How does the 2-μm plasmid achieve this high fidelity of segregation? Clues began to emerge from previous studies that showed a striking genetic and cytological concordance of plasmid segregation to that of yeast chromosomes. First, 2-μm plasmids were found concentrated near the poles of the yeast mitotic spindle (
Velmurugan et al., 2000), which is a cytological localization akin to yeast centromeres. Second, in an
ipl-2 yeast strain (
ipl is the yeast Aurora kinase gene), both 2-μm plasmids and yeast chromosomes were found to missegregate in tandem fashion (
Velmurugan et al., 2000). Finally, like yeast chromosomes, the 2-μm plasmid was found to recruit the yeast cohesin complex using Rep1 and Rep2, presumably to pair newly replicated plasmids (
Mehta et al., 2002). This recruitment of cohesin was dependent on a specialized chromatin structure at the
STB locus and on the chromatin remodeling activity of the RSC2 complex (
Wong et al., 2002;
Yang et al., 2004).
All of this circumstantial evidence had pointed to the 2-μm plasmid usurping the chromosome segregation machinery from the host yeast cell to ensure its own partitioning. Now,
Hajra et al. (2006) add a critical piece to this puzzle by demonstrating that the 2-μm plasmid utilizes the yeast centromeric histone Cse4 (
Stoler et al., 1995) to ensure correct segregation. Centromeric histones like Cse4 are exquisitely specific markers of centromeric chromatin in virtually all eukaryotes. The authors first show that Cse4 and 2-μm plasmids colocalize in chromosome spreads. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by PCR, they show that Cse4 localizes specifically to the
STB locus. Using high-salt extractions, they show that the
STB locus of the 2-μm plasmid indeed assembles a Cse4-containing nucleosome, which protects the
STB locus from restriction enzyme–mediated cleavage. They further demonstrate that
STB-localized Cse4 is protected from proteolytic degradation in the same manner as
CEN (yeast centromere)-localized Cse4 (
Collins et al., 2004). Finally, they demonstrate that Cse4 is genetically required for the correct partitioning of the 2-μm plasmid. In the absence of wild-type Cse4, Rep2 does not localize to
STB (although Rep1 does), RSC2 complex–mediated chromatin remodeling does not take place, and cohesin assembly at
STB is blocked. Indeed,
Hajra et al. (2006) argue that correct partitioning requires correctly remodeled
STB chromatin containing a Cse4 nucleosome, which can nucleate Rep1–STB–Rep2 interactions. These results together imply that the
STB locus effectively mimics
CEN function.
However, there are important differences between 2-μm plasmid and yeast chromosome segregation. The 3′
CDEIII element of
CEN sequences specifically recruits proteins of the CBF3 complex, including Ndc10 (
Goh and Kilmartin, 1993;
Jiang et al., 1993), which in turn helps recruits a Cse4 nucleosome, most likely at the
CDEII element based on genetic data (;
Keith and Fitzgerald-Hayes, 2000). Thus, Cse4's localization to
CEN sequences is disrupted in an
ndc10-1 mutant at nonpermissive temperatures, but its localization to
STB loci is unaffected. Conversely, although Cse4 localization to
STB loci requires Rep1 and Rep2 proteins (), the deletion of Rep1 or Rep2 has no effect on its
CEN localization. This implies that 2-μm plasmids have invented a new means to recruit Cse4 to their
STB loci, which is probably key to their longevity.
Hajra et al. (2006) speculate that a complex containing Rep1 and Rep2 may help deposit (and perhaps maintain) Cse4 at
STB. This further implies that although some components of both the 2-μm plasmid and yeast kinetochores are bound to be in common, others (e.g., Ndc10) are not. Thus, the 2-μm plasmid kinetochore may prove to be valuable in future studies of
CEN-based kinetochores.
Centromere function is under extremely strong constraints in budding yeasts, and the general architecture of
CEN sequences has been largely preserved over tens of millions of years (). In contrast,
STB loci are highly variable in sequence and especially in length even within
S. cerevisiae (;
Rank et al., 1994b). Previous studies have strongly suggested that this is a result of antagonism between 2-μm plasmids and their host cells (
Murray et al., 1988;
Rank et al., 1994a), as the latter try to evolve genetic solutions to their 2-μm infestations. In addition, 2-μm plasmid alleles compete with each other for survival within yeast cells (
Rank et al., 1994a). This means that Cse4 is forced to negotiate with both very slowly evolving (
CEN) as well as extremely rapidly evolving (
STB) centromeres, which is an interesting challenge for an essential histone.