Organization and dynamics of plant interphase chromosomes

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 273-281

  Schubert, Ingo ^a   Shaw, Peter ^b  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF PLANT GENETICS AND CROP PLANT RESEARCH IPK   (Germany)

^b JOHN INNES CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARABIDOPSIS; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL NUCLEUS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIGENETICS; GENETICS; INTERPHASE; PLANT; PLANT CHROMOSOME; REVIEW; TRANSGENIC PLANT; ULTRASTRUCTURE; WHEAT;

ARABIDOPSIS; CELL NUCLEUS; CHROMOSOMES, PLANT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIGENOMICS; INTERPHASE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PLANTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; TRITICUM;

ARABIDOPSIS; ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA; EUKARYOTA; TRITICUM AESTIVUM;

EID: 79955717546     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2011.02.002     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Rabl C. Über Zellteilung. Morph. Jahrb. 1885, 10:214-330.
2. Boveri T. Die Blastomerenkerne von Ascaris megalocephala und die Theorie der Chromosomenindividualität. Arch. Zellforsch. 1909, 3:181-268.
3. Lichter P., et al. Delineation of individual human chromosomes in metaphase and interphase cells by in situ suppression hybridization using recombinant DNA libraries. Hum. Genet. 1988, 80:224-234.
4. Pinkel D., et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization with human chromosome-specific libraries: detection of trisomy 21 and translocations of chromosome 4. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1988, 85:9138-9142.
5. Cremer T., Cremer C. Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2001, 2:292-301.
6. Schubert I., et al. Chromosome painting in plants. Methods Cell Sci. 2001, 23:57-69.
7. Schwarzacher T., et al. In situ localization of parental genomes in a wide hybrid. Ann. Bot. 1989, 64:315-324.
8. Aragón-Alcaide L., et al. The use of vibratome sections of cereal spikelets to study anther development and meiosis. Plant J. 1998, 14:503-508.
9. Durnam D.M., et al. Detection of species specific chromosomes in somatic cell hybrids. Somat. Cell Molec. Gen. 1985, 11:571-577.
10. Manuelidis L. Individual interphase chromosome domains revealed by in situ hybridization. Hum. Genet. 1985, 71:288-293.
11. Schardin M., et al. Specific staining of human chromosomes in Chinese hamster × man hybrid cell lines demonstrates interphase chromosome territories. Hum. Genet. 1985, 71:281-287.
12. Aragón-Alcaide L., et al. Association of homologous chromosomes during floral development. Curr. Biol. 1997, 7:905-908.
13. Abranches R., et al. Transcription sites are not correlated with chromosome territories in wheat nuclei. J. Cell Biol. 1998, 143:5-12.
14. Dong F., Jiang J. Non-Rabl patterns of centromere and telomere distribution in the interphase nuclei of plant cells. Chromosome Res. 1998, 6:551-558.
15. Rawlins D.J., Shaw P.J. 3-Dimensional organization of ribosomal DNA in interphase nuclei of Pisum sativum by in situ hybridization and optical tomography. Chromosoma 1990, 99:143-151.
16. Prieto P., et al. Homologue recognition during meiosis is associated with a change in chromatin conformation. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 6:906-908.
17. Santos A.P., Shaw P. Interphase chromosomes and the Rabl configuration: does genome size matter?. J. Microsc. 2004, 214:201-206.
18. Funabiki H., et al. Cell cycle-dependent specific positioning and clustering of centromeres and telomeres in fission yeast. J. Cell Biol. 1993, 121:961-976.
19. Gilson E., et al. Telomeres and the functional architecture of the nucleus. Trends Cell Biol. 1993, 3:128-134.
20. Manuelidis L. Different central nervous system cell types display distinct and nonrandom arrangements of satellite DNA sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1984, 81:3123-3127.
21. Lysak M.A., et al. Chromosome painting in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2001, 28:689-697.
22. Pecinka A., et al. Chromosome territory arrangement and homologous pairing in nuclei of Arabidopsis thaliana are predominantly random except for NOR-bearing chromosomes. Chromosoma 2004, 113:258-269.
23. Berr A., Schubert I. Interphase chromosome arrangement in Arabidopsis thaliana is similar in differentiated and meristematic tissues and shows a transient mirror symmetry after nuclear division. Genetics 2007, 176:853-863.
24. Berr A., et al. Chromosome arrangement and nuclear architecture but not centromeric sequences are conserved between Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Plant J. 2006, 48:771-783.
25. Fransz P., et al. Interphase chromosomes in Arabidopsis are organized as well defined chromocenters from which euchromatin loops emanate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99:14584-14589.
26. Cremer M., et al. Non-random radial higher-order chromatin arrangements in nuclei of diploid human cells. Chromosome Res. 2001, 9:541-567.
27. Kreth G., et al. Radial arrangement of chromosome territories in human cell nuclei: a computer model approach based on gene density indicates a probabilistic global positioning code. Biophys. J. 2004, 86:2803-2812.
28. Kozubek S., et al. 3D Structure of the human genome: order in randomness. Chromosoma 2002, 111:321-331.
29. Mahy N.L., et al. Spatial organization of active and inactive genes and noncoding DNA within chromosome territories. J. Cell Biol. 2002, 157:579-589.
30. Mahy N.L., et al. Gene density and transcription influence the localization of chromatin outside of chromosome territories detectable by FISH. J. Cell Biol. 2002, 159:753-763.
31. Tanabe H., et al. Evolutionary conservation of chromosome territory arrangements in cell nuclei from higher primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99:4424-4429.
32. Habermann F.A., et al. Arrangements of macro- and microchromosomes in chicken cells. Chromosome Res. 2001, 9:569-584.
33. Baroux C., et al. The triploid endosperm genome of Arabidopsis adopts a peculiar, parental-dosage-dependent chromatin organization. Plant Cell 2007, 19:1782-1794.
34. Sun H.B., Yokota H. Correlated positioning of homologous chromosomes in daughter fibroblast cells. Chromosome Res. 1999, 7:603-610.
35. Gerlich D., et al. Global chromosome positions are transmitted through mitosis in mammalian cells. Cell 2003, 112:751-764.
36. Walter J., et al. Chromosome order in HeLa cells changes during mitosis and early G1, but is stably maintained during subsequent interphase stages. J. Cell Biol. 2003, 160:685-697.
37. Essers J., et al. Dynamics of relative chromosome position during the cell cycle. Mol. Biol. Cell 2005, 16:769-775.
38. Strickfaden H., et al. 4D Chromatin dynamics in cycling cells: Theodor Boveri's hypotheses revisited. Nucleus 2010, 1:284-297.
39. Maguire M.P. Sister chromatid cohesiveness: vital function, obscure mechanism. Biochem. Cell Biol. 1990, 68:1231-1242.
40. Miyazaki W.Y., Orr-Weaver T.L. Sister-chromatid cohesion in mitosis and meiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 1994, 28:167-187.
41. Losada A., Hirano T. Shaping the metaphase chromosome: coordination of cohesion and condensation. Bioessays 2001, 23:924-935.
42. Nasmyth K., Haering C.H. The structure and function of SMC and kleisin complexes. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74:595-648.
43. Hirano T. At the heart of the chromosome: SMC proteins in action. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7:311-322.
44. Blat Y., Kleckner N. Cohesins bind to preferential sites along yeast chromosome III, with differential regulation along arms versus the centric region. Cell 1999, 98:249-259.
45. Tanaka T., et al. Identification of cohesin association sites at centromeres and along chromosome arms. Cell 1999, 98:847-858.
46. Glynn E.F., et al. Genome-wide mapping of the cohesin complex in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2:1325-1339.
47. Weber S.A., et al. The kinetochore is an enhancer of pericentric cohesin binding. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2:1340-1353.
48. Guacci V., et al. Chromosome condensation and sister chromatid pairing in budding yeast. J. Cell Biol. 1994, 125:517-530.
49. Volpi E.V., et al. Cohesion, but not too close. Curr. Biol. 2001, 11:R378.
50. Schubert V., et al. Sister chromatids are often incompletely aligned in meristematic and endopolyploid interphase nuclei of Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 2006, 172:467-475.
51. Schubert V., et al. Random homologous pairing and incomplete sister chromatid alignment are common in angiosperm interphase nuclei. Mol. Genet. Genomics 2007, 278:167-176.
52. Vongs A., et al. Arabidopsis thaliana DNA methylation mutants. Science 1993, 260:1926-1928.
53. Kirik A., et al. The chromatin assembly factor subunit FASCIATA1 is involved in homologous recombination in plants. Plant Cell 2006, 18:2431-2442.
54. Schubert V., et al. Arabidopsis sister chromatids often show complete alignment or separation along a 1.2 Mb euchromatic region but no cohesion 'hot spots'. Chromosoma 2008, 117:261-266.
55. Schubert V., et al. Cohesin gene defects may impair sister chromatid alignment and genome stability in Arabidopsis thaliana. Chromosoma 2009, 118:591-605.
56. Watanabe K., et al. The STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE OF CHROMOSOMES 5/6 complex promotes sister chromatid alignment and homologous recombination after DNA damage in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 2009, 21:2688-2699.
57. Takahashi N., et al. The MCM-binding protein ETG1 aids sister chromatid cohesion required for postreplicative homologous recombination repair. PLoS Genet. 2010, 6:e1000817.
58. Robinett C.C., et al. In vivo localization of DNA sequences and visualization of large-scale chromatin organization using lac operator/repressor recognition. J. Cell Biol. 1996, 135:1685-1700.
59. Straight A.F., et al. GFP tagging of budding yeast chromosomes reveals that protein-protein interactions can mediate sister chromatid cohesion. Curr. Biol. 1996, 6:1599-1608.
60. Kato N., Lam E. Detection of chromosomes tagged with green fluorescent protein in live Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Genome Biol. 2001, 2. research0045.
61. Rosin F.M., et al. Genome-wide transposon tagging reveals location-dependent effects on transcription and chromatin organization in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2008, 55:514-525.
62. Lam E., et al. Visualizing chromosome structure/organization. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55:537-554.
63. Matzke A.J., et al. Fluorescent transgenes to study interphase chromosomes in living plants. Methods Mol. Biol. 2008, 463:241-265.
64. Pecinka A., et al. Tandem repetitive transgenes and fluorescent chromatin tags alter local interphase chromosome arrangement in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Cell Sci. 2005, 118:3751-3758.
65. Probst A.V., et al. Two means of transcriptional reactivation within heterochromatin. Plant J. 2003, 33:743-749.
66. Watanabe K., et al. DNA hypomethylation reduces homologous pairing of inserted tandem repeat arrays in somatic nuclei of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2005, 44:531-540.
67. Matzke A.J.M., et al. Use of two-color fluorescence-tagged transgenes to study interphase chromosomes in living plants. Plant Physiol. 2005, 139:1586-1596.
68. Jovtchev G., et al. Size and number of tandem repeat arrays can determine somatic homologous pairing of transgene loci mediated by epigenetic modifications in Arabidopsis thaliana nuclei. Chromosoma 2008, 117:267-276.
69. Dundr M., Raska I. Nonisotopic ultrastructural mapping of transcription sites within the nucleolus. Exp. Cell Res. 1993, 208:275-281.
70. Jackson D.A., et al. Visualization of focal sites of transcription within human nuclei. EMBO J. 1993, 12:1059-1065.
71. Wansink D.G., et al. Fluorescent labeling of nascent RNA reveals transcription by RNA polymerase II in domains scattered throughout the nucleus. J. Cell Biol. 1993, 122:283-293.
72. Straatman K.R., et al. Fluorescent labelling of nascent RNA reveals nuclear transcription domains throughout plant cell nuclei. Protoplasma 1996, 192:145-149.
73. Jasencakova Z., et al. Histone H4 acetylation of euchromatin and heterochromatin is cell cycle dependent and correlated with replication rather than with transcription. Plant Cell 2000, 12:2087-2100.
74. Iborra F.J., et al. Active RNA polymerases are localized within discrete transcription 'factories' in human nuclei. J. Cell Sci. 1996, 109:1427-1436.
75. Zirbel R.M., et al. Evidence for a nuclear compartment of transcription and splicing located at chromosome domain boundaries. Chromosome Res. 1993, 1:93-106.
76. Kurz A., et al. Active and inactive genes localize preferentially in the periphery of chromosome territories. J. Cell Biol. 1996, 135:1195-1205.
77. Albiez H., et al. Chromatin domains and the interchromatin compartment form structurally defined and functionally interacting nuclear networks. Chromosome Res. 2006, 14:707-733.
78. Solovei I., et al. Nuclear architecture of rod photoreceptor cells adapts to vision in mammalian evolution. Cell 2009, 137:356-368.
79. Kotseruba V., et al. The evolution of the hexaploid grass Zingeria kochii (Mez) Tzvel. (2n=12) was accompanied by complex hybridization and uniparental loss of ribosomal DNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 56:146-155.
80. Küpper K., et al. Radial chromatin positioning is shaped by local gene density, not by gene expression. Chromosoma 2007, 116:285-306.
81. Branco M.R., Pombo A. Intermingling of chromosome territories in interphase suggests role in translocations and transcription-dependent associations. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:e138.
82. Rouquette J., et al. Functional nuclear architecture studied by microscopy: present and future. Int. Rev. Cell Mol. Biol. 2010, 282:1-90.
83. Cremer T., Cremer M. Chromosome territories. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2:a003889.
84. Abranches R., et al. Widely separated multiple transgene integration sites in wheat chromosomes are brought together at interphase. Plant J. 2000, 24:713-723.
85. Santos A.P., et al. The architecture of interphase chromosomes and gene positioning are altered by changes in DNA methylation and histone acetylation. J. Cell Sci. 2002, 115:4597-4605.
86. Panstruga R., et al. A contiguous 60kb genomic stretch from barley reveals molecular evidence for gene islands in a monocot genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998, 26:1056-1062.
87. Wegel E., et al. Large-scale chromatin decondensation induced in a developmentally activated transgene locus. J. Cell Sci. 2005, 118:1021-1031.
88. Wegel E., et al. Cell type-specific chromatin decondensation of a metabolic gene cluster in oats. Plant Cell 2009, 21:3926-3936.
89. Soppe W.J.J., et al. The late flowering phenotype of fwa mutants is caused by gain-of-function epigenetic alleles of a homeodomain gene. Mol. Cell 2000, 6:791-802.
90. Costa S., Shaw P. Chromatin organization and cell fate switch respond to positional information in Arabidopsis. Nature 2006, 439:493-496.
91. Shaw P.J. Mapping chromatin conformation. F1000 Biol. Rep. 2010, 2:18. 10.3410/B2-18.