Manipulation of Karyotype in<i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>Reveals Multiple Inputs Driving Pairwise Chromosome Synapsis During Meiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meiotic chromosome segregation requires pairwise association between homologs, stabilized by the synaptonemal complex (SC). Here, we investigate factors contributing to pairwise synapsis by investigating meiosis in polyploid worms. We devised a strategy, based on transient inhibition of cohesin function, to generate polyploid derivatives of virtually any Caenorhabditis elegans strain. We exploited this strategy to investigate the contribution of recombination to pairwise synapsis in tetraploid and triploid worms. In otherwise wild-type polyploids, chromosomes first sort into homolog groups, then multipartner interactions mature into exclusive pairwise associations. Pairwise synapsis associations still form in recombination-deficient tetraploids, confirming a propensity for synapsis to occur in a strictly pairwise manner. However, the transition from multipartner to pairwise association was perturbed in recombination-deficient triploids, implying a role for recombination in promoting this transition when three partners compete for synapsis. To evaluate the basis of synapsis partner preference, we generated polyploid worms heterozygous for normal sequence and rearranged chromosomes sharing the same pairing center (PC). Tetraploid worms had no detectable preference for identical partners, indicating that PC-adjacent homology drives partner choice in this context. In contrast, triploid worms exhibited a clear preference for identical partners, indicating that homology outside the PC region can influence partner choice. Together, our findings, suggest a two-phase model for C. elegans synapsis: an early phase, in which initial synapsis interactions are driven primarily by recombination-independent assessment of homology near PCs and by a propensity for pairwise SC assembly, and a later phase in which mature synaptic interactions are promoted by recombination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".