H2A.Z deposition at meiotic prophase I underlies homologous recombination and pachytene genome activation during male meiosis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Sun et al. generated germline-specific cKO mice for the Znhit1 gene and examined its effect on male meiosis. The authors found that the loss of Znhit1 affects the transcriptional activation of pachytene. Znhit1 is a subunit of the SRCAP chromatin remodeling complex and a depositor of H2AZ, and in cKO spermatocytes, H2AZ is not deposited into the gene region. The authors claim that this is why the PGA was not activated. These findings provide important insights into the mechanisms of transcriptional regulation during the meiotic prophase.

Strengths:

The authors used samples from their original mouse model, analyzing both the epigenome and the transcriptome in detail using diverse NGS analyses to gain new insights into PGA. The quality of the results appeared excellent.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the data is inconsistent with the authors' claims and does not support their final conclusions. In addition, the sample used may not be the most suitable for the analysis, but a more suitable sample would dramatically improve the overall quality of the paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study demonstrates that Znhit1 regulates male meiosis, with deletion causing pachytene failure associated with defective expression of pachytene genes and subtle effects on X-Y pairing and DSB repair. The authors attribute this phenotype to the defective incorporation of the Znhit1 target H2A.Z into chromatin.

Strengths:

The paper and the figures are well presented and the narrative is clear. Evidence that the conditional deletion strategy removes Znhit1 is strong, with multiple orthogonal approaches used. Most of the meiotic phenotyping is well performed, and the omics analysis clearly identifies a dramatic effect on the meiotic gene expression program. The link to H2A.Z and A-MYB adds a mechanistic angle to the study.

Weaknesses:

(1) Current literature demonstrates that meiotic mutants arrest at one of two stages: midpachytene (stage IV of the seminiferous cycle) or metaphase I (stage XII of the seminiferous cycle). This study documents that in the Znhit1 KO the midpachytene marker H1t appears normally, but that cells arrest before diplotene. If this is true, then arrest must occur during late pachytene, which based on my knowledge has never been documented for a meiotic KO. To resolve this, the authors should present stronger histological substaging evidence to support their claim.

(2) The authors overlooked the possible effects of Znhit1 deletion on MSCI. Defective MSCI is a well-established cause of pachytene arrest. Actually, the fact that they see X-Y pairing failure should alert them even more strongly to this possibility because MSCI failure is often associated with defective X-Y pairing. This could be easily addressed by examination of their RNAseq data.

(3) The recombination assays need attention.
- In the text the authors state that they studied RPA2 and DMC1, but the figures show RPA2 and RAD51.
- The RPA counts are not quantitated.
- The conclusion that crossover formation fails (based on MLH1 staining) is not justified. This marker does not appear in wt males until late pachytene, so if cells in this mutant are dying before that stage, MLH1 cannot be assessed.
- The authors state that gH2AZ persists in the KO, but I'm not convinced that they are comparing equivalent stages in the wt and KO. In Figure 3C, the pachytene cell is late, whereas in the mutant the pachytene cell is early or mid (when residual gH2AX is expected, even in wt males).
- Previous work (PMID: 23824539) has shown that antibodies reportedly detecting pATM in the sex body are non-specific. I therefore advise caution with the data shown in Figure 3D.

(4) RNAseq data. The authors show convincingly that Znhit1 activates genes that are normally upregulated at the zyg-pachytene transition. They should repeat the analysis for genes normally upregulated at the prelep- lep and lep-zyg transition to show that this effect is really pachytene-gene specific.

(5) I am puzzled that the title and overall gist of the study focuses on H2A.Z, when it is Znhit1 that has been deleted.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Sun et al. present a manuscript detailing the phenotypic characterization of loss of Znhit1 in male germ cells. Znhit1 is a subunit of the chromatin regulating complex SRCAP that functions to deposit the histone variant H2A.Z. Given that meiosis, and specifically meiotic recombination, occurs in the context of the dynamic condensing of chromosomes, the role of chromatin regulators in general, and histone variants specifically, in mammalian meiosis is an active area of research. Previous work has shown that H2A.Z is found at the locations of recombination in plants, although H2A.Z was previously not found at recombination sites in mammalian meiosis. Here the authors use a conditional approach to ablate Znhit1 in spermatocytes and characterize a block in meiosis in prophase I in the transition from pachytene to diplotene stage.

Strengths:

The authors combine current methods in immunohistochemistry and functional genomics to provide strong evidence of meiotic block upon the loss of Znhit1. They find that loss of Znhit1 leads to reduced incorporation of the histone variant H2A.Z, specifically at promoters and enhancers. Further, RNA sequencing found more genes are down-regulated upon loss of Znhit1 compared to upregulated, suggesting that incorporation of H2A.Z is critical for the expression of genes necessary for successful meiotic progression.

A strength of the manuscript is tying the locations of changes in H2A.Z deposition with binding of the transcription factor A-MYB, providing a mechanism that can potentially combine the changes in chromatin regulation with variable binding of a transcription factor in gene expression in pachytene stage spermatocytes.

Weaknesses:

A weakness in the single-cell RNA experiment using cells from 16-day-old male mice. The authors suggest that the rationale for the experiment was to determine where the Znhit1-sKO mutant showed an arrest in meiosis, and claim that this is the pachytene stage. However, in the 'first wave' of meiosis 16-day-old mice are just beginning to enter pachytene, so cells from later meiotic stages will be largely absent in these tubules. This is clear from the UMAP showing a similar pattern of cell distributions between wild-type and mutant mice. Using older mice would have better demonstrated where the mutant and wild-type mice differ in cell-type composition.

The authors use the term pachytene genome activation (PGS) in the manuscript to suggest a novel process by which genes are specifically increased in expression in the pachytene stage of meiotic prophase I, without reference to literature that establishes the term. If the authors are putting forward a new concept defined by this term, it would strengthen the manuscript to describe it further and delineate what the genes are that are activated and discuss potential mechanisms.

Generally speaking, the authors present solid evidence for a pachytene block in male germ cell development in mice lacking Znhit1 in spermatocytes. The evidence supporting a change in gene expression during pachytene, that more genes are downregulated in the mutant compared to increased expression, and changes in histone modification dynamics and placement of H2A.Z all support a role in alterations in meiotic gene regulation. However, the support that changes in H2A.Z impacting meiotic recombination (as suggested in the manuscript title) is less supported, rather than a general cell arrest in the pachytene stage leading to cell death. The conclusions around the role of Znhit1 influencing meiotic recombination directly could use further justification or mechanistic hypothesis.