Identification of Genes That Promote or Antagonize Somatic Homolog Pairing Using a High-Throughput FISH–Based Screen

The pairing of homologous chromosomes is a fundamental feature of the meiotic cell. In addition, a number of species exhibit homolog pairing in nonmeiotic, somatic cells as well, with evidence for its impact on both gene regulation and double-strand break (DSB) repair. An extreme example of somatic pairing can be observed in Drosophila melanogaster, where homologous chromosomes remain aligned throughout most of development. However, our understanding of the mechanism of somatic homolog pairing remains unclear, as only a few genes have been implicated in this process. In this study, we introduce a novel high-throughput fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technology that enabled us to conduct a genome-wide RNAi screen for factors involved in the robust somatic pairing observed in Drosophila. We identified both candidate “pairing promoting genes” and candidate “anti-pairing genes,” providing evidence that pairing is a dynamic process that can be both enhanced and antagonized. Many of the genes found to be important for promoting pairing are highly enriched for functions associated with mitotic cell division, suggesting a genetic framework for a long-standing link between chromosome dynamics during mitosis and nuclear organization during interphase. In contrast, several of the candidate anti-pairing genes have known interphase functions associated with S-phase progression, DNA replication, and chromatin compaction, including several components of the condensin II complex. In combination with a variety of secondary assays, these results provide insights into the mechanism and dynamics of somatic pairing

Establishment of Cohesion at the Pericentromere by the Ctf19 Kinetochore Subcomplex and the Replication Fork-Associated Factor, Csm3

The cohesin complex holds sister chromatids together from the time of their duplication in S phase until their separation during mitosis. Although cohesin is found along the length of chromosomes, it is most abundant at the centromere and surrounding region, the pericentromere. We show here that the budding yeast Ctf19 kinetochore subcomplex and the replication fork-associated factor, Csm3, are both important mediators of pericentromeric cohesion, but they act through distinct mechanisms. We show that components of the Ctf19 complex direct the increased association of cohesin with the pericentromere. In contrast, Csm3 is dispensable for cohesin enrichment in the pericentromere but is essential in ensuring its functionality in holding sister centromeres together. Consistently, cells lacking Csm3 show additive cohesion defects in combination with mutants in the Ctf19 complex. Furthermore, delaying DNA replication rescues the cohesion defect observed in cells lacking Ctf19 complex components, but not Csm3. We propose that the Ctf19 complex ensures additional loading of cohesin at centromeres prior to passage of the replication fork, thereby ensuring its incorporation into functional linkages through a process requiring Csm3

The topographic evolution of the Tibetan Region as revealed by palaeontology

The Tibetan Plateau was built through a succession of Gondwanan terranes colliding with Asia during the Mesozoic. These accretions produced a complex Paleogene topography of several predominantly east–west trending mountain ranges separated by deep valleys. Despite this piecemeal assembly and resultant complex relief, Tibet has traditionally been thought of as a coherent entity rising as one unit. This has led to the widely used phrase ‘the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau’, which is a false concept borne of simplistic modelling and confounds understanding the complex interactions between topography climate and biodiversity. Here, using the rich palaeontological record of the Tibetan region, we review what is known about the past topography of the Tibetan region using a combination of quantitative isotope and fossil palaeoaltimetric proxies, and present a new synthesis of the orography of Tibet throughout the Paleogene. We show why ‘the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau’ never occurred, and quantify a new pattern of topographic and landscape evolution that contributed to the development of today’s extraordinary Asian biodiversity