Strand-seq: a unifying tool for studies of chromosome segregation.

Non random segregation of sister chromatids has been implicated to help specify daughter cell fate (the Silent Sister Hypothesis [1]) or to protect the genome of long-lived stem cells (the Immortal Strand Hypothesis [2]). The idea that sister chromatids are non-randomly segregated into specific daughter cells is only marginally supported by data in sporadic and often contradictory studies. As a result, the field has moved forward rather slowly. The advent of being able to directly label and differentiate sister chromatids in vivo using fluorescence in situ hybridization [3] was a significant advance for such studies. However, this approach is limited by the need for large tracks of unidirectional repeats on chromosomes and the reliance on quantitative imaging of fluorescent probes and rigorous statistical analysis to discern between the two competing hypotheses. A novel method called Strand-seq which uses next-generation sequencing to assay sister chromatid inheritance patterns independently for each chromosome [4] offers a comprehensive approach to test for non-random segregation. In addition Strand-seq enables studies on the deposition of chromatin marks in relation to DNA replication. This method is expected to help unify the field by testing previous claims of non-random segregation in an unbiased way in many model systems in vitro and in vivo.

[1]  S. Tajbakhsh.  Stem cell identity and template DNA strand segregation. , 2008, Current opinion in cell biology.

[2]  T. Rando.  The Immortal Strand Hypothesis: Segregation and Reconstruction , 2007, Cell.

[3]  J. Tyler,et al.  Chaperoning Histones during DNA Replication and Repair , 2010, Cell.

[4]  Peter M. Lansdorp,et al.  Identification of sister chromatids by DNA template strand sequences , 2010, Nature.

[5]  T. Rando,et al.  Stem cell ageing and non-random chromosome segregation , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Sean J. Morrison,et al.  Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and cancer , 2006, Nature.

[7]  A. Klar.  Differentiated parental DNA strands confer developmental asymmetry on daughter cells in fission yeast , 1987, Nature.

[8]  Barbara Gayraud-Morel,et al.  Asymmetric division and cosegregation of template DNA strands in adult muscle satellite cells , 2006, Nature Cell Biology.

[9]  J. Sherley,et al.  Molecular Cloaking of H2A.Z on Mortal DNA Chromosomes During Nonrandom Segregation , 2011, Stem cells.

[10]  H. Clevers,et al.  Lgr5 intestinal stem cells have high telomerase activity and randomly segregate their chromosomes , 2011, The EMBO journal.

[11]  C. Legraverend,et al.  "The immortal DNA strand": difficult to digest? , 2010, Cell stem cell.

[12]  David M. Wilson,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of sister-chromatid exchange. , 2007, Mutation research.

[13]  D. van der Kooy,et al.  Support for the immortal strand hypothesis , 2005, The Journal of cell biology.

[14]  M. Cornforth,et al.  Strand-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization: the CO-FISH family , 2004, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[15]  D. Joubert,et al.  Intestinal epithelial stem cells do not protect their genome by asymmetric chromosome segregation , 2011, Nature communications.

[16]  Micheline Kirsch-Volders,et al.  Mitotic checkpoints and the maintenance of the chromosome karyotype. , 2008, Mutation research.

[17]  Christopher S Potten,et al.  Intestinal stem cells protect their genome by selective segregation of template DNA strands. , 2002, Journal of cell science.

[18]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  Drosophila male germline stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosome strands , 2011, Journal of Cell Science.

[19]  M Meselson,et al.  THE REPLICATION OF DNA IN ESCHERICHIA COLI. , 1958, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  John Cairns,et al.  Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer , 1975, Nature.

[21]  Hans Clevers,et al.  Coexistence of Quiescent and Active Adult Stem Cells in Mammals , 2010, Science.

[22]  J. Sherley.  A new mechanism for aging: chemical "age spots" in immortal DNA strands in distributed stem cells. , 2008, Breast disease.

[23]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Replication-Dependent Loss of 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine in Mouse Preimplantation Embryos , 2011, Science.

[24]  C. D. Bell.  Is mitotic chromatid segregation random? , 2005, Histology and histopathology.

[25]  M. Blasco,et al.  A Subpopulation of Adult Skeletal Muscle Stem Cells Retains All Template DNA Strands after Cell Division , 2012, Cell.

[26]  Yongjun Zhao,et al.  DNA template strand sequencing of single-cells maps genomic rearrangements at high resolution , 2012, Nature Methods.

[27]  T. Mikkelsen,et al.  Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells , 2007, Nature.

[28]  W. Reik,et al.  Dynamic regulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mouse ES cells and during differentiation , 2011, Nature.

[29]  T. Rando,et al.  High Incidence of Non-Random Template Strand Segregation and Asymmetric Fate Determination In Dividing Stem Cells and their Progeny , 2007, PLoS biology.

[30]  P. Lansdorp,et al.  Chromosome orientation fluorescence in situ hybridization to study sister chromatid segregation in vivo , 2010, Nature Protocols.

[31]  W. Fischle,et al.  Asymmetrically modified nucleosomes expand the histone code , 2012, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[32]  P. Lansdorp.  Immortal Strands? Give Me a Break , 2007, Cell.

[33]  J. Hoeijmakers.  Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer , 2001, Nature.

[34]  Shenghui He,et al.  Haematopoietic stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosomes or retain BrdU , 2007, Nature.

[35]  Anindya Dutta,et al.  The Immortal Strand Hypothesis: How Could It Work? , 2008, Cell.

[36]  H. Clevers,et al.  Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5 , 2007, Nature.

[37]  C. Blanpain,et al.  The Majority of Multipotent Epidermal Stem Cells Do Not Protect Their Genome by Asymmetrical Chromosome Segregation , 2008, Stem cells.

[38]  J. Cairns,et al.  The segregation of DNA in epithelial stem cells , 1978, Cell.

[39]  S. Tajbakhsh,et al.  Biased segregation of DNA and centrosomes — moving together or drifting apart? , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[40]  Hans Clevers,et al.  Spindle orientation bias in gut epithelial stem cell compartments is lost in precancerous tissue. , 2010, Cell stem cell.

[41]  E. Jablonka,et al.  The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations. , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[42]  A. Klar,et al.  Cell Type Regulates Selective Segregation of Mouse Chromosome 7 DNA Strands in Mitosis , 2006, Science.

[43]  Rebecca M. Jones,et al.  Replication fork dynamics and the DNA damage response. , 2012, The Biochemical journal.

[44]  P. Lansdorp,et al.  Epigenetic differences between sister chromatids? , 2012, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.