Meiotic transmission patterns of additional genomic elements in Brachionus asplanchnoidis, a rotifer with intraspecific genome size variation

Many eukaryotes display intraspecific genome size (GS) variation due to varying amounts of non-coding DNA^1,2,3,4,5. Such GS variation can be mediated by additional genomic elements, which are physically represented either by extra (B-)chromosomes or by large heterozygous insertions into the regular chromosomes. On a DNA sequence level, non-coding DNA can be classified as highly repetitive, e.g. interspersedly repeated transposable elements or tandemly repeated satellite DNA, or as the result of previous duplications of the genome followed by pseudogenization⁶. The long-term gain and loss of such non-coding DNA sequences is thought to be governed by largely neutral evolutionary processes, and their excessive accumulation in some genomes can be explained by genetic drift^7,8, even though selection might also sometimes play a role^9,10.

Non-coding DNA can affect organisms in different ways. A large number of studies document correlations between genome size and organismic traits such as cell size^11,12, body size^13,14, or developmental rates¹⁵, sometimes even at the within-population level¹³. Under some circumstances, differential amounts of non-coding DNA might even affect fitness¹⁶. Furthermore, DNA can have coding-independent effects that operate at lower levels, such as intragenomic selection. For example, (additional) genomic elements might increase their own fitness by increasing their transmission rates to offspring by meiotic drive, sometimes at the expense of their host’s fitness^17,18,19. Meiotic drive in this classical sense occurs during the chromosome segregation during the meiotic divisions, even though later stages during gametogenesis can also be affected²⁰. Recognizing and disentangling such effects is important for a better understanding of the evolution of eukaryotic genomes, in particular, the evolutionary causes of the large intraspecific genome size variation.

Here we study meiotic transmission patterns of additional genomic elements in the monogonont rotifer Brachionus aplanchnoidis. Individuals of this species can differ by up to almost two-fold in genome size, which is mediated by several Megabase-sized independently segregating genomic elements (ISEs) consisting mainly of tandemly repeated satellite DNA²¹. The genomic data are consistent with a mixture of both B-chromosomes and large insertions to normal chromosomes^21,22. Individual rotifers and their clonal offspring can be characterized by the number and size of their ISEs and their composition stays constant through hundreds of asexual (mitotic) generations²². Occasionally, monogonont rotifers engage in sexual reproduction (Fig. 1), producing sexual females, whose oocytes undergo classical meiosis with two polar bodies formed²³. Unfertilized haploid eggs develop mitotically into males, and sperm production does not involve any meiotic maturation divisions²⁴. By analyzing the genome size distributions of haploid males produced by different mother clones, it has been shown that ISEs segregate in a manner suggesting that they do not pair with each other, nor with any other part of the genome²². For instance, a clone containing three ISEs will produce males (and gametes) that might contain either zero, one, two, or three ISEs, corresponding to four different GS classes of the males in this clone. The frequencies of these different GS classes roughly approximated those expected by random segregation. However, previous studies in B. asplanchnoidis did not resolve different steps during meiotic transmission, so they were not designed to detect meiotic drive or subsequent changes in meiotic transmission, and they also did not test whether there were subtle deviations from completely independent segregation.

In the present study, we test for meiotic transmission biases of ISEs. If meiotic transmission would be completely unbiased, the frequencies of haploid oocytes, or males, with different numbers of ISEs should be identical to those expected by random segregation. For example, a mother with two ISEs should produce males with zero, one, or two ISEs (hence, three male GS classes), which have relative frequencies of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.25, respectively. However, if ISEs avoid segregating into polar bodies due to meiotic drive^17,20,25, one would expect to see an increase in the relative frequency of male GS classes with two ISEs, compared to those with no ISE . By contrast, if ISEs are preferentially sequestered into polar bodies due to meiotic drag ^7,26, the GS class with two ISEs should be underrepresented. Our experimental approach for detecting meiotic transmission biases relies on measuring (by flow-cytometry) the observed relative frequencies of each male GS class and comparing these to their relative frequencies expected under unbiased transmission (Fig. 2). To allow for clear comparisons, the main output variable in these analyses is the observed/expected ratio (O/E-ratio), i.e., the observed frequency divided by the expected relative frequency for each GS class. If there were no transmission biases, O/E-ratios across all GS classes should equal one. In contrast, O/E-ratios larger than one indicate overrepresentation of a certain GS class, and if O/E ratios increase or decrease with genome size, this indicates drive or drag at a meiotic or postmeiotic stage (Fig. 2d,h).

We implemented these ideas in a mathematical model that contains the two parameters, transmission bias and cosegregation bias. Values for transmission bias may range from − 1 to 1 in our model. For instance, a value of 0.1 denotes a 10% increase in probability that an ISE segregates towards the egg pole (this is equivalent to a transmission rate of 0.55 for this ISE, i.e. mild meiotic drive). Concerning the second parameter, cosegregation bias, a positive value means that pairs of ISEs have an increased probability of being sequestered towards the same pole (irrespective of whether this is the egg pole or polar body pole), while a negative bias favors migration towards opposite poles. Please note that a cosegregation bias value of − 1 (i.e., 100% probability that ISEs migrate towards opposite poles) resembles the default segregation pattern of regular chromosomes. By estimating the transmission bias and cosegregation bias parameter for each rotifer clone, we tried to infer and compare general meiotic transmission patterns across clones, even if they contained different numbers and types of ISEs.

Transmission biases may not only arise during meiosis, as described above but also during later stages of male embryonic development. For instance, they might be caused by differences in the survival of embryos, or due to differences in the fitness of hatched males containing different numbers of ISEs. To address these potential sources of variation, we compared the transmission biases in relatively young, synchronized male eggs, older eggs accumulating in growing cultures, and hatched males. Finally, to address the question of whether a high number of ISEs affects male embryonic survival in general, we estimated and compared hatching rates of (haploid) male eggs and (diploid) female eggs in 19 rotifer clones of different genome sizes (which is highly correlated with the number and size of ISEs in the genome²²).

Our results suggested that the ISEs in B. asplanchnoidis exhibit diverse meiotic segregation patterns: In some rotifer clones, transmission bias was positive, while the ISEs of other clones showed negative transmission bias (indicative of drag). Furthermore, we obtained evidence for a negative cosegregation bias in some clones, i.e., pairs of ISEs showed an increased probability to segregate towards opposite poles. Overall, these transmission patterns seemed to be determined early in the haploid life cycle, probably at or shortly after meiosis, since early and late stages of male embryonic development showed very similar GS distributions. Finally, we found that very large genome size (i.e., a large numbers of ISEs) was associated with reduced male embryonic survival.

Source: Ecology - nature.com