Topoisomerases Modulate the Timing of Meiotic DNA Breakage and Chromosome Morphogenesis in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meiotic chromosomes experience substantial strain due to morphological changes and ongoing metabolism of the DNA. Outside of meiosis, topology-modifying enzymes called topoisomerases manage this sort of strain, but their function during meiotic prophase has not been thoroughly explored... During meiotic prophase, concurrent transcription, recombination, and chromosome synapsis place substantial topological strain on chromosomal DNA, but the role of topoisomerases in this context remains poorly defined. Here, we analyzed the roles of topoisomerases I and II (Top1 and Top2) during meiotic prophase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that both topoisomerases accumulate primarily in promoter-containing intergenic regions of actively transcribing genes, including many meiotic double-strand break (DSB) hotspots. Despite the comparable binding patterns, top1 and top2 mutations have different effects on meiotic recombination. TOP1 disruption delays DSB induction and shortens the window of DSB accumulation by an unknown mechanism. By contrast, temperature-sensitive top2-1 mutants exhibit a marked delay in meiotic chromosome remodeling and elevated DSB signals on synapsed chromosomes. The problems in chromosome remodeling were linked to altered Top2 binding patterns rather than a loss of Top2 catalytic activity, and stemmed from a defect in recruiting the chromosome remodeler Pch2/TRIP13 to synapsed chromosomes. No chromosomal defects were observed in the absence of TOP1. Our results imply independent roles for Top1 and Top2 in modulating meiotic chromosome structure and 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".