Cited by 253Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities

Centromere strength provides the cell biological basis for meiotic drive and karyotype evolution in mice

Open access
Chmátal, Lukáš, Gabriel, Sofia I., Mitsainas, George P., Martínez-Vargas, Jessica, Ventura, Jacint, Searle, Jeremy B., Schultz, Richard M., Lampson, Michael A.·2014·Current Biology

Abstract

Mammalian karyotypes (number and structure of chromosomes) can vary dramatically over short evolutionary time frames. There are examples of massive karyotype conversion, from mostly telocentric (centromere terminal) to mostly metacentric (centromere internal), in 10(2)-10(5) years. These changes typically reflect rapid fixation of Robertsonian (Rb) fusions, a common chromosomal rearrangement that joins two telocentric chromosomes at their centromeres to create one metacentric. Fixation of Rb fusions can be explained by meiotic drive: biased chromosome segregation during female meiosis in violation of Mendel's first law. However, there is no mechanistic explanation of why fusions would preferentially segregate to the egg in some populations, leading to fixation and karyotype change, while other populations preferentially eliminate the fusions and maintain a telocentric karyotype. Here we show, using both laboratory models and wild mice, that differences in centromere strength predict the direction of drive. Stronger centromeres, manifested by increased kinetochore protein levels and altered interactions with spindle microtubules, are preferentially retained in the egg. We find that fusions preferentially segregate to the polar body in laboratory mouse strains when the fusion centromeres are weaker than those of telocentrics. Conversely, fusion centromeres are stronger relative to telocentrics in natural house mouse populations that have changed karyotype by accumulating metacentric fusions. Our findings suggest that natural variation in centromere strength explains how the direction of drive can switch between populations. They also provide a cell biological basis of centromere drive and karyotype evolution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2014.08.017

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is now strong molecular evidence from studies on mice that female meiotic drive of Robertsonian translocations is capable of driving karyotype evolution through their effect on centromere strength.

    “There is now strong molecular evidence from studies on mice that female meiotic drive of Robertsonian translocations is capable of driving karyotype evolution through their effect on centromere strength (Chmátal et al., 2014).”

    From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Chmátal et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [2]Faria R Navarro A 2010 Chromosomal speciation revisited: rearranging theory with pieces of evidence Trends Ecol Evol 25 660 9 20817305
  2. [3]Brown JD O’Neill RJ 2010 Chromosomes, conflict, and epigenetics: chromosomal speciation revisited Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 11 291 316 20438362
  3. [4]Britton-Davidian J Catalan J Ramalhinho MG Ganem G Auffray JC Capela R Biscoito M Searle JB Mathias ML 2000 Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice Nature 403 158 10646592
  4. [5]White TA Bordewich M Searle JB 2010 A network approach to study karyotypic evolution: the chromosomal races of the common shrew (Sorex araneus) and house mouse (Mus musculus) as model systems Syst Biol 59 262 76 20525634
  5. [6]Pardo-Manuel de Villena F Sapienza C 2001 Female meiosis drives karyotypic evolution in mammals Genetics 159 1179 89 11729161 PMC1461872
  6. [8]Buckland RA Evans HJ 1978 Cytogenetic aspects of phylogeny in the Bovidae I G-banding Cytogenet Cell Genet 21 42 63 648196
  7. [9]Mao X Nie W Wang J Su W Feng Q Wang Y Dobigny G Yang F 2008 Comparative cytogenetics of bats (Chiroptera): the prevalence of Robertsonian translocations limits the power of chromosomal characters in resolving interfamily phylogenetic relationships Chromosome Res 16 155 70 18293110
  8. [10]Aniskin VM Benazzou T Biltueva L Dobigny G Granjon L Volobouev V 2006 Unusually extensive karyotype reorganization in four congeneric Gerbillus species (Muridae: Gerbillinae) Cytogenet Genome Res 112 131 40 16276102
  9. [12]Garagna S Page J Fernandez-Donoso R Zuccotti M Searle JB 2014 The Robertsonian phenomenon in the house mouse: mutation, meiosis and speciation Chromosoma 25053180
  10. [14]Cheeseman IM Desai A 2008 Molecular architecture of the kinetochore-microtubule interface Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9 33 46 18097444
  11. [15]Gropp A Tettenborn U von Lehmann E 1969 Chromosome studies in the tobacco mouse (M. poschiavinus) and in tobacco mouse hybrids Experientia 25 875 6 5348563
  12. [16]Malik HS 2009 The centromere-drive hypothesis: a simple basis for centromere complexity Prog Mol Subcell Biol 48 33 52 19521811
  13. [18]Medarde N López-Fuster MJ Muñoz-Muñoz F Ventura J 2012 Spatio-temporal variation in the structure of a chromosomal polymorphism zone in the house mouse Heredity (Edinb) 109 78 89 22534497 PMC3400744
  14. [20]Henikoff S Ahmad K Malik HS 2001 The centromere paradox: stable inheritance with rapidly evolving DNA Science 293 1098 102 11498581
  15. [21]Shurtliff QR 2013 Mammalian hybrid zones: a review Mamm Rev 43 1 21
  16. [22]Hauffe HC Giménez MD Searle JB 2012 Chromosomal hybrid zones in the house mouse Evolution of the House Mouse Cambridge University Press 407 430

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chmátal, L., Gabriel, S. I., Mitsainas, G. P., Martínez-Vargas, J., Ventura, J., Searle, J. B., Schultz, R. M., & Lampson, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Patras (GR)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Schultz, Richard M.
  • Lampson, Michael A.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
24
Issue
19
Pages
2295-2300
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114025873
Cited by
253
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
FWCI
23.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CGL2010-15243, GM107086)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Microtubule and mitosis dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Keywords
meiotic drive, karyotype evolution, Robertsonian translocation, chromosome fusion, kinetochore proteins, telocentric chromosomes, metacentric chromosomes, house mouse, natural variation
MeSH terms
Animals, Centromere, Chromosome Aberrations, Europe, Female, Meiosis, Evolution, Molecular, Chromosome Segregation, Mice, Karyotype

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review