Using an antibody against the phosphorylated form of His2Av (γ-His2Av), we have described the time course for the series of events leading from the formation of a double-strand break (DSB) to a crossover in Drosophila female meiotic prophase. MEI-P22 is required for DSB formation and localizes to chromosomes prior to γ-His2Av foci. Drosophila females, however, are among the group of organisms where synaptonemal complex (SC) formation is not dependent on DSBs. In the absence of two SC proteins, C(3)G and C(2)M, the number of DSBs in oocytes is significantly reduced. This is consistent with the appearance of SC protein staining prior to γ-His2Av foci. However, SC formation is incomplete or absent in the neighboring nurse cells, and γ-His2Av foci appear with the same kinetics as in oocytes and do not depend on SC proteins. Thus, competence for DSB formation in nurse cells occurs with a specific timing that is independent of the SC, whereas in the oocytes, some SC proteins may have a regulatory role to counteract the effects of a negative regulator of DSB formation. The SC is not sufficient for DSB formation, however, since DSBs were absent from the heterochromatin even though SC formation occurs in these regions. All γ-His2Av foci disappear before the end of prophase, presumably as repair is completed and crossovers are formed. However, oocytes in early prophase exhibit a slower response to X-ray–induced DSBs compared to those in the late pachytene stage. Assuming all DSBs appear as γ-His2Av foci, there is at least a 3:1 ratio of noncrossover to crossover products. From a comparison of the frequency of γ-His2Av foci and crossovers, it appears that Drosophila females have only a weak mechanism to ensure a crossover in the presence of a low number of DSBs.

Initiation of DNA replication at origins more than once per cell cycle results in rereplication and has been implicated in cancer. Here we use Drosophila to examine the checkpoint responses to rereplication in a developmental context. We find that increased Double-parked (Dup), the Drosophila ortholog of Cdt1, results in rereplication and DNA damage. In most cells, this rereplication triggers caspase activation and apoptotic cell death mediated by both p53-dependent and -independent pathways. Elevated Dup also caused DNA damage in endocycling cells, which switch to a G/S cycle during normal development, indicating that rereplication and the endocycling DNA reduplication program are distinct processes. Unexpectedly, however, endocycling cells do not apoptose regardless of tissue type. Our combined evidence suggests that endocycling apoptosis is repressed in part because proapoptotic gene promoters are silenced. Normal endocycling cells had DNA lesions near heterochromatin, which increased after rereplication, explaining why endocycling cells must constantly repress the genotoxic apoptotic response. Our results reveal a novel regulation of apoptosis in development and new insights into the little-understood endocycle. Similar mechanisms may operate during vertebrate development, with implications for cancer predisposition in certain tissues.[Keywords: DNA replication; DNA damage; endocycle; checkpoint; apoptosis] Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org. The timely duplication of the genome during S phase of every cell division cycle requires that DNA replication initiate from thousands of origins. If too few origins initiate, replication forks can collapse, resulting in DNA damage and incomplete replication of the genome. Initiation of DNA replication from origins more than once per cell cycle, however, results in "rereplication" and subsequent DNA damage (Arias and Walter 2007). In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that problems with DNA replication are common in premalignant cells, with subsequent checkpoint defects leading to genome instability and cancer (Dutta 2007). It remains unclear, however, whether all cells in development are equivalent with respect to their regulation of DNA replication and checkpoint responses. Here, we use Drosophila to investigate the checkpoint responses to rereplication in a developmental context. Two important steps in the cell cycle regulation of DNA replication are the assembly and activation of a prereplicative complex (pre-RC) (Sivaprasad et al. 2006). The pre-RC assembles onto origins in early G1 and is subsequently activated in S phase. During pre-RC assembly, the hexameric origin recognition complex (ORC) serves as a scaffold for origin association of Cdc6 and Cdt1, which are both required to load the hexameric minichromosome maintenance complex (MCM), the replicative helicase (Randell et al. 2006;Sivaprasad et al. 2006). Once the MCM complex is tightly bound, the origins are considered to be "licensed" and competent to initiate replic...

Using an antibody against the phosphorylated form of His2Av (c-His2Av), we have described the time course for the series of events leading from the formation of a double-strand break (DSB) to a crossover in Drosophila female meiotic prophase. MEI-P22 is required for DSB formation and localizes to chromosomes prior to c-His2Av foci. Drosophila females, however, are among the group of organisms where synaptonemal complex (SC) formation is not dependent on DSBs. In the absence of two SC proteins, C(3)G and C(2)M, the number of DSBs in oocytes is significantly reduced. This is consistent with the appearance of SC protein staining prior to c-His2Av foci. However, SC formation is incomplete or absent in the neighboring nurse cells, and c-His2Av foci appear with the same kinetics as in oocytes and do not depend on SC proteins. Thus, competence for DSB formation in nurse cells occurs with a specific timing that is independent of the SC, whereas in the oocytes, some SC proteins may have a regulatory role to counteract the effects of a negative regulator of DSB formation. The SC is not sufficient for DSB formation, however, since DSBs were absent from the heterochromatin even though SC formation occurs in these regions. All c-His2Av foci disappear before the end of prophase, presumably as repair is completed and crossovers are formed. However, oocytes in early prophase exhibit a slower response to X-ray-induced DSBs compared to those in the late pachytene stage. Assuming all DSBs appear as c-His2Av foci, there is at least a 3:1 ratio of noncrossover to crossover products. From a comparison of the frequency of c-His2Av foci and crossovers, it appears that Drosophila females have only a weak mechanism to ensure a crossover in the presence of a low number of DSBs.

Apoptotic cell death is an important response to genotoxic stress that prevents oncogenesis. It is known that tissues can differ in their apoptotic response, but molecular mechanisms are little understood. Here, we show that Drosophila polyploid endocycling cells (G/S cycle) repress the apoptotic response to DNA damage through at least two mechanisms. First, the expression of all the Drosophila p53 protein isoforms is strongly repressed at a post-transcriptional step. Second, p53-regulated pro-apoptotic genes are epigenetically silenced in endocycling cells, preventing activation of a paused RNA Pol II by p53-dependent or p53-independent pathways. Over-expression of the p53A isoform did not activate this paused RNA Pol II complex in endocycling cells, but over-expression of the p53B isoform with a longer transactivation domain did, suggesting that dampened p53B protein levels are crucial for apoptotic repression. We also find that the p53A protein isoform is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome in endocycling cells. In mitotic cycling cells, p53A was the only isoform expressed to detectable levels, and its mRNA and protein levels increased after irradiation, but there was no evidence for an increase in protein stability. However, our data suggest that p53A protein stability is regulated in unirradiated cells, which likely ensures that apoptosis does not occur in the absence of stress. Without irradiation, both p53A protein and a paused RNA pol II were pre-bound to the promoters of pro-apoptotic genes, preparing mitotic cycling cells for a rapid apoptotic response to genotoxic stress. Together, our results define molecular mechanisms by which different cells in development modulate their apoptotic response, with broader significance for the survival of normal and cancer polyploid cells in mammals.

SummaryThe endocycle is a variant cell cycle comprised of alternating gap (G) and DNA synthesis (S) phases (endoreplication) without mitosis (M), which results in DNA polyploidy and large cell size. Endocycles occur widely in nature, but much remains to be learned about the regulation of this modified cell cycle. Here, we compared gene expression profiles of mitotic cycling larval brain and disc cells with the endocycling cells of fat body and salivary gland of the Drosophila larva. The results indicated that many genes that are positively regulated by the heterodimeric E2F1-DP or Myb-MuvB complex transcription factors are expressed at lower levels in endocycling cells. Many of these target genes have functions in M phase, suggesting that dampened E2F1 and Myb activity promote endocycles. Many other E2F1 target genes that are required for DNA replication were also repressed in endocycling cells, an unexpected result given that these cells must duplicate up to thousands of genome copies during each S phase. For some EF2-regulated genes, the lower level of mRNA in endocycling cells resulted in lower protein concentration, whereas for other genes it did not, suggesting a contribution of post-transcriptional regulation. Both knockdown and overexpression of E2F1-DP and Myb-MuvB impaired endocycles, indicating that transcriptional activation and repression must be balanced. Our data suggest that dampened transcriptional activation by E2F1-DP and Myb-MuvB is important to repress mitosis and coordinate the endocycle transcriptional and protein stability oscillators. Journal of Cell Sciencetranscription of a cadre of other E2F1 target genes whose protein products are required for DNA replication (Cayirlioglu et al., 2003; Dimova et al., 2003;van den Heuvel and Dyson, 2008). The CycE-CDK2 promotion of S phase also results in a negativefeedback loop wherein E2F1 is degraded via PCNA-dependent proteolysis (Shibutani et al., 2008). CycE-CDK2 activity is then downregulated at the end of S phase by rising levels of Dacapo, the Drosophila ortholog of the p27 cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CKI), and also by the ubiquitin-mediated destruction of CycE protein (de Nooij et al., 2000;Hong et al., 2007;Ohlmeyer and Schupbach, 2003;Sauer et al., 1995;Szuplewski et al., 2009).The only other E2F family member in Drosophila, E2F2, also binds the single Drosophila DP protein and represses the transcription of cell cycle and differentiation genes (Dimova et al., 2003; Frolov et al., 2001;Sawado et al., 1998). E2F2 functions as part of a larger, evolutionarily conserved complex called MybMuvB, or dREAM, whose core subunits include Myb, RBF1, RBF2 and others (Korenjak et al., 2004;Lewis et al., 2004). Although Myb-MuvB represses transcription at most promoters, it can activate it at others (Georlette et al., 2007). Compromising repression mediated by E2F2 and RBF1 can lead to constitutively high levels of CycE and other replication proteins, which can alter or completely block endocycle progression (Cayirlioglu et al., 2001; Cayirlio...