A/+ and B/+) and 4:0 plants (A/A and B/B) to save as stocks.
    Figure 2: Single locus segregation patterns in pollen tetrads.
    Figure 2 : Single locus segregation patterns in pollen tetrads.

    A locus with a transgenic marker construct encoding a fluorescent protein (in this case DsRed2) can be homozygous (A/A) or hemizygous (A/+) for the marker or it can be wild type (+/+). The fluorescence signal in the pollen tetrads will reflect the marker genotype and yield 4:0 (left) 2:2 (middle) or 0:4 (right) pollen tetrads respectively.

    Full size image (20 KB)

    Pause Point Store the seeds at room temperature (22–24 °C) in a labeled 1.5-ml polypropylene tubes with a small hole punctured at the top with a needle to prevent molding.
  4. To create the first interval, cross a line-A plant that is homozygous for one color insert to a line-B plant homozygous for a different colored insert. Make several crosses to be sure of a viable cross. For details and tips on crossing A. thaliana, see ref. 49. The stigma of the female used for the cross will mature into a silique containing seeds used for the next step.Troubleshooting
  5. After the siliques from the crosses (Step 4) have dried (2–3 weeks), harvest the seeds and plant them as described in Step 2. At the same time, plant at least 12 seeds from line C, which will define the second interval.
  6. When these plants begin flowering (4–5 weeks), diagnose the fluorescent genotypes of each plant as described in Box 1. Individuals from the A–B cross should yield pollen tetrads with the same fluorescent pattern (2 color-A:2 color-B); discard plants that do not. For line C, select plants homozygous for the C marker. Save seed stocks from the A/B plants and the C/+ and C/C plants as described in Step 3.
  7. Construction of second interval (I2), and cross into mutant backgroundCross the A/B plants to the C homozygote as in Step 4.
    Critical step This cross needs to be made several times because the useful plants in the next generation will have all the three markers, which can only be achieved when C is fertilized with a recombinant pollen grain harboring both the A and B inserts in a cis configuration. The probability (as a percent) of this event can be calculated by dividing the recombinant frequency between A and B (in percent) by 2. This should give a good idea of how many crosses to complete (depending on how many seeds you usually get from your crosses). As a general rule, perform enough crosses to ensure that you have three times as many seeds as would be needed to produce a single three-colored plant.Troubleshooting
  8. After the siliques from these crosses have dried (2–3 weeks), plant all of the seeds as described in Step 2. Also plant at least eight qrt1/qrt1 (nonfluorescent) seeds and/or the mutant/+; qrt1/qrt1 seeds.
  9. When these plants begin flowering, diagnose the marker genotype of each plant as described in Box 1. Each of the three fluorescent marker genotypes needs to be determined under the appropriate colored filter in succession. Pollen tetrads from useful plants will fluoresce 2AB:2C, having the genotype AB+/++C. The markers will have had a chance to recombine during the meiosis that produced the tetrads being examined. In useful plants, the tetrads will show many combinations in relation to one another. What is important is that all the three colors show a 2:2 pattern.
  10. At this stage, if the study includes interference analysis in mutant backgrounds, cross the three color lines to mutant/+; qrt1/qrt1 lines. Otherwise, cross the three color lines to the Col qrt1 mutants using a similar strategy as in Step 7 with the purpose of producing lines that are ABC/+++; qrt1/qrt1 (and optionally mutant/+).Troubleshooting
  11. When the siliques from these crosses (Step 10) have dried (2–3 weeks), plant all of the seeds. Useful plants will have the genotype ABC/+++ and show a majority of pollen tetrads with a 2ABC: 2 nonfluorescent pattern. These plants can be analyzed for interference, but in order to generate large amounts of data from multiple individuals, it is necessary to analyze the appropriate progeny from self-crosses. If crosses were made into mutant backgrounds, useful plants will have the genotype ABC/+++; mutant/+; qrt1/qrt1.
  12. Scoring three-color tetrads for recombinationPlant at least 50 seeds collected from ABC/+++; (mutant/+); qrt1/qrt1 individuals. These plants need to be distinguished from one another throughout the scoring process, so it is useful to sow the seeds in divided flats. We plant in 6 times 4 divided flats (24 cells) where the flats measure 26 times 54 cm2 and each cell measures 6.5 times 9 cm2. This provides each plant enough room to grow while it is also easy to distinguish one plant from another. At this stage, the plants need to be grown in a temperature-controlled growth chamber.
    Critical step Columbia FTLs have been extensively tested in our lab. In general, A. thaliana plants are sensitive to environmental changes, so it is important to keep a constant environment as much as possible. Work done in our lab has shown that temperature levels influence recombination, so it is critical to maintain the same levels for all experimental and control populations16.
  13. After the plants begin flowering (4–5 weeks), it is necessary to determine the fluorescent genotype of each individual plant as described in Box 1. Only plants that are ABC/+++ can be scored for recombination in both intervals simultaneously; discard all others. Note that plants of the genotype ABC/ABC are useful for quantifying pollen viability, see Box 2 for details17.
  14. To begin the scoring process, select an ABC/+++ plant for analysis.
  15. Rub a microscope slide briskly for approx10 s with a soft cotton cloth.
  16. Place two 10-mul drops of PGM onto the slide approx3 cm apart. The drops should form a tight bead on the slide.
  17. Using the forceps, remove a single open flower and place it face down into the first drop of PGM, allow to soak for at least 20 s. Note the flower number on the plant by counting up the bolt.
    Critical step It is best to only score flowers from the primary bolt. Work in our lab has shown that recombination rates are altered in secondary axes16. In addition, we recommend scoring only the fifth to the thirtieth flowers because younger and older flowers tend to have lower pollen counts and elevated lethality. However, we have not observed any relationship between flower number and recombination16.
  18. Use a tapping motion to release the pollen into the PGM. This is best done on a black bench top that will allow the researcher to see the pollen being released into the solution. Remove the flower from the first drop of PGM and repeat the process with the same flower in the second drop. This maximizes the amount of pollen that can be scored from each flower. Gently place a cover slip on top of each pollen-containing drop of PGM.Troubleshooting
  19. The fluorescent markers in the ABC/+++ individuals will be segregating in the pollen. In addition, if a mutant allele has been introduced, the plants will be mixture of wild-type, heterozygotes and mutant genotypes—these genotypes will be scored in Step 20. The researcher can score each four-member pollen tetrad, using the times 20 objective on the microscope. The researcher will place each tetrad in the appropriate recombinant category based on the pattern of fluorescence in the grains (see Table 1 and Figs. 3 and 4). Note that in the examples (Fig. 3; Tables 1, 2, 3), the markers were in the red–yellow–cyan (North to South) configuration. Three-color intervals with a different configuration (such as yellow–cyan–red) are perfectly acceptable, but the North–South order of the different colored markers will determine how the fluorescent tetrads are categorized. To determine how to classify each type of tetrad fluorescence pattern, it may be useful to redraw Figure 3 using the appropriate configuration of markers (Supplementary Fig. 1 online).
    Figure 3: Classification of tetrad fluorescent patterns.
    Figure 3 : Classification of tetrad fluorescent patterns.

    DsRed2 (red oval), enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (eYFP) (yellow oval) and enhanced cyan fluorescent protein (eCFP) (cyan oval) transgenes define two hypothetical adjacent genetic intervals (I1 and I2). The panels (a–l) correspond to the classes of tetrads described in Table 1. The four chromatids present after DNA replication can experience no crossovers (COs) (a), single COs (b and c), and double COs (DCOs) in the combined interval including two strand DCOs (d), both kinds of three-strand DCOs (e and f), and four strand DCOs (g). A four-strand DCO in either of the single intervals can also be observed as an nonparental ditype (NPD) tetrad either in the absence of an adjacent CO (h and i) or the presence of an adjacent CO (j and k). A four-strand DCO in both single intervals will result in a tetrad that is NPD for each (l). Each of these events can be distinguished by observing the segregation of the fluorescent markers in the pollen tetrads. In each panel the top, second, third and bottom chromatids are shown segregating into the pollen grains at the top, right, bottom and left positions, respectively.

    Full size image (96 KB)

    Figure 4: Examples of multicolor fluorescent tetrads.
    Figure 4 : Examples of multicolor fluorescent tetrads.

    To assess three-color intervals each tetrad must be visualized through each of three different fluorescent filters (red, yellow and cyan) on the epi-fluorescence microscope. These individual images can be merged (right column) into a composite image using graphics software such as Adobe Photoshop. A plant that is heterozygous for three markers in cis configuration can yield nonrecombinant pollen tetrads that have all the three colors in the same two pollen grains (top row). A single crossover (CO) (in I1 in this case) will yield a pollen tetrad that has one grain with all three colors, one grain with two colors, one grain with one color and one with no color (middle row). Double COs (DCOs) will yield pollen tetrads with a variety of segregation patterns (see Fig. 3), in this case a four-strand DCO results in a tetrad with one red, one yellow/blue, one blue and one red/yellow grain (see Fig. 3g).

    Full size image (33 KB)





    Critical step Do not score tetrads in clumps, as this can lead to erroneously classifying tetrads. The Triton-X detergent is added to the PGM to prevent clumping. Only score four-member tetrads.
  20. If a mutant allele is segregating in this generation, genotype the mutants after scoring is complete. Blind scoring is a good experimental practice to avoid bias in the counting process.
  21. Repeat for as many plants as the analysis demands—this will differ from experiment to experiment.
Top

Timing

Steps 1–6, selection of appropriate FTLs and construction of the first interval: 6–7 weeks
Steps 7–11, construction of the second interval, and cross into mutant background: 12–14 weeks
Steps 12–21, scoring three-color tetrads for recombination: 4–6 weeks

Top

Troubleshooting

Troubleshooting advice can be found in Table 4.


Top

Anticipated results

The type of results for a single plant generated by three-color FTL interference experiments is shown in Table 2. Compiled results from an experiment designed to test the interference phenotype of a mutant is shown in Table 3. If the object of the analysis is to test a mutant phenotype, and the crosses are conducted in the manner described, then the mutant (assuming recessivity) will be segregating 1:3 in the scoring generation. This is ideal because the blind controls for the experiment are built into the design.

To calculate interference levels from the data that are produced using this method, we recommend using the Malkova et al. method for quantifying interference19. Using this method, the researcher determines the map distance of one of the intervals without and with a CO in the adjacent interval, and the ratio between the two represents the level of interference. Using letter codes from Table 1, the following formulas are used:

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Interference ratio = X I1 w/o adjacent CO/X I1 with adjacent CO, where, as above, X refers to the map distance generated from the Perkins equation44.

Ratios between sample populations can be compared using Stahl Lab Online Tools: http://molbio.uoregon.edu/~fstahl.

Examples of interference analysis using data generated by the FTL system

From an individual plant (Table 2):

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Comparing compiled data from two sample populations (Table 3):

+/+ and +/- (row 1)

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Interference ratio

Interference ratio = XI1 w/o adjacent CO/X I1 with adjacent CO = 0.3885

- /- mutant (row 2)

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

Interference ratio = XI1 w/o adjacent CO/XI1 with adjacent CO = 0.3378

Test of significance between two ratios of map distances (Stahl Lab Online Tools)

The following data were input:

Interval name = wt with adjacent CO

PD = A = 3,729; T = B = 3,881; NPD = H = 68

Interval name = wt without adjacent CO

PD = C + I = 2,307; T = D + E + F + G + K = 573; NPD = J + L = 9

Interval name = mutant with adjacent CO

PD = A = 2,785; T = B = 3,065; NPD = H = 62

Interval name = mutant without adjacent CO

PD = C + I = 1,728; T = D + E + F + G + K = 415; NPD = J + L = 1

The program gives this output:

Ratio definitions R1 = wt with/wt without R2 = mutant with/mutant without

Ratios R1 = 0.3885 R2 = 0.3378

Variance of ratios varR1= 0.00032444 varR2= 0.00026894

Standard error of ratios S.E. R1= 0.0180122 S.E. R2= 0.01639943

Var[R1 - R2] = 0.00059338

|R1 - R2| = 0.05075571

(Two tailed) Is |R1 - R2| > 1.96 times sqrt Var [R1 - R2]? 0.0508 > 0.0477 significant

(One tailed) Is |R1 - R2| > 1.65 times sqrt Var [R1 - R2]? 0.0508 > 0.0402 significant

In this case, the mutant ratio was significantly different from the wild-type ratio and we concluded that the two genotypes had different interference levels. The mutant has significantly stronger interference than the wild type.

Note: Supplementary information is available via the HTML version of this article.



Top

Acknowledgments

We thank Corbin Jones and Frank Stahl for critical reading of this manuscript. We also thank the NSF (MCB-0618691) and DOE (DE-FGO2-05ER15651) for financial support.

Top

References

  1. Zickler, D. & Kleckner, N. The leptotene-zygotene transition of meiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 32, 619–697 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  2. Page, S.L. & Hawley, R.S. Chromosome choreography: the meiotic ballet. Science 301, 785–789 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  3. Felsenstein, J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78, 737–756 (1974). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  4. Jones, G.H. & Franklin, F.C. Meiotic crossing-over: obligation and interference. Cell 126, 246–248 (2006). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  5. Borner, G.V., Kleckner, N. & Hunter, N. Crossover/noncrossover differentiation, synaptonemal complex formation, and regulatory surveillance at the leptotene/zygotene transition of meiosis. Cell 117, 29–45 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  6. Foss, E., Lande, R., Stahl, F.W. & Steinberg, C.M. Chiasma interference as a function of genetic distance. Genetics 133, 681–691 (1993). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  7. Sturtevant, A.H. The behavior of chromosomes as studied through linkage. Z. Induct. Abstammungs-Vererbungsl. 13, 234–287 (1915). | Article |
  8. Muller, H.J. The mechanism of crossing over. Am. Nat. 50, 193–434 (1916). | Article |
  9. Hillers, K.J. Crossover interference. Curr. Biol. 14, R1036–R1037 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  10. Copenhaver, G.P., Housworth, E.A. & Stahl, F.W. Crossover interference in Arabidopsis. Genetics 160, 1631–1639 (2002). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  11. Housworth, E.A. & Stahl, F.W. Crossover interference in humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 188–197 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  12. Foss, E.J. & Stahl, F.W. A test of a counting model for chiasma interference. Genetics 139, 1201–1209 (1995). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  13. McPeek, M.S. & Speed, T.P. Modeling interference in genetic recombination. Genetics 139, 1031–1044 (1995). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  14. Drouaud, J. et al. Sex-specific crossover distributions and variations in interference level along Arabidopsis thaliana chromosome 4. PloS Genet. 3, e106 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  15. Hawley, R.S., McKim, K.S. & Arbel, T. Meiotic segregation in Drosophila melanogaster females: molecules, mechanisms, and myths. Annu. Rev. Genet. 27, 281–317 (1993). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  16. Francis, K.E. et al. A pollen tetrad-based visual assay for meiotic recombination in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3913–3918 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  17. Berchowitz, L.E., Francis, K.E., Bey, A.L. & Copenhaver, G.P. The role of AtMUS81 in interference-insensitive crossovers in A. thaliana. PloS Genet. 3, e132 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  18. Lam, S.Y. et al. Crossover interference on nucleolus organizing region-bearing chromosomes in Arabidopsis. Genetics 170, 807–812 (2005). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  19. Malkova, A. et al. Gene conversion and crossing over along the 405-kb left arm of Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome VII. Genetics 168, 49–63 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  20. Mortimer, R.K. & Hawthorne, D.C. Genetic mapping in Saccharomyces IV. Mapping of temperature-sensitive genes and use of disomic strains in localizing genes. Genetics 74, 33–54 (1973). | PubMed |
  21. Fogel, S. & Mortimer, R.K. Recombination in yeast. Annu. Rev. Genet. 5, 219–236 (1971). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  22. Yauk, C.L., Bois, P.R. & Jeffreys, A.J. High-resolution sperm typing of meiotic recombination in the mouse MHC beta gene. EMBO J 22, 1389–1397. | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  23. Tiemann-Boege, I., Calabrese, P., Cochran, D.M., Sokol, R. & Arnheim, N. High-resolution recombination patterns in a region of human chromosome 21 measured by sperm typing. PloS Genet. 2, e70 (2006). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  24. Perkins, D.D. The detection of linkage in tetrad analysis. Genetics 38, 187–197 (1953). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  25. Papazian, H.P. The analysis of tetrad data. Genetics 37, 175–188 (1952). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  26. Hawley, R.S. Meiosis in living color: fluorescence-based tetrad analysis in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3673–3674 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  27. Copenhaver, G.P. A compendium of plant species producing pollen tetrads. J. North Carolina Acad. Sci. 121, 17–35 (2005).
  28. Copenhaver, G.P., Browne, W.E. & Preuss, D. Assaying genome-wide recombination and centromere functions with Arabidopsis tetrads. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 247–252 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  29. Jeffreys, A.J. et al. Meiotic recombination hot spots and human DNA diversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 359, 141–152 (2004). | Article | ChemPort |
  30. Janssens, F.A. Spermatogénese dans les batraciens. V. La théorie de la chiasmatypie, nouvelle interpretation des cinéses de maturation. Cellule 25, 387–411 (1909).
  31. Higgins, J.D., Armstrong, S.J., Franklin, F.C. & Jones, G.H. The Arabidopsis MutS homolog AtMSH4 functions at an early step in recombination: evidence for two classes of recombination in Arabidopsis. Genes. Dev. 18, 2557–2570 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  32. de Boer, E., Dietrich, A.J., Hoog, C., Stam, P. & Heyting, C. Meiotic interference among MLH1 foci requires neither an intact axial element structure nor full synapsis. J. Cell. Sci. 120, 731–736 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  33. de Boer, E., Stam, P., Dietrich, A.J., Pastink, A. & Heyting, C. Two levels of interference in mouse meiotic recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 9607–9612 (2006). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  34. Jones, G.H. The control of chiasma distribution. In Controlling Events In Meiosis (eds. Evans, C., & Dickinson, H.) 293–320 (The Company of Biologists, Cambridge, UK, 1984).
  35. Carpenter, A.T. Recombination nodules and synaptonemal complex in recombination-defective females of Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma 75, 259–292 (1979). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  36. Sherman, J.D. & Stack, S.M. Two-dimensional spreads of synaptonemal complexes from solanaceous plants. VI. High-resolution recombination nodule map for tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Genetics 141, 683–708 (1995). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  37. Carpenter, A.T. Synaptonemal complex and recombination nodules in wild-type Drosophila melanogaster females. Genetics 92, 511–541 (1979). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  38. Carpenter, A.T. Electron microscopy of meiosis in Drosophila melanogaster females: II. The recombination nodule—a recombination-associated structure at pachytene? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 72, 3186–3189 (1975). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  39. Sanchez Moran, E., Armstrong, S.J., Santos, J.L., Franklin, F.C. & Jones, G.H. Chiasma formation in Arabidopsis thaliana accession Wassileskija and in two meiotic mutants. Chromosome Res. 9, 121–128 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  40. Wijeratne, A.J., Chen, C., Zhang, W., Timofejeva, L. & Ma, H. The Arabidopsis thaliana PARTING DANCERS gene encoding a novel protein is required for normal meiotic homologous recombination. Mol. Biol. Cell. 17, 1331–1343 (2006). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  41. Preuss, D., Rhee, S.Y. & Davis, R.W. Tetrad analysis possible in Arabidopsis with mutation of the QUARTET (QRT) genes. Science 264, 1458–1460 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  42. Copenhaver, G.P., Keith, K.C. & Preuss, D. Tetrad analysis in higher plants. A budding technology. Plant. Physiol 124, 7–26 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  43. Twell, D., Yamaguchi, J. & McCormick, S. Pollen-specific gene expression in transgenic plants: coordinate regulation of two different tomato gene promoters during microsporogenesis. Development 109, 705–713 (1990). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  44. Perkins, D.D. Crossing-over and interference in a multiply marked chromosome arm of Neurospora. Genetics 47, 1253–1274 (1962). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  45. Stahl, F.W. & Lande, R. Estimating interference and linkage map distance from two-factor tetrad data. Genetics 139, 1449–1454 (1995). | PubMed | ChemPort |
  46. Mezard, C., Vignard, J., Drouaud, J. & Mercier, R. The road to crossovers: plants have their say. Trends Genet. 23, 91–99.
  47. Perkins, D.D. Biochemical mutants in the smut fungus Ustilago maydis. Genetics 34, 607–626 (1949). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  48. Stahl, F.W. et al. Does crossover interference count in Saccharomyces cerevisiae? Genetics 168, 35–48 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  49. Weigel, D. & Glazebrook, J. Arabidopsis: A Laboratory Manual (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 2002).
  1. Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. Carolina Center for Genome Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.

Correspondence to: Gregory P Copenhaver1 e-mail: gcopenhaver@bio.unc.edu

natureproducts

Natureproducts is an online service detailing information about specific products used in this article. You can view the product descriptions, request information and compare with other similar products. The products used are listed in alphabetical order.

A-Z product listing

See more nature products

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.

NEWS AND VIEWS

Research highlights

Nature Genetics News and Views (01 Apr 2007)

Touching base

Nature Genetics News and Views (01 Apr 2007)

Extra navigation

Feedback

Browse by category

Open Innovation Challenges

  • Efficient Chromosome Doubling: Plant Cell Division

    • Deadline: Jul 15 2009
    • Reward: $20,000 USD

    The Seeker is looking for an efficient chromosome doubling method in plants and in particular, metho...

  • Corrosion Inhibitor

    • Deadline: Aug 19 2009
    • Reward: $10,000 USD

    The Seeker is looking for inhibitors of corrosion. This Challenge requires only a written descripti...

naturejobs

  • Postdoctoral position in Neuroscience

    • Bioengineering Institute (University Miguel Hernández) and CIBER-BBN (Networking Research Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine)
    • Elche, SPAIN
  • Faculty positions

    • The University of Alabama at Birmingham
    • Birmingham, Alabama, USA

natureproducts


ADVERTISEMENT