Cited by 0DNA Repair MechanismsGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Genetic and physical interactions reveal overlapping and distinct contributions to meiotic double-strand break formation in C. elegans

Open access
Raices, Marilina, Balmir, Fabiola, Silva, Nicola, Li, Wei, Grundy, McKenzie K, Hoffman, Dane K, Altendorfer, Elisabeth, Camacho, Carlos J +3 more·2026·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most deleterious lesions experienced by our genome. Yet, DSBs are intentionally induced during gamete formation to promote the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes. While the conserved topoisomerase-like enzyme Spo11 catalyzes DSBs, additional regulatory proteins—referred to as ‘Spo11 accessory factors’—regulate the number, timing, and placement of DSBs during meiotic prophase, ensuring that SPO-11 does not wreak havoc on the genome. Despite the importance of the accessory factors, they are poorly conserved at the sequence level, suggesting that these factors may adopt unique functions in different species. In this work, we present a detailed analysis of the genetic and physical interactions between the DSB factors in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, providing new insights into conserved and novel functions of these proteins. This work shows that HIM-5 is the determinant of X-chromosome-specific crossovers and that its retention in the nucleus is dependent on DSB-1, the sole accessory factor that interacts with SPO-11. We further provide evidence that HIM-5 mediates interactions with the different accessory factors subgroups, providing insights into how components on the DNA loops may interact with the chromosome axis.

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 · 10.7554/elife.96458.4

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Authors
Raices, M., Balmir, F., Silva, N., Li, W., Grundy, M. K., Hoffman, D. K., Altendorfer, E., Camacho, C. J., Bernstein, K. A., Colaiacovo, M. P., & Yanowitz, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Magee-Womens Research Institute (US)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Department of Genetics, Blavatnik Institute, Harvard Medical School
Corresponding author
Yanowitz, Judith L
Venue
eLife
Published
2026-03-25
Volume
13
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392244042
Cited by
0
References
3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01GM072551, R01ES030335, R01GM104007, S10OD030404)
  • Czech Science Foundation (23-04918S)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM157825)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
Spo11, him-5, crossover formation, meiotic prophase, homologous recombination, chromosome axis, DNA loops, Caenorhabditis elegans

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