Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This study focuses on the role of polo like kinase 1 (PLK-1) during oocyte meiosis. In mammalian oocytes, Plk1 localizes to chromosomes and spindle poles, and there is evidence that it is required for nuclear envelope breakdown, spindle formation, chromosome segregation, and polar body extrusion. However, how Plk1 is targeted to its various locations and how it performs these functions is not well understood. This study uses C. elegans oocytes as a model to explore PLK-1 function during meiosis. They take advantage of an analogue-sensitive allele of plk-1, which enabled them to bypass nuclear envelope breakdown defects that occur following PLK-1 RNAi. This allowed them to dissect later roles of PLK-1 in oocytes, demonstrating that depletion causes defects in spindle organization, chromosome congression, segregation, and polar body extrusion. Moreover, the authors defined mechanisms by which PLK-1 is targeted to chromosomes, showing that CENP-C (HCP-4) is required for localization to chromosome arms and that BUB-1 is required for targeting to the midbivalent region. Finally, they demonstrate that upon removal of PLK-1 from both domains, there are severe meiotic defects. These findings are interesting. However, there is a need for additional analysis to better support some of their conclusions, and to aid in interpretation of particular phenotypes. Specific comments are below.
- For many important claims of the paper, a single representative image is shown but the n is not noted. This is an issue throughout the paper for much of the localization analysis (e.g. Figure 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, etc.); in cases like this, numbers should be included to increase the rigor of the presented data. How many images or movies were analyzed that looked like the one shown? For linescans, were they done only on one image? How many independent experiments were done, etc?.
- In the abstract, it is stated that PLK-1 plays a role in spindle assembly/stability (this is also stated elsewhere, e.g. line 101). This phrasing implies that the authors have demonstrated roles in both spindle assembly and stability. However, to distinguish between these roles, they would have to show that removal of PLK-1 before spindle assembly causes defects, and also that removal of PLK-1 from pre-formed spindles causes collapse. I don't think it is necessary to do this, as the spindle roles of PLK-1 are not a focus of the paper. However, the language should be altered so that it does not imply that the paper has demonstrated roles in both. A good place to do this would be in the section from lines 144-147, where they first discuss the spindle defects. It would be straightforward to explain that their approach does not distinguish between spindle assembly and stability, and that PLK-1 could have a role in either or both.
- It is stated that there is kinetochore localization of PLK-1 (and I do see some dim cup-like localization in images after PLK-1 is removed from the chromosome arms via HCP-4 RNAi). However, this cup-like localization is not clear in most wild-type images (e.g. Figure 1B, 1D, 2A, 3A, etc.). Although I recognize that the chromatin staining might be obscuring kinetochore localization, if PLK-1 was truly a kinetochore protein I would also expect it to localize to filaments within the spindle (as many other kinetochore proteins do), especially since the authors state that BUB-1 targets PLK-1 to the kinetochore (and BUB-1 is in the filaments). In fact, the only images where it looks like PLK-1 may be localized to filaments are in Figure 4C and 6A, when HCP-4 has been depleted (though I don't know if this generally true across all HCP-4 RNAi images). For me, this calls into question the conclusion that PLK-1 truly is on the kinetochore in wild type conditions - could it be that PLK-1 only localizes to the kinetochore (and to the filaments) when HCP-4 is depleted? The authors need to resolve this issue and provide better evidence that PLK-1 normally localizes to the kinetochore, if they want to make this claim. Additionally, the observation that PLK-1 is not on the kinetochore filaments (in wild type conditions) should be addressed in the text somewhere - do the authors think that this is a special type of kinetochore protein that does not localize to the filaments?
- The authors should provide a control experiment, treating wild-type worms with 10uM 3-IB-PP1. This would be important to ensure that the spindle defects seen at this concentration in the plk-1as strain are not non-specific effects of the inhibitor. There is a control in Figure 1 - figure supplement 3 using 1uM 3-IB-PP1 but didn't see a control for 10uM (the concentration at which spindle defects are observed).
- In Figure 2F, the gels for BUB-1+PLK-1 look different in the presence and absence of phosphorylation by Cdk1 - for these data, I agree with the authors that it looks as if the complex elutes at a higher volume if BUB-1 is not phosphorylated (lines 200-204). However, Figure 2G has a repeat of the condition with phosphorylated BUB-1, and in this panel, the complex appears to elute at a higher volume than it did on the gel in panel F. The gel in panel G looks much more similar to the unphosphorylated condition in panel F. The authors need to explain this discrepancy (i.e., Is there a reason why the gels cannot be compared between panels? How reproducible are these data?). Ideally, the authors would include a repeat of the unphosphorylated BUB-1 + PLK-1 condition in panel G, done at the same time as the conditions shown in that panel, to avoid the impression that their results may not be reproducible.
- The authors would need to provide convincing evidence that co-depletion of BUB-1 and HCP-4 delocalizes PLK-1 from the chromosomes entirely, and that this co-depletion condition is more severe than either single depletion alone. Additionally, the bub-1T527A and hcp-4T163A alleles are nice tools to, in theory, more specifically delocalize PLK-1 from the midbivalent and chromosome arms, respectively, to explore the functions of chromosome-associated PLK-1. However, I think the authors cannot rule out the possibility that other proteins are also being depleted from the midbivalent and/or chromosome arms in their conditions, and that this delocalization may contribute to the phenotypes observed. For example, hcp-4 depletion was recently shown to delocalize KLP-19 from the chromosome arms (Horton et.al. 2022), so in the experiment shown in Figure 6E (HCP-4 RNAi in the bub-1 mutant), PLK-1 was likely not the only protein missing from the chromosome arms. Therefore, understanding if other proteins are absent from these domains (in the bub-1T527A and hcp-4T16A3 mutants) would help the reader understand and interpret the presented phenotypes (and how specific they are to PLK-1 loss). Consequently, I think that to better understand the co-depletion analysis presented in Figure 6 (and Figure 6 supplement 1), the authors should analyze other midbivalent and chromosome arm proteins, to determine if any are also delocalized (e.g. SUMO, KLP-19, MCAK, etc.). Additionally, instead of performing a combination of mutant and RNAi analysis (i.e. HCP-4 RNAi in the bub-1 mutant (Figure 6) and BUB-1 RNAi in the hcp-4 mutant (Figure 6 figure supplement 1)), it would be more powerful to generate a double mutant - this has a higher chance of being a more specific depletion condition.