Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Schwartzkopf et al characterized the meiotic recombination impact of highly heterozygous introgressed regions within the budding yeast Saccharomyces uvarum, a close relative of the canonical model Saccharomyces cerevisiae. To do so, they took advantage of the naturally occurring Saccharomyces bayanus introgressions specifically within fermentation isolates of S. uvarum and compared their behavior to the syntenic regions of a cross between natural isolates that do not contain such introgressions. Analysis of crossover (CO) and noncrossover (NCO) recombination events shows both a depletion in CO frequency within highly heterozygous introgressed regions and an increase in NCO frequency. These results strongly support the hypothesis that DNA sequence polymorphism inhibits CO formation, and has no or much weaker effects on NCO formation. Eventually, the authors show that the presence of introgressions negatively impacts "r", the parameter that reflects the probability that a randomly chosen pair of loci shuffles their alleles in a gamete.

The authors chose a sound experimental setup that allowed them to directly compare recombination properties of orthologous syntenic regions in an otherwise intra-specific genetic background. The way the analyses have been performed looks right, although this reviewer is unable to judge the relevance of the statistical tests used. Eventually, most of their results which are elegant and of interest to the community are present in Figure 2.

Strengths:

Analysis of crossover (CO) and noncrossover (NCO) recombination events is compelling in showing both a depletion in CO frequency within highly heterozygous introgressed regions and an increase in NCO frequency.

Weaknesses:

The main weaknesses refer to a few text issues and a lack of discussion about the mechanistic implications of the present findings.

- Introduction

The introduction is rather long. I suggest specifically referring to "meiotic" recombination (line 71) and to "meiotic" DSBs (line 73) since recombination can occur outside of meiosis (ie somatic cells).

From lines 79 to 87: the description of recombination is unnecessarily complex and confusing. I suggest the authors simply remind that DSB repair through homologous recombination is inherently associated with a gene conversion tract (primarily as a result of the repair of heteroduplex DNA by the mismatch repair (MMR) machinery) that can be associated or not to a crossover. The former recombination product is a crossover (CO), the latter product is a noncrossover (NCO) or gene conversion. Limited markers may prevent the detection of gene conversions, which erase NCO but do not affect CO detection.

In addition, "resolution" in the recombination field refers to the processing of a double Holliday junction containing intermediates by structure-specific nucleases. To avoid any confusion, I suggest avoiding using "resolution" and simply sticking with "DSB repair" all along the text.

Note that there are several studies about S. cerevisiae meiotic recombination landscapes using different hybrids that show different CO counts. In the introduction, the authors refer to Mancera et al 2008, a reference paper in the field. In this paper, the hybrid used showed ca. 90 CO per meiosis, while their reference to Liu et al 2018 in Figure 2 shows less than 80 COs per meiosis for S. cerevisiae. This shows that it is not easy to come up with a definitive CO count per meiosis in a given species. This needs to be taken into account for the result section line 315-321.

In line 104, the authors refer to S. paradoxus and mention that its recombination rate is significantly different from that of S. cerevisiae. This is inaccurate since this paper claims that the CO landscape is even more conserved than the DSB landscape between these two species, and they even identify a strong role played by the subtelomeric regions. So, the discussion about this paper cannot stand as it is.

Line 150, when the authors refer to the anti-recombinogenic activity of the MMR, I suggest referring to the published work from Martini et al 2011 rather than the not-yet-published work from Copper et al 2021, or both, if needed.

Results

The clear depletion in CO and the concomitant increase in NCO within the introgressed regions strongly suggest that DNA sequence polymorphism triggers CO inhibition but does not affect NCO or to a much lower extent. Because most CO likely arises from the ZMM pathway (CO interference pathway mainly relying on Zip1, 2, 3, 4, Spo16, Msh4, 5, and Mer3) in S. uvarum as in S. cerevisiae, and because the effect of sequence polymorphism is likely mediated by the MMR machinery, this would imply that MMR specifically inhibits the ZMM pathway at some point in S. uvarum.

The weak effect or potential absence of the effect of sequence polymorphism on NCO formation suggests that heteroduplex DNA tracts, at least the way they form during NCO formation, escape the anti-recombinogenic effect of MMR in S. uvarum. A few comments about this could be added.

The same applies to the fact that the CO number is lower in the natural cross compared to the fermentation cross, while the NCO number is the same. This suggests that under similar initiating Spo11-DSB numbers in both crosses, the decrease in CO is likely compensated by a similar increase in inter-sister recombination.

Introgressions represent only 10% of the genome, while the decrease in CO is at least 20%. This is a bit surprising especially in light of CO regulation mechanisms such as CO homeostasis that tends to keep CO constant. Could the authors comment on that?

Finally, the frequency of NCOs in introgressed regions is about twice the frequency of CO in non-introgressed regions. Both CO and NCO result from Spo11-initiating DSBs. This suggests that more Spo11-DSBs are formed within introgressed regions and that such DSBs specifically give rise to NCO. Could this be related to the lack of homolog engagement which in turn shuts down Spo11-DSB formation as observed in ZMM mutants by the Keeney lab? Could this simply result from better detection of NCO in introgressed regions related to the increased marker density, although the authors claim that NCO counts are corrected for marker resolution?

What could be the explanation for chromosome 12 to have more shuffling in the natural cross compared to the fermentation cross which is deprived of the introgressed region?

Technical points:

- In line 248, the authors removed NCO with fewer than three associated markers.
What is the rationale for this? Is the genotyping strategy not reliable enough to consider events with only one or two markers? NCO events can be rather small and even escape detection due to low local marker density.

- Line 270: The way homology is calculated looks odd to this reviewer, especially the meaning of 0.5 homology. A site is either identical (1 homology) or not (0 homology).

- Line 365: beware that the estimates are for mitotic mismatch repair (MMR). Meiotic MMR may work differently.

- Figure 1: there is no mention of potential 4:0 segregations. Did the authors find no such pattern? If not, how did they consider them?

Figures and data

Spearman’s correlations of NCOs to homology in introgressed regions of the fermentation cross.

Welch two sample t-test results for differences in homology between CO-adjacent regions and NCO-adjacent regions per introgression.

Coefficients of gaussian generalized linear model modeling CO counts per 20kb window.

Coefficients of gaussian generalized linear model modeling NCO counts per 20kb window.