<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN"  "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd"><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">elife</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">eLife</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>eLife</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub" publication-format="electronic">2050-084X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">61172</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.61172</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="display-channel"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Developmental Biology</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Genetics and Genomics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Cell competition removes segmental aneuploid cells from <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal disc-derived tissues based on ribosomal protein gene dose</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-199495"><name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>Zhejun</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="pa1">†</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-199494"><name><surname>Chuen</surname><given-names>Jacky</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-6907</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con2"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-228251"><name><surname>Kiparaki</surname><given-names>Marianthi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con3"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="pa2">‡</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" id="author-198232"><name><surname>Baker</surname><given-names>Nicholas</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-3488</contrib-id><email>nicholas.baker@einsteinmed.org</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund1"/><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund2"/><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund3"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con4"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><aff id="aff1"><institution>Department of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine</institution><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Bronx</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff></contrib-group><contrib-group content-type="section"><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Bach</surname><given-names>Erika A</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution>New York University School of Medicine</institution><country>United States</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="senior_editor"><name><surname>Murphy</surname><given-names>Maureen E</given-names></name><role>Senior Editor</role><aff><institution>The Wistar Institute</institution><country>United States</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><fn fn-type="present-address" id="pa1"><label>†</label><p>State Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China</p></fn><fn fn-type="present-address" id="pa2"><label>‡</label><p> Biomedical Sciences Research Center ‘Alexander Fleming’, Vari, Greece</p></fn></author-notes><pub-date date-type="publication" publication-format="electronic"><day>13</day><month>04</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>e61172</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2020-07-16"><day>16</day><month>07</month><year>2020</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2021-03-08"><day>08</day><month>03</month><year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2021, Ji et al</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Ji et al</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read/><license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><ali:license_ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p>This article is distributed under the terms of the <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution License</ext-link>, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="elife-61172-v1.pdf"/><abstract><p>Aneuploidy causes birth defects and miscarriages, occurs in nearly all cancers and is a hallmark of aging. Individual aneuploid cells can be eliminated from developing tissues by unknown mechanisms. Cells with ribosomal protein (<italic>Rp</italic>) gene mutations are also eliminated, by cell competition with normal cells. Because <italic>Rp</italic> genes are spread across the genome, their copy number is a potential marker for aneuploidy. We found that elimination of imaginal disc cells with irradiation-induced genome damage often required cell competition genes. Segmentally aneuploid cells derived from targeted chromosome excisions were eliminated by the RpS12-Xrp1 cell competition pathway if they differed from neighboring cells in <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose, whereas cells with normal doses of the <italic>Rp</italic> and <italic>eIF2γ</italic> genes survived and differentiated adult tissues. Thus, cell competition, triggered by differences in <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose between cells, is a significant mechanism for the elimination of aneuploid somatic cells, likely to contribute to preventing cancer.</p></abstract><abstract abstract-type="executive-summary"><title>eLife digest</title><p>Aneuploid cells emerge when cellular division goes awry and a cell ends up with the wrong number of chromosomes, the tiny genetic structures carrying the instructions that control life’s processes. Aneuploidy can lead to fatal conditions during development, and to cancer in an adult organism.</p><p>A safety mechanism may exist that helps the body to detect and remove these cells. Yet, exactly this happens is still poorly understood: in particular, it is unclear how cells manage to ‘count’ their chromosomes.</p><p>One way they could do so is through the ribosomes, the molecular ‘factories’ that create the building blocks required for life. In a cell, every chromosome carries genes that code for the proteins (known as Rps) forming ribosomes. Aneuploidy will alter the number of Rp genes, and in turn the amount and type of Rps the cell produces, so that ribosomes and the genes for Rps could act as a ‘readout’ of aneuploidy. Ji et al set out to test this theory in fruit flies.</p><p>The first experiment used a genetic manipulation technique called site-specific recombination to remove parts of chromosomes from cells in the developing eye and wing. Cells which retained all their Rp genes survived, while those that were missing some usually died – but only when the surrounding cells were normal. In this situation, healthy cells eliminated their damaged neighbours through a process known as cell competition. A second experiment, using radiation as an alternative method of damaging chromosomes, also gave similar results.</p><p>The work by Ji et al. reveals how the body can detect and eliminate aneuploid cells, potentially before they can cause harm. If the same mechanism applies in humans, boosting cell competition may, one day, helps to combat diseases like cancer.</p></abstract><kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords"><kwd>aneuploidy</kwd><kwd>cell competition</kwd><kwd>Minute</kwd><kwd>ribosomal protein mutation</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group kwd-group-type="research-organism"><title>Research organism</title><kwd><italic>D. melanogaster</italic></kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group id="fund1"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000057</institution-id><institution>National Institute of General Medical Sciences</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>GM104213</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Baker</surname><given-names>Nicholas</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund2"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054</institution-id><institution>National Cancer Institute</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>P30CA013330</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Baker</surname><given-names>Nicholas</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund3"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002</institution-id><institution>NIH</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>SIG 1S10 OD023591</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Baker</surname><given-names>Nicholas</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><funding-statement>The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.</funding-statement></funding-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta specific-use="meta-only"><meta-name>Author impact statement</meta-name><meta-value>Cell competition is an important mechanism selecting against aneuploid cells.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1" sec-type="intro"><title>Introduction</title><p>Aneuploidy (gain or loss of whole chromosomes resulting in an abnormal karyotype) is a hallmark of spontaneous abortions and birth defects and observed in virtually every human tumor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Hassold and Hunt, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib27">Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib38">López-Otín et al., 2013</xref>). It was suggested over 100 years ago that aneuploidy contributes to cancer development (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib16">Boveri, 1914</xref>). Aneuploidy can change the copy number of important oncogenes and tumor suppressors, cause stress due to gene expression imbalance, and promote further genetic instability (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib48">Naylor and van Deursen, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib53">Rutledge and Cimini, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Chunduri and Storchová, 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib11">Ben-David and Amon, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib76">Zhu et al., 2018</xref>). Mouse models of chromosome instability that result in aneuploidy are oncogenic (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib22">Foijer et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Baker et al., 2009</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib46">Mukherjee et al., 2014</xref>). <italic>Drosophila</italic> cells with chromosome instability undergo a p53-independent death, but can form tumors if their apoptosis is prevented (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Dekanty et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib24">Gerlach and Herranz, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Morais da Silva et al., 2013</xref>).</p><p>Because aneuploidy is thought to be detrimental to normal cells, aneuploid cells arising sporadically in vivo should, as a rule, grow poorly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Sheltzer and Amon, 2011</xref>). Studies of yeast carrying extra chromosomes reveal a stress response in these cells, thought to result from the cumulative mismatch in levels of many proteins that interact in the cell, which inhibits growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib65">Torres et al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib76">Zhu et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib61">Terhorst et al., 2020</xref>).</p><p>Increasing evidence points to the capacity of normal tissues to recognize and eliminate aneuploid cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib30">Hook, 1981</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib70">van Echten-Arends et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Bazrgar et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib51">Pfau et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib54">Santaguida et al., 2017</xref>). Array Comparative Genome Hybridization detects mosaic aneuploidy in as many as 60% of normal human embryos, which can nonetheless develop into healthy babies without birth defects or evidence of aneuploid cells, suggesting their elimination (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib26">Greco et al., 2015</xref>). In mice, chimeric embryos can be constructed using both normal diploid cells and cells with a high rate of aneuploidy due to treatment with reversine, an inhibitor of the spindle assembly checkpoint. The reversine-treated cells are actively eliminated from the chimeric embryos, which can develop into morphologically normal adult mice from which reversine-treated cells have been eliminated (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Bolton et al., 2016</xref>). Other observations point to the loss of aneuploid cells in other biological processes. For example, the cortex of normal mouse embryos contains as many as 30% aneuploid cells, but only ~1% are detected by 4 months post-partum, suggesting selective loss of the aneuploid fraction (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Andriani et al., 2016</xref>).</p><p>The mechanisms of recognition and removal of aneuploid cells are still poorly understood. In mouse tissues, cells with complex karyotypes may be recognized by the immune system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib54">Santaguida et al., 2017</xref>). In <italic>Drosophila</italic>, clones of segmentally aneuploid cells (cells with loss or gain of chromosome segments) can survive development and differentiate in the adult abdomen, but their representation decreases as more genetic material is lost, whereas cells carrying extra genetic material are less affected (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib52">Ripoll, 1980</xref>). Clonal loss of heterozygosity is also tolerated in the abdomens of DNA repair pathway mutants, and studies with genetic markers indicate that this frequently represents loss of substantial chromosome segments (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Baker et al., 1978</xref>).</p><p>The <italic>Drosophila</italic> adult abdomen derives from larval histoblasts. In the head and thorax, which develop instead from the larval imaginal discs, there is evidence that aneuploid cells undergo apoptosis. DNA damage following ionizing irradiation rapidly leads to apoptosis but is followed by a smaller amount of delayed apoptosis that is independent of p53 and Chk2 and therefore unlikely to reflect unrepaired DNA damage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib17">Brodsky et al., 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib73">Wichmann et al., 2006</xref>). A similar biphasic response is seen after mitotic breakage of dicentric chromosomes, and in this case, the delayed, p53-independent cell death only occurs in genotypes likely to lead to aneuploid products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib64">Titen and Golic, 2008</xref>). Accordingly, it is suggested that post-irradiation apoptosis independent from p53 also represents removal of aneuploid cells that arise following DNA repair, and that ‘cell competition’ may provide the p53-independent mechanism (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>).</p><p>The term ‘cell competition’ was originally coined to describe the elimination of <italic>Drosophila</italic> cells heterozygous for mutant alleles of ribosomal protein genes (<italic>Rp</italic> genes)(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Morata and Ripoll, 1975</xref>). Most Rp’s are essential, even to the individual cell, so that homozygosity for <italic>Rp<sup>-</sup></italic> mutations is rapidly lethal, whereas <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> heterozygotes are viable and fertile, although slow growing with minor morphological defects such as thin adult bristles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>). By contrast to their whole animal viability, individual <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> heterozygous cells or clones are actively eliminated from mosaic <italic>Drosophila</italic> tissues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Morata and Ripoll, 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Simpson, 1979</xref>). This involves apoptosis specific to <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> heterozygous cells near to <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Morata and Ripoll, 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Simpson, 1979</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib45">Moreno et al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib37">Li and Baker, 2007</xref>). The defining feature of cell competition is therefore the elimination of cells based on their difference from other neighboring cells rather than based on their intrinsic properties (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Morata and Ripoll, 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Baker, 2020</xref>).</p><p>The 80 eukaryotic Rp’s are mostly encoded by single copy genes transcribed by RNA polymerase II, and are dispersed throughout the genome in both humans and in <italic>Drosophila</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Uechi et al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>). Accordingly, aneuploidy and other large-scale genetic changes will usually affect <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose. Since Rp proteins are required stoichiometrically for ribosome assembly, which generally stalls when any one Rp is limiting, imbalanced <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose can perturb ribosome biogenesis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib19">de la Cruz et al., 2015</xref>). This provides an almost perfectly suited mechanism to serve as an indicator of unbalanced chromosome content (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). Cell competition may thus have evolved to recognize and remove cells with large-scale genetic changes such as aneuploidy, recognized on the basis of their mis-matched Ribosomal protein (<italic>Rp</italic>) gene complements. In this view, cells heterozygous for point mutations in <italic>Rp</italic> genes are eliminated because they mimic larger genetic changes.</p><p>A stress response pathway that is activated by <italic>Rp</italic> mutations in <italic>Drosophila</italic> has recently been described, and is required for <italic>Rp</italic> point mutated cells to undergo cell competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Baillon et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Blanco et al., 2020</xref>). In <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>genotypes, RpS12, an essential, eukaryote-specific component of the ribosomal Small Subunit, is required to activate expression of Xrp1, a rapidly evolving AT-hook, bZip domain transcription factor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Blanco et al., 2020</xref>). Although <italic>rpS12</italic> null mutations are homozygously lethal, a particular point mutation, <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup>,</italic> appears defective only for the cell competition aspect of RpS12 function. Homozygotes for the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation are viable, showing only minor effects on morphology and longevity, yet <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> prevents elimination of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells by cell competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>). A key target of RpS12 appears to be the putative transcription factor Xrp1, because Xrp1 protein is barely detected in wild type cells but significantly elevated in <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> wing discs. Xrp1 controls most of the phenotype of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells, including their reduced translation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Blanco et al., 2020</xref>). <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutants have negligible effect in wild-type backgrounds, and normal lifespan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Baillon et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib39">Mallik et al., 2018</xref>). In response to RpS12 and Xrp1 activities, <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells both grow more slowly than surrounding <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells and are also actively eliminated by apoptosis that occurs where <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells and <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells meet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Baillon et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>). Why apoptosis occurs at these interfaces in particular is not certain. A role for innate immune pathway components has been proposed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib42">Meyer et al., 2014</xref>), and different levels of oxidative stress response in <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells and <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Kucinski et al., 2017</xref>) or local induction of autophagy have also been suggested (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib47">Nagata et al., 2019</xref>).</p><p>Here, we test the hypothesis that cell competition specifically removes cells with aneuploidies that result in loss of <italic>Rp</italic> genes in <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal discs. We show that, as hypothesized previously (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>), most of the p53-independent cell death that follows irradiation resembles cell competition genetically. We then use a targeted recombination method to investigate the fate of somatic cells that acquire large-scale genetic changes directly, and confirm that it is cell competition that removes cells heterozygous for large deletions, when they include ribosomal protein genes. By contrast, when ribosomal protein genes are unaffected, or when the cell competition pathway is inactivated genetically, cells carrying large deletions remain largely un-competed, proliferate, and contribute to adult structures. Thus, cell competition is a highly significant mechanism for elimination of aneuploid somatic cells. We discuss how cell competition to remove aneuploid cells could play a role preventing tumor development in humans.</p></sec><sec id="s2" sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><sec id="s2-1"><title>Potential competition of irradiated cells</title><p>The idea that cell competition removes aneuploid cells was suggested by studies of p53-independent cell death following chromosome breakage or ionizing irradiation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib64">Titen and Golic, 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). Importantly, in <italic>Drosophila</italic> cell competition of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells does not depend on p53 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib32">Kale et al., 2015</xref>). If the model was correct, it would be expected that the p53-independent apoptosis that follows irradiation would depend on the genes recently discovered to be required for cell competition.</p><p>We first confirmed the previous findings (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib73">Wichmann et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). Irradiating third-instar larvae resulted in rapid induction of cell death in the wing imaginal disc that was largely p53-dependent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1A,C,D,E,G,H</xref>). The p53-dependent cell death, attributable to the DNA-damage response, was not much affected by the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation that interferes with cell competition (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B,F,H</xref>). While total cell death tailed off with time, p53-independent cell death increased around 18–24 hr post-irradiation, as reported previously (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib73">Wichmann et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1I–L</xref>). As expected for cell competition, 24 hr after irradiation, p53-independent cell death was reduced by 66% in the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53</italic> double mutant compared to the <italic>p53</italic> mutant alone (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1K–M</xref>). To exclude the possibility that other genetic background differences were responsible, <italic>rpS12</italic> function was restored to the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53</italic> double mutant strain using a P element transgene encoding the wild-type <italic>rpS12</italic> gene, and this restored p53-independent cell death (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1M</xref>). Notably, a genomic transgene encoding the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> cell competition-defective allele did not, leading to 86% less p53-independent cell death than the wild-type <italic>rpS12</italic> transgene (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1M</xref>). Thus, 66–86% of the p53-independent apoptosis was RpS12-dependent and might represent cell competition.</p><fig id="fig1" position="float"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><title>Role of cell competition after irradiation.</title><p>Panels A-G and I-L show third instar wing imaginal discs labeled to detect the activated Dcp1 caspase in apoptotic cells at the indicated times post-irradiation. (<bold>A</bold>) Extensive cell death follows within 4 hr after gamma-irradiation (4000 Rads). (<bold>B</bold>) Little change is seen in the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutant. (<bold>C</bold>) Most of the acute cell death is p53-dependent, consistent with a DNA damage response. (<bold>D</bold>) A small amount of cell death persists in the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> double mutant. (<bold>E</bold>) Cell death is reduced to more quantifiable levels 4 hr after a lower radiation dose (500 Rad). (<bold>F</bold>) This DNA damage-induced cell death is not significantly affected by the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation. (<bold>G</bold>) Most cell death 4 hr after irradiation is p53-dependent. (<bold>H</bold>) Quantification of cell death (numbers of cells per wing pouch) 4 hr following irradiation with 500 Rad. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). N = 6 for each genotype. (<bold>I</bold>) Cell death 24 hr after irradiation (4000 Rad). (<bold>J</bold>) Comparable levels of cell death in <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutants. (<bold>K</bold>) Although cell death appears reduced in <italic>p53</italic> mutant wing discs 24 hr after irradiation compared to the wild type control (4000 Rad), this p53-independent cell death is substantially increased compared to 4 hr after irradiation (compare panel C). (<bold>L</bold>) p53-independent cell death is reduced in the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> double mutant compared to the <italic>p53<sup>-</sup></italic> mutant. (<bold>M</bold>) Cell death quantification in <italic>p53</italic> and <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> wing discs, and in wing discs from <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> larvae carrying genomic transgenes encoding either wild type <italic>rpS12</italic> or <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic>. The results show that between 66% and 86% of p53-independent cell death was RpS12-dependent. We did not quantify cell death in wild-type and <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> wing discs because of the large number and aggregation of dead cells. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). N: 10 (<italic>p53<sup>-</sup></italic>); 13 (<italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic>); 9 (P{<italic>rpS12<sup>+</sup></italic>} <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic>); 8 (P{<italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic>} <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic>). (<bold>N</bold>) Twenty-four hr after irradiation, <italic>p53</italic> mutant wing discs exhibit cells expressing nuclear Xrp1 in a pattern similar to that of dying cells. We were unable to double-label with anti-Xrp1 and anti-active Dcp1 simultaneously because both are rabbit antisera. n: 33 (<italic>p53<sup>-</sup></italic>); 26 (<italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic>). (<bold>O</bold>) Fewer Xrp1-expressing cells were seen in <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> double mutant wing discs. (<bold>P</bold>) Quantification of Xrp1 expression. Most (58%) of the p53-independent Xrp1 expression 24 hr post-irradiation was RpS12-dependent. ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). (<bold>Q</bold>) Irradiated adult flies with a short, thin scutellar bristle (white arrow, compare normal contralateral bristle – black arrow) like those typical of <italic>Rp</italic><sup>+/-</sup> mutant flies. (<bold>R</bold>) The frequency of sporadic <italic>Rp</italic>-like bristles increases 3.33x and 4x on the thoraces of <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> and <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>-</sup></italic> flies (respectively) where cell competition is inhibited. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). N = 3 sets of 100 flies for each genotype. (<bold>S</bold>) Frequencies of <italic>y</italic> bristles found on the thoraces of ~2000 <italic>y/+; rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> female and +/Y; <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> male flies following irradiation (1000 rad) in the mid-third larval instar. The preponderance of <italic>y</italic> bristles in females suggests that induced <italic>y</italic> mutations typically affect other genes including essential genes. The occurrence of phenotypically <italic>y M</italic> bristles in females is consistent with deletions extending at least from the <italic>y</italic> locus to the nearest <italic>Rp</italic> locus, <italic>RpL36</italic>. Statistics: Significance was assessed using t-test (panel P) or one-way ANOVA with the Holm procedure for multiple comparisons (panels H,M,R). ** = p&lt;0.01. ns = not significant. Genotypes: A, (<bold>E, I</bold>) <italic>w<sup>11-18</sup></italic> B, (<bold>F, J</bold>) <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> (<bold>C,G,K,N</bold>) <italic>p53<sup>5A-1-4</sup></italic> D, (<bold>L, O</bold>) <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> p53<sup>5A-1-4</sup></italic>.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig1sdata1"><label>Figure 1—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Source Data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1H,M,P,R</xref>.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig1-v1.tif"/></fig><p>Nuclear Xrp1 protein, which is only at low levels in control wing imaginal discs, was detected in scattered cells throughout p53 mutant wing discs 24 hr after irradiation, similar to the distribution of dying cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1N</xref>). Strikingly, most (58%) of this Xrp1 expression was <italic>rpS12</italic>-dependent, similar to the <italic>rpS12</italic>-dependency of p53-independent cell death itself (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1O–P</xref>). This is also as expected for cell competition, which is mediated through the induction of Xrp1 expression (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Baillon et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>).</p><p>Radiation-damaged cells that have reduced <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose would be expected to differentiate short, thin bristles in adults, as reported previously in studies of DNA repair mutants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Baker et al., 1978</xref>), in studies of ionizing radiation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>), and when aneuploidy is induced by mutation of spindle assembly checkpoint genes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Dekanty et al., 2012</xref>). We found <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>-like thoracic bristles at a frequency of ~1/300 following irradiation of either wild type or <italic>p53</italic> mutant larvae (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1Q,R</xref>). Their frequency increased ~three- to fourfold in <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutants or <italic>p53 rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> double mutants (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1Q</xref>). In the absence of irradiation, only 2 <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>-like bristles were observed from 500 unirradiated <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutant flies. Since 16 macrochaetae were examined on each fly thorax, this indicated a frequency of ~1/8000 macrochaetae progenitor cells was <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>-like. We found none in 1000 unirradiated wild type flies (16,000 macrochaetae examined).</p><p>While the actual nature of radiation-induced genetic changes in cells forming Minute-like bristles is not directly demonstrated, previous studies of DNA-repair mutants including <italic>mei-41</italic>, the <italic>Drosophila</italic> ATR homolog, demonstrated using multiply-marked chromosomes that the majority of Minute-like bristles reflect loss of heterozygosity for large, contiguous chromosome regions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Baker et al., 1978</xref>). In a small-scale experiment to compare γ-irradiation to the DNA repair defects studied previously (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Baker et al., 1978</xref>), <italic>y<sup>+/-</sup> rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> larvae were irradiated (1000 Rad) and 2178 adult flies examined for phenotypically <italic>y</italic> thoracic bristles representing cells where the <italic>y<sup>+</sup></italic> allele had been mutated or deleted. Six times more <italic>y</italic> bristles were recovered in females than in males. Since the <italic>y</italic> locus is X-linked, this is most easily explained if <italic>y</italic> bristles generally result from deletions including essential genes linked to <italic>y</italic> that could not survive in males. In females, 37.5% of <italic>y</italic> bristles were also phenotypically Minute, consistent with loss of chromosome regions extending at least from the <italic>y</italic> locus to the <italic>RpL36</italic> gene 0.3 Mb more centromere-proximal that is the nearest <italic>Rp</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1S</xref>). Although this study was small scale, these findings support the conclusion from DNA repair mutant studies that Minute-like bristles seen following irradiation most commonly reflect loss of substantial chromosome segments including <italic>Rp</italic> genes, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Baker et al., 1978</xref>). Accordingly, many Minute-like bristles removed by cell competition genes following irradiation could represent such segmentally aneuploid cells.</p><p>Taken together, these bristle results are also consistent with the notion that cell competition removes ~3/4 of the cells with genetic changes that encompass dose-sensitive <italic>Rp</italic> loci that arise after irradiation.</p></sec><sec id="s2-2"><title>FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination to generate segmental aneuploidy</title><p>Having confirmed that cell competition could potentially be important for removing cells following irradiation, we sought to assess the fate of sporadic cells that lose chromosome regions, using an assay where the cell genotypes would be definitively known and the dependence on competition with normal cells could be established. We used the FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> site-specific recombination system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Golic and Lindquist, 1989</xref>) to achieve this, exploiting large collections of transgenic flies that contain <italic>FRT</italic> sequence insertions at distinct chromosomal locations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref>). FLP recombination between pairs of <italic>FRT</italic> elements linked in cis excises intervening sequences to make defined deletions with a single <italic>FRT</italic> remaining at the recombination site (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A,B</xref>). Insertion elements of the Exelixis collection exist in several configurations, and FLP-mediated excision from paired FRT strains in the FRT w<sup>+</sup> … w<sup>+</sup> FRT configuration removes both the associated <italic>w<sup>+</sup></italic> genes, so that affected cells can be identified in the adult eye by loss of pigmentation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A,B</xref>). Accordingly, we assembled a collection of genetic strains containing linked pairs of appropriate <italic>FRT</italic> w<sup>+</sup> elements, each flanking a distinct genomic region (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>).</p><fig id="fig2" position="float"><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><title>Generating segmental aneuploidy with Flp-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Segmental aneuploidy can be generated in a mosaic fashion using FLP-<italic>FRT</italic>. At left is a cell carrying two transposable elements encoding <italic>w<sup>+</sup></italic> and <italic>FRT</italic>, arranged in cis on one chromosome arm, in this case at chromosome bands 63C1 and 65A9, respectiely. (<bold>B</bold>) FLP-mediated recombination between <italic>FRT</italic> sites excising the intervening sequences. In this example, where the <italic>w<sup>+</sup></italic> genes lie between the <italic>FRT</italic> sites, both are excised resulting in a loss of eye pigmentation. The <italic>RpL28</italic> gene at chromosome band 63B14 lies outside the deletion and is unaffected. (<bold>B</bold>) A comparable recombination between elements at chromosome bands 63A3-65A9 also deletes the <italic>RpL28</italic> locus, so that the resulting segmentally aneuploid cells are heterozygously deleted for this gene. These cartoons show recombination in G1-phase of the cell cycle. In the G2-phase configuration, recombination between non-homologous FRT sites on the chromatids can occur leading to a deleted chromatid and a chromatid bearing 3 <italic>FRT</italic> insertion elements and a duplication of the intervening region. Such genotypes are substrates for further FLP recombination to the parental or deleted state, but sometimes we see them persist in adults and an example is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3D</xref> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib63">Titen et al., 2020</xref>). Panels C-Z show adult eyes in the presence of eyFlp, which drives recombination close to completion in the eye and head, with the chromosome positions of parental <italic>w<sup>+</sup> FRT</italic> insertions indicated. Panels C-T show genotypes where eyFlp recombined most eye cells, Panels U-Z illustrate genotypes where it did not. Strains that were poor substrates for Flp, either retained the parental eye color in the presence of eyFlp, or produce a salt and pepper pattern of very small clones that is indicative of excision occurring only late in development once large cell numbers are present. See <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref> for more details and further genotypic information. (<bold>C</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04888</sup></italic>/+; (<bold>D</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00857</sup></italic>/+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL36A</italic> and <italic>RpS13</italic> genes; (<bold>E</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpS11</italic> gene. Note the particularly small size of the recombinant heads; (<bold>F</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d09417</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+. (<bold>G</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; (<bold>H</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic> genes. Note the particularly small size of the recombinant heads; (<bold>I</bold>) <italic>y w eyFlp; P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/<italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. Eye size is partially rescued by heterozygosity for <italic>Xrp1.</italic> (<bold>J</bold>) <italic>y w</italic> eyF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL28</italic> gene. (<bold>K</bold>) <italic>y w</italic> eyF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL28</italic> and <italic>RpL18</italic> genes; (<bold>L</bold>) <italic>y w</italic> eyF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL28</italic>, <italic>RpL18,</italic> and <italic>RpL14</italic> genes; Note the small eye size. (<bold>M</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /+; (<bold>N</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL18</italic> gene; (<bold>O</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>RpL18</italic> and <italic>RpL14</italic> genes; (<bold>P</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> gene. (<bold>Q</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> gene. Note the particularly small size of the recombinant heads, which also retain an unusual amount of unrecombined cells; (<bold>R</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>eIF2γ</italic>, <italic>Xrp1, RpS20</italic> and <italic>RpS30</italic> genes. (<bold>S</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>Xrp1, RpS20</italic> and <italic>RpS30</italic> genes. (<bold>T</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f01700</sup></italic> /+. This recombination deletes the <italic>Xrp1, RpS20</italic>, and <italic>RpS30</italic> genes. (<bold>U</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; PBac{WH}<sup>f04180</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07944</sup></italic> /+. The whole eye resembles the parental genotype lacking eyFlp; (<bold>V</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{RB}<sup>e03186</sup></italic> /+. The whole eye resembles the parental genotype lacking eyFlp; (<bold>W</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{RB}<sup>e03144</sup></italic> /+. The whole eye resembles the parental genotype lacking eyFlp. (<bold>X</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{RB}<sup>e02272</sup></italic> /+. The eye has a mottled appearance indicative of small recombinant clones generated late in development; (<bold>Y</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{RB}<sup>e03937</sup></italic> /+. The eye has a mottled appearance indicative of small recombinant clones generated late in development; (<bold>Z</bold>) <italic>y w eyF; P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{RB}<sup>e03144</sup></italic> /+. The eye has a mottled appearance indicative of small recombinant clones generated late in development.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig2-v1.tif"/></fig><p>It was first necessary to verify FLP recombination between <italic>FRT</italic> sequences, and investigate any cell-autonomous effects of the resulting segmental-monosomies. We used the eyFlp transgene, which confers continuous FLP expression to the eye and head primordia during larval life, so that FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination is expected to approach completion (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib49">Newsome et al., 2000</xref>). Excision should result in white adult eyes, and also reveal any cell-autonomous effect of the resulting heterozygous deletion genotype on growth or differentiation of cells contributing to the adult eye. If the recombined genotype was autonomously cell-lethal, we would expect the developing animal to lack head structures and be unable to emerge from the pupa. If FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination did not occur (or occurred inefficiently), we would expect adult eyes expressing the parental eye color (or with only scattered white spots that recombine late in development as cell number increases).</p><p>We identified 17 paired FRT strains that were efficient FLP targets in this assay. These 17 strains were completely or substantially white-eyed in the presence of eyFlp, indicating excision between <italic>FRT</italic> sites in most or all eye cells. We also identified paired FRT strains that were poor substrates for Flp (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C–T</xref>). These either retained the parental eye color in the presence of eyFlp or produce a salt and pepper pattern of very small clones (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2U–Z</xref>). No genotype tested was inviable in the presence of eyFlp, so there was no evidence that haploinsufficiency of any of the chromosome segments tested was incompatible with cell viability or severely impacted head development. Instead, most of the 17 genotypes that recombined differentiated heads of remarkably normal external appearance and morphology (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C–T</xref>).</p><p>Although we did not measure head size, we noticed three genotypes in which eyes and heads were obviously smaller, consistent with a reduced growth rate of the recombined genotypes. The three small eye regions were 48B2-50C1, 565F16-59B1, and 87B8-89E5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2E,H,Q</xref>). Since the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genome is divided cytologically into 102 band intervals, each with lettered and numbered subdivisions, in this paper we refer to the chromosome <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> pBAC{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>, for example, by the cytological locations of the <italic>FRT</italic> sequences present in the P element and PiggyBac element insertions, which are at 48B2 and 50C1 respectively in this case (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>). This nomenclature quickly communicates the genome location under study, whether it overlaps or is distinct from that affected in another strain, and also indicates that in this case the <italic>FRT</italic> elements are likely separated by ~2% of the genome. The full description of each insertion strain is given in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>. The three excisions that substantially reduce eye size could delete a copy of one or more haploinsufficient genes important for growth during eye development, but there also could be a dominant effect of the novel junction generated by FLP/<italic>FRT</italic> recombination. Notably, excision between chromosome bands 87B8-93A2 led to eyes of normal size, although this excises all the sequences between 87B8-89E5 which led to reduced eyes. FLP recombination results in a different junctions in 87B8-89E5 and 87B8-93A2, however (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2R</xref>).</p><p>Overall, these results showed that 17 segmentally aneuploid genotypes were cell-viable, and able to grow and differentiate in the <italic>Drosophila</italic> eye, although a minority might have an effect on growth in this tissue. Recombination in these 17 strains each deleted 1.4 Mb – 8.5 Mb of autosomal DNA, representing 1–6% of the sequenced genome each (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>). Together these deletions encompass 25.3 Mb of DNA, corresponding to 21.1% of the <italic>Drosophila</italic> euchromatin and 17.7% of the sequenced genome. 11 of these 17 genotypes deleted one or more <italic>Rp</italic> loci (<italic>RpS11</italic>, <italic>RpS13</italic>, <italic>RpS16</italic>, <italic>RpS20</italic>, <italic>RpS24</italic>, <italic>RpS30</italic>, <italic>RpL14</italic>, <italic>RpL18</italic>, <italic>RpL28</italic> or <italic>RpL36A</italic>), whereas six affected no <italic>Rp</italic> gene (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>). In this paper, we use the symbol <italic>Rp</italic> to indicate a mutation affecting any of the 66 ribosomal protein genes that are dominant through haploinsufficiency, in distinction to 13 Rp encoded by <italic>Drosophila</italic> loci where heterozygous mutations have no phenotype.</p><fig id="fig3" position="float"><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><title>Segmental-aneuploid clones in the eye.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Cartoon of the major autosomes that contain chromosome band intervals 21–100 out of 102 total. Lines below indicate the position of all the <italic>Rp</italic> gene loci thought to be haploinsufficient (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>), as well as the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> locus. Identities are shown only for the loci discussed in this paper. Blocks above the chromosomes show the extent of 17 segmentally aneuploid deletions reported in this figure, color-coded according to genomic region. (<bold>B</bold>) Graphs show the % of the male adult eye comprising <italic>w<sup>-</sup></italic>, segmentally aneuploid cells for 17 chromosome regions. Each data-point represents the extent of <italic>w<sup>-</sup></italic> territory of an individual eye, median values shown as black bars, N as indicated for each genotype. Geneotypes from overlapping genomic regions are shown in a common color. Yellow background indicates deletions that encompass one or more <italic>Rp</italic> loci. Deletion of <italic>Rp</italic> loci reduces contribution to the adult eye for all regions except the 87–93 region (brown). (<bold>C</bold>) As for panel A except data from females is shown. (<bold>D</bold>) Examples of typical eyes for each of the genotypes analyzed (males shown). Arrow on the Df(3R)89B13-93A2.2/+ eye indicates a small clone of darker cells reflecting four <italic>w<sup>+</sup></italic> elements associated with tandem duplication of the 89B13-93A2 region due to a FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination event in G2 that was not resolved by further recombination (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> legend). Statistics. Pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). * - difference significant (p&lt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes: For 26A1-28C3, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04888</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 26A1-29F8, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00857</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 48B2-50C1, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 48F6-50C1, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 56F16-58E2, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 56F16-59B1, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+. For 63A3-65A9, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63A3-65F5, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63A3-67B2, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63C1-65A9, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63C1-65F5, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63C1-67B2, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 87B8-89B16, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 87B8-89E5, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 87B8-93A2, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 89B13-93A2a, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> / FRT82B. For 89B13-93A2b, y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f01700</sup></italic> /FRT82B.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig3sdata1"><label>Figure 3—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig3-v1.tif"/></fig></sec><sec id="s2-3"><title><italic>Rp</italic> and <italic>eIF2γ</italic> genes determine survival and growth of segmentally aneuploid cells in mosaics</title><p>The 17 FRT pair strains that were efficient FLP targets were each exposed to a single burst of FLP expression using the heat-shock FLP transgene, intended to stimulate excision in a fraction of cells during early larval life (see Materials and methods). This led to mosaic eyes where segmentally aneuploid cells and diploid cells would be in competition. Clones of excised cells appeared only after heat-shock, confirming strict FLP-dependence.</p><p>In contrast to eyFlp recombination, mosaic eyes containing sporadic clones of excised cells were only recovered at high frequencies for four segmental aneuploid genotypes, none of which affected <italic>Rp</italic> loci (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). This confirmed that most segmentally aneuploid genotypes were selected against in mosaic eyes where diploid cells were also present, because all had been shown to be intrinsically viable when competing diploid cells were absent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Importantly, no deletion that included an <italic>Rp</italic> locus showed more than minimal survival of sporadic clones induced with hsFlp, suggesting <italic>Rp</italic> loci could be the determinants of cell competition between segmental aneuploid and wild type cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3B–D</xref>). To test this in a specific case, 5.6 kb of genomic DNA encompassing the <italic>RpL28</italic> locus was introduced onto the second chromosome using PhiC31-mediated transgenesis. This transgene proved completely sufficient to rescue the survival of cell clones heterozygous for Df(3L)63A3-65A9, a deletion of 3.2 Mb including the <italic>RpL28</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4A–C</xref>). Clones of Df(3L)63A3-65A9 heterozygous cells barely survived alone, with a median contribution of 2% to the eyes of males and 0% to females (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4H</xref>). In the presence of the <italic>RpL28</italic><sup>+</sup> transgene, however, Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ clones survived in 49 out of 50 eyes, with median contributions of 37% of the eye in males and 53% in females, not statistically different from clones heterozygous for Df(3L)63C1-65A9, an overlapping deletion of 3.0 Mb excluding the <italic>RpL28</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4H</xref>). Thus in this case, <italic>RpL28</italic> gene dose alone determined whether a segmentally aneuploid genotype affecting hundreds of genes would be eliminated in competition with diploid cells.</p><fig id="fig4" position="float"><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><title>Rescue of segmental aneuploidy by single transgenes.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Df63C1-65A9/+ cells contribute ~50% of the adult eye. (<bold>B</bold>) Very few cells heterozygous for the overlapping Df63A3-65A9 were recovered. (<bold>C</bold>) Df63A3-65A9/+ cells contribute ~50% of the adult eye in the presence of the <italic>RpL28<sup>+</sup></italic> transgene. (<bold>D</bold>). Very few cells heterozygous for Df87B8-89B16 contribute to the adult eye. (<bold>E</bold>). Df87B8-89B16/+ cells contribute ~50% of the adult eye in the presence of the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> <sup>+</sup> genomic transgene. (<bold>F</bold>). Very few cells heterozygous for Df87B8-89E5 contribute to the adult eye. (<bold>G</bold>). Df87B8-89E5/+ cells contribute ~20% of the adult eye in the presence of the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> <sup>+</sup> genomic transgene. (<bold>H</bold>) Quantification of results for the <italic>RpL28</italic> region shown in panels A-C. Data for Df63C1-65A9 is the same as that already shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A,B</xref>. (<bold>I</bold>) Quantification of results for the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> region shown in panels D-G. Statistics. Pairwise comparisons used the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). N as indicated for each genotype. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes: For 63C1-65A9, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B. For 63A3-65A9, y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; {<italic>RpL28<sup>+</sup></italic>P3-DsRed}/+; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /+; FRT82B/+. For 87B8-89B16, y w hsF/+; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF/+; P{ry<sup>+</sup> Su(var3-9<sup>+</sup>) eIF2γ<sup>+</sup>}/+; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /+. For 87B8-89E5, y w hsF/+; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF/+; P{ry<sup>+</sup> Su(var3-9<sup>+</sup>) eIF2γ<sup>+</sup>}/+; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /+.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig4sdata1"><label>Figure 4—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig4-v1.tif"/></fig><p>Most of the other 10 segmental aneuploid genotypes that deleted one or more <italic>Rp</italic> loci contributed to adult eyes to a very significantly lower degree that overlapping segmental aneuploidies that spared <italic>Rp</italic> loci (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). This reflected the fact that, in contrast to genotypes affecting <italic>Rp</italic> genes, 4/6 segmental aneuploidies that spared <italic>Rp</italic> loci survived in eye clones at high frequencies and large sizes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A–C</xref>). The two exceptions were Df(3R)87B8-89B16/+ and Df(3R)87B8-89E5/+, for which little eye tissue was recovered (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A–C</xref>). Although neither affected any <italic>Rp</italic> gene, both deleted a locus mapping to 88E5-6 encoding the translation factor eIF2γ. Since independent studies in our laboratory already identified a role for the eIF2α protein in cell competition (Kiparaki, Khan, Chuen and Baker, in preparation), we tested the possible role of <italic>eIF2γ</italic> by restoring <italic>eIF2γ</italic> diploidy to Df87B8-89B16/+ or Df87B8-89E5/+ cells using a 11.5 kb genomic transgene including the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib66">Tschiersch et al., 1994</xref>). This completely rescued the growth and differentiation of these cells to the levels typical for aneuploidies not affecting <italic>Rp</italic> genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4D–G,I</xref>). Thus, the locus encoding the translation factor eIF2γ behaved similarly to an <italic>Rp</italic> gene in triggering competitive elimination of heterozygous cells.</p><p>If these studies, which tested a significant fraction of the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genome, are representative, they indicate that the normal diploid complement of <italic>Rp</italic> loci is important for sporadic segmentally aneuploid cells to evade cell competition, and that few other genes are comparably important. The one example of such another gene uncovered in our analysis encoded eIF2γ, another protein affecting translation.</p></sec><sec id="s2-4"><title>Apoptotic genes contribute to removing segmentally aneuploid cells</title><p>If the segmentally aneuploid cells were competed by virtue of their <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genotypes, the genetic pathways should be similar. Elimination of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> point-mutant cells by competition depends on apoptosis and is suppressed by a genetic deletion, Df(3L)H99, that removes three pro-apoptotic genes <italic>reaper</italic> (<italic>rpr</italic>), <italic>grim</italic>, and <italic>head-involution defective</italic> (<italic>hid</italic>)(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib45">Moreno et al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib32">Kale et al., 2015</xref>). These genes are also required for the p53-independent cell death that follows irradiation, much of which resembles cell competition (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). Using the Df(3L)63A3-65A9, where clone loss was demonstrably due to heterozygosity for the <italic>RpL28</italic> gene (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4H</xref>), we found that recovery of Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ cell clones was enhanced by genetic suppression of apoptosis in the <italic>Df(3L)H99</italic>/+ background that experiences loss of heterozygosity for <italic>rpr</italic>, <italic>grim</italic>, and <italic>hid</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A,D</xref>). A similar rescue was obtained with the Df(3L)63C1-65F5, which deletes the <italic>RpL18</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A,D</xref>). The recoveries of Df(3L)63A3-65A9/Df(3L)H99 clones and Df(3L)63C1-65F5/Df(3L)H99 clones approached that of the overlapping genotype Df(3L)63C1-65A5/Df(3L)H99, in which no <italic>Rp</italic> genes were affected (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A,D</xref>). Recovery was quantitatively inferior to that seen for Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ p{<italic>RpL28<sup>+</sup></italic>} clones (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4H</xref>), but it is to be noted that the <italic>Df(3L)H99</italic>/+ background unexpectedly reduced recovery of the control Df(3L)63C1-65A5/+ cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Regardless of whether this reflects the recently described role for basal caspase activity in promoting imaginal disc growth in the wild type (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib56">Shinoda et al., 2019</xref>), or some other genetic interaction, it complicates assessment of whether H99 heterozygosity and <italic>RpL28<sup>+</sup></italic> transgenesis rescue Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ clones equally. We attempted to prevent apoptosis more completely using the genetic background <italic>hid<sup>WRX1</sup>/ Df(3L)H99</italic> in which <italic>hid</italic> is homozygously affected in addition to heterozygosity for <italic>rpr</italic> and <italic>grim</italic>. Although <italic>hid<sup>WRX1</sup>/ Df(3L)H99</italic> adult animals were recovered in the absence of other mutations, they became exceptionally rare in heat-shocked combinations with the dual <italic>FRT</italic> chromosomes: as a result, insufficient data could be obtained to address this question. In any case, it is clear from our results that pro-apoptotic genes contribute significantly to eliminating segmentally aneuploid cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>).</p><fig id="fig5" position="float"><label>Figure 5.</label><caption><title>Contributions of apoptosis and Xrp1 to elimination of segmentally aneuploid cells.</title><p>Panels A-B show the contribution of <italic>w<sup>-</sup></italic> segmentally aneuploid cells to adult eyes of indicated genotypes, N as indicated for each genotype. (<bold>A</bold>) Heterozygosity for Df(3L)H99, which deletes the proapoptotic genes <italic>rpr</italic>, <italic>hid</italic>, and <italic>grim</italic> (‘RHG’) significantly increases contribution of Df63A3-65A9/+ and Df63C1-65F5/+ cells to adult eyes. These genotypes approach the contribution level of Df63C1-65A9/Df(3L)H99 cells which do not affect any <italic>Rp</italic> locus the results for 63A3-65A9/Df(3L)H99, 63C1-65A9/Df(3L)H99, and 63C1-65F5/Df(3L)H99 cannot be distinguished in males: KruskalWallis test, p=0.18; in females, this hypothesis is rejected and post-hoc testing identified the 63C1-65A9/Df(3L)H99 data as different from the other genotypes (p=0.018 for the comparison to 63A3-65A9/H99, p=0.027 for the comparison to 63C1-65F5/H99). (<bold>B</bold>) Heterozygosity for Xrp1, which is required for the slow growth and cell competition of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>point-mutant cells, significantly increases contribution of Df63A3-65A9/+ and Df63C1-65F5/+ cells to adult eyes. Xrp1 did not affect the contribution of Df63C1-65A9/+ cells that do not affect any <italic>Rp</italic> locus. We also tested the hypothesis that Df(3L)H99, Xrp1 mutation, and an RpS3/+ genetic background (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>) suppressed cell competition to an equal degree. This hypothesis was rejected for both males and females of Df63A3-65A9/+ and Df(3L)63C1-65F5/+ (Kruskal Wallis test p=2.9×10<sup>−17</sup>, 9.7 × 10<sup>−21</sup>, 2.1 × 10<sup>−5</sup>, and 1.8 × 10<sup>−7</sup>, respectively). For each deletion, all the genotypes were individually significantly different except Df(3L)63C1-65F5/H99 and Df(3L)63C1-65F5/Xrp1 males, which were not significantly different (p=0.06, Conover post-hoc test with Holm correction). (<bold>C</bold>) Representative examples of these genotypes. Statistics. Pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Multiple comparisons using the Kruskal Wallis test as described for panel B. Genotypes. For 63A3-65A9 in panel A: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT80B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /Df(3L)H99 FRT80B. For 63C1-65A9 in panel A: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT80B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /Df(3L)H99 FRT80B. For 63C1-65F5 in panel A: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT80B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /Df(3L)H99 FRT80B. For 63A3-65A9 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup>.</italic> For 63C1-65A9 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup>.</italic> For 63C1-65F5 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig5sdata1"><label>Figure 5—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig5-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig5-v1.tif"/></fig></sec><sec id="s2-5"><title>Xrp1 and RpS12 participate in removing segmentally aneuploid cells</title><p>Mutations in the <italic>rpS12</italic> and <italic>Xrp1</italic> genes are more specific for cell competition than mutations in cell death genes. The <italic>rpS12</italic> and <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutations prevent the elimination of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> point mutant cells from mosaics, but otherwise lead to seemingly normal flies, and do not affect other cell death processes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>). These genes should be required if segmental aneuploid cells are competed due to reduced <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose. Our results strongly support this conclusion in nearly all cases. Because the results are too extensive to present together in a single figure, they are presented in groups according to chromosome region (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>).</p><fig id="fig6" position="float"><label>Figure 6.</label><caption><title>Contributions of Xrp1 to competition of larger segmental aneuploidies.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Heterozygosity for Xrp1 has progressively less effect on the contributions of larger segmental-aneuploid genotypes in males, although still significant statistically. (<bold>B</bold>) In females, the effect of Xrp1 on Df(3L)63A3-67B2/+ cells, haploinsufficient for <italic>RpL14</italic>, <italic>RpL18</italic>, and <italic>RpL28</italic>, in no longer significant statistically. <italic>Xrp1</italic> heterozygosity does affect Df(3L)63C1-67B2 females, although many zero values are superimposed so that this is hard to appreciate on the Df(3L)63C1-67B2/+ <italic>Xrp1<sup>+/+</sup></italic> graph. (<bold>C</bold>). Representative examples of these phenotypes (males are shown). Statistics. Pairwise comparisons used the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). N as indicated for each genotype. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). * - difference significant (p&lt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes. For 63A3-65F5: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02813</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup>.</italic> For 63C1-67B2: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f05041</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. For 63A3-67B2: y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d07256</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig6sdata1"><label>Figure 6—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig6-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig6-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig7" position="float"><label>Figure 7.</label><caption><title>Contributions of Xrp1 and RpS12 to competition of chromosome two genotypes.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Xrp1 mutation improved the eye contributions of the Df(26A1-29F8)/+ genotype. Data for Df(26A1-28C3)/+ are the same as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>. (<bold>B</bold>) Xrp1 mutation improved the eye contribution of Df(56F16-59B1)/+, heterozygous for <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic>, but had no effect on the contribution of Df(56F16-58E2)/+ cells that affect no <italic>Rp</italic> loci. (<bold>C</bold>) Homozygosity for the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation improved the eye contribution of Df(56F16-59B1)/+, heterozygous for <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic>, but had no effect on the contribution of Df(56F16-58E2)/+ cells that affect no <italic>Rp</italic> loci. (<bold>D</bold>) Representative examples of these phenotypes (males shown). Statistics. Pairwise comparisons used the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). N as indicated for each genotype. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes. For 26A1-28C3: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04888</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04888</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 26A1-29F8: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00857</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d08241</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00857</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 56F16-58E2 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 56F16-59B1 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+; <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 56F16-58E2 in panel C: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; FRT80B/FRT80B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04349</sup></italic>/+; <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> FRT80B/<italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> FRT80B. For 56F16-59B1 in panel B: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+; FRT80B/FRT80B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d02302</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00464</sup></italic>/+; <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> FRT80B/<italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> FRT80B.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig7sdata1"><label>Figure 7—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig7-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig7-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig8" position="float"><label>Figure 8.</label><caption><title>Contribution of Xrp1 to competition of further genotypes.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation made a small but significant improvement to the contribution of Df(48B2-50C1)/+ cells, heterozygous for <italic>RpS11</italic>, but its effect on Df048F6-50C1/+ cells, which have no affected <italic>Rp</italic> genes, was only significant in males. (<bold>B,C</bold>) <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation significantly rescued the contribution of all segmental aneuploid genotypes affecting the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> locus. There was little effect of mutating the second <italic>Xrp1</italic> copy on Df(89B13-93A2.1)/+ and Df(89B13-93A2.2)/+ cells, both of which are haplo-insufficient for <italic>RpS20</italic> and <italic>RpS30</italic> as well as <italic>Xrp1</italic>. (<bold>D</bold>) Representative examples of these genotypes (males shown). For panels A–C, the control data (<italic>Xrp1<sup>+/+</sup></italic> for A and <italic>Xrp1<sup>+/-</sup></italic> for (<bold>B,C</bold>) were also shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Statistics. Pairwise comparisons used the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). N as indicated for each genotype. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). * - difference significant (p&lt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes. For 48B2-50C1: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 48F6-50C1: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B/+ and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d09761</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00157</sup></italic>/+; FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>/+. For 87B8-89B16: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f04937</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. For 87B8-89E5: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f00971</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. For 87B8-93A2: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06796</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. For 89B13-93A2.1: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> / FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f03502</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>. For 89B13-93A2.2: y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f01700</sup></italic> /FRT82B and y w hsF; <italic>P{XP}<sup>d06928</sup> PBac{WH}<sup>f01700</sup></italic> /FRT82B <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig8sdata1"><label>Figure 8—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig8-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig8-v1.tif"/></fig><p>Beginning with the Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ genotype where clone loss was demonstrably due to heterozygosity for the <italic>RpL28</italic> gene (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4H</xref>), we found that heterozygosity for an <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation greatly restored contribution of Df(3L)63A3-65A9/+ clones (<italic>RpL28<sup>+/-</sup></italic>) to the eye (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B,D</xref>). Similar results were seen for the Df(3L)63C1-65F5/+ genotype that is heterozygous for <italic>RpL18</italic>, but <italic>Xrp1</italic> heterozgosity did not affect recovery of clones of the overlapping Df(3L)63C1-65A9/+ that is <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B,D</xref>). The <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation even improved the survival of larger segmental-aneuploidies where combinations of the <italic>RpL18</italic>, <italic>RpL28</italic>, and <italic>RpL14</italic> genes were affected (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6A–C</xref>).</p><p>Because the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation that affects cell competition recessively maps to the third chromosome, it was simpler to examine in combination with segmental aneuploidies affecting chromosome 2. These aneuploid eye clones, which like those discussed above were also recovered in the presence of an <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation, included Df(2L)26A1-29F8/+, heterozygous for <italic>RpL36A</italic> and <italic>RpS13</italic>, and Df(2R)56F16-59B1/+, heterozygous for <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7A,B,D</xref>). Clones of the Df(2L)26A1-28C3/+ or Df(2R)56F16-58E2/+ cells that did not affect any <italic>Rp</italic> loci were recovered at high rates, independently of <italic>Xrp1</italic> genotype (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7A,B,D</xref>). As expected, <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> homozygosity also led to significant recovery of Df(2R)56F16-59B1/+ clones that were heterozygous for <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic>, although to a quantitatively lesser degree than <italic>Xrp1</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7C,D</xref>) The contribution of Df(2R)56F16-58E2/+ cells, where no <italic>Rp</italic> gene is affected, was unaltered by the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> mutation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7C,D</xref>).</p><p><italic>Xrp1</italic> also affected other segmentally aneuploid regions. <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutations had a minor but statistically significant effect on clones of Df(2R)48B2-50C1/+ cells, heterozygous for <italic>RpS11 </italic>(<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8A,D</xref>), a genotype that also had an autonomous effect on eye growth (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2E</xref>). <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutations enhanced the contributions of Df(3R)87B8-89B16/+ and Df(3R)87B8-89E5/+ cells that were heterozygous for the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> gene (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8B–D</xref>). Crossing to <italic>Xrp1</italic> only slightly improved survival of Df(3R)87B8-93A2/+ clones that were heterozygous for the <italic>eIF2γ</italic>, <italic>RpS20</italic> and <italic>RpS30</italic> genes, and did little to enhance recovery of Df(3R)89B13-93A2/+ genotypes that were heterozygous for <italic>RpS20</italic> and <italic>RpS30</italic> alone. As these deficiencies already delete the <italic>Xrp1</italic> locus itself (within 91D3-5 region), introducing an <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation in trans leads to <italic>Xrp1<sup>-/-</sup></italic> genotypes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8B–D</xref>). Heterozygous mutation of <italic>Xrp1</italic> is already sufficient to suppress competition of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> point mutant cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>), probably explaining why <italic>Xrp1</italic> homozygosity had little further effect.</p></sec><sec id="s2-6"><title>Surrounding <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells are necessary to eliminate segmentally aneuploid cells</title><p>Further evidence that segmentally aneuploid cells are eliminated by cell competition due to their <italic>Rp/+</italic> genotypes came from studies in homotypic <italic>Rp</italic> mutant backgrounds (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>). It is known from previous work that cells heterozygous at two <italic>Rp</italic> loci do not suffer more severe competition than cells heterozygous for only one <italic>Rp</italic> mutation, and therefore that cells heterozygous for two <italic>Rp</italic> loci generally cannot be eliminated by cells heterozygous at only one <italic>Rp</italic> locus (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib58">Simpson and Morata, 1981</xref>). Accordingly, clones of segmental aneuploid cells affecting the <italic>RpS11</italic>, <italic>RpS13</italic>, <italic>RpS16</italic>, <italic>RpS20</italic>, <italic>RpS24</italic>, <italic>RpS30</italic>, <italic>RpL14</italic>, <italic>RpL18</italic>, <italic>RpL28</italic>, or <italic>RpL36A</italic> genes were all recovered significantly better in an <italic>RpS3</italic> point mutant background, ie <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> Df(<italic>Rp</italic>)/+ clones were not eliminated from <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> tissues (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9A,B,D</xref>). This applied to segmental aneuploid clones heterozygous for <italic>eIF2γ</italic> as well (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9C,D</xref>). On the other hand, the <italic>RpS3</italic> point mutant background usually had no effect on the survival of clones of genotypes that did not delete other <italic>Rp</italic> loci (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9C</xref>). One exception was Df(2L)26A1-28C3/+, for which the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> background generated significantly larger clones (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9C,D</xref>). Notably, Df(2L)26A1-28C3/+ cells had previously been recovered less than the other non-<italic>Rp</italic> segmental aneuploidies (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3B,C</xref>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9C</xref>). Although this could also have reflected a lower rate of FLP-recombination between the 26A1 and 28C3 <italic>FRT</italic> sites, in the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> background the recovery of Df2(2L)6A1-28C3/+ clones was similar to that of Df(2R)48F6-50C1/+, Df(2R)56F16-58E2/+ or Df(3L)63C1-65A9/+, suggesting instead that Df(2L)26A1-28C3/+ might be subject to a mild cell competition that can be rescued in the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> background (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9C</xref>).</p><fig id="fig9" position="float"><label>Figure 9.</label><caption><title>Elimination of segmentally aneuploid clones requires a <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> background.</title><p>Eye contributions of clones of segmentally aneuploid genotypes deleting the indicated <italic>Rp</italic> loci. in <italic>RpS3<sup>+/+</sup></italic> and <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genetic backgrounds. Magenta bars show the median contributions, N as indicated for each genotype. (<bold>A</bold>) In males, the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genetic background (black datapoints) allows for significantly greater contribution in all cases except Df(48B2-50C1)/+. No Df(3R)89B13-93A2.2/<italic>RpS3</italic> flies were obtained, this genotype is lethal due to an unidentified shared lethal outside the 89B13-93A2.2 region. (<bold>B</bold>) Comparable data from females. The <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genetic background (black datapoints) always allows for significantly greater contribution. (<bold>C</bold>) Eye contributions of clones of segmentally aneuploid cells where no <italic>Rp</italic> loci are affected. The <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genetic background (black datapoints) had no significant effect on many such genotypes, but did enhance the contribution of Df(26A1-28C3)/+ clones and of the Df(3R)87B8-89B16/+ and Df(3R)87B8-89E5/+ clones that were haploinsuffiicent for <italic>eIF2γ</italic> <sup>+</sup>. No Df(3R)87B8-89B16/<italic>RpS3</italic> males were obtained. (<bold>D</bold>) Representative examples of these <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genotypes (males shown). The <italic>RpS3<sup>+/+</sup></italic> control data were shown previously in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>, except for 87B8-89B16 females. Statistics. Pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney procedure with the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing (see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). * - difference significant (p&lt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01). Genotypes: Same as for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>, with an <italic>FRT82B RpS3</italic> chromosome substituting for <italic>FRT82B</italic> where indicated.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig9sdata1"><label>Figure 9—source data 1.</label><caption><title>% eye white data.</title><p>* Indicates that 4x w+ cells indicative of FLP-mediated duplication were also observed in this specimen. Gaps between measurements separate replicate data.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig9-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig9-v1.tif"/></fig><p>Although suppression of apoptosis, mutation of cell competition genes, or a germline-inherited <italic>RpS3</italic> background all restored the growth and survival of cells hemizygous for <italic>Rp</italic> loci, they may not have done so equally. Suppressing apoptosis was least effective at expanding the contribution of aneuploid cells in the rescued eyes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). <italic>Xrp1</italic>, <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup>,</italic> and the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> background suppressed cell competition to similar extents, although the general <italic>RpS3</italic> background often had the greatest effect, comparable to those of <italic>RpL28<sup>+</sup></italic> and <italic>eIF2γ<sup>+</sup></italic> transgenes (see statistical comparisons for the 63A3-65F5 and 56F16-59B1 regions in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figures 5</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">6</xref> legends). Although several explanations could justify these differences, it is worth noting that the results correlate with the effects of these genetic backgrounds on translation and growth. Thus Df(3L)H99, which suppresses apoptosis with no known increase translation or cellular growth, is expected to suppress the competition of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells but not restore their translation. As a consequence, clones of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup> Df(H99)/+</italic> cells, although surviving, are not expected to grow as rapidly or contribute as much to the eye as clones of <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells. By contrast the <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> and <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutations restore the general translation rate of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> cells, with <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutation also restoring more normal rates of cellular and organismal growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Ji et al., 2019</xref>). A background mutation in <italic>RpS3</italic> is not expected to restore translation or growth to segmentally aneuploid cells, but by equally impairing the unrecombined cells, and systemically delaying the growth and developmental rate of the organism as a whole, it equalizes the contributions of aneuploid and control genotypes.</p><p>In summary, our results strongly support the conclusion that the growth and survival of most segmentally aneuploid regions is determined by cell competition according to <italic>Rp</italic> gene copy number, and show that the RpS12/Xrp1-dependent process that eliminates <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> point mutated cells also acts on cells with large losses of genetic material that include <italic>Rp</italic> genes.</p></sec><sec id="s2-7"><title>Competition of segmentally aneuploid cells in the thorax</title><p>Experiments using the hsFLP transgene should stimulate recombination and segmental aneuploidy in all tissues, not only in the eye where excision causes loss of pigmentation. To test this, we looked for cells with deletions encompassing <italic>Rp</italic> loci in the thorax, where <italic>Rp</italic> haploinsufficiency leads to small, thin thoracic bristles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>). This was explored using Df(2R)56F16-59B1, which deletes the <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic> loci. Minute-like bristles were not observed on the thoraces of heat-shocked flies carrying Df(2R)56F16-58E2 heterozygous clones, which affect no <italic>Rp</italic> locus, or on the thoraces of heat-shocked 56F16-59B1 flies lacking rpS12 or <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutations, but they represented 0.5% of the thoracic bristles in the 56F16-59B1/+ <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></italic> flies and 0.25% of the thoracic bristles in the 56F16-59B1/+ <italic>Xrp1<sup>m2-73/+</sup></italic> background (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig10">Figure 10A,B</xref>). These findings indicate that Df(2R)56F16-59B1/+ cells also survive to adulthood in the thorax if cell competition is suppressed, albeit at lower frequency than observed in the eye.</p><fig id="fig10" position="float"><label>Figure 10.</label><caption><title>Segmentally aneuploid cells in the thorax.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) White arrow indicates a ‘Minute’(<italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>)-like short thin scutellar bristles on a fly containing clones of 56F16-59B1 cells. Compare the normal contralteral scutellar bristles (black arrow). (<bold>B</bold>) Frequency of affected bristles in genotypes as indicated. Data represent averages from three sets of 100 adults of each genotype. Minute-like bristles were not seen with the 56F16-58E2 deletion that does not affect any <italic>Rp</italic> locus. This provides as a baseline for any spontaneous loss of heterozygosity for <italic>Rp</italic> gene that might occur unrelated to the FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> excision, and which is evidently rare. Minute-like bristles were also not seen on cell competition-competent flies where 56F16-59B1 excisions would create heterozygosity for <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic>. These bristles only appeared in the <italic>rpS12</italic> and <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutant backgrounds where cell competition was compromised. Statistics. Three sets of 100 flies analyzed for each genotype. One-way ANOVA rejects the hypothesis that the six datasets are indistinguishable (p=4.28×10<sup>−7</sup>). The Holm procedure for multiple comparisons showed that results for 56F16-59B1 in the <italic>rpS12</italic> and <italic>Xrp1</italic> backgrounds were different from all others and from one another (adjusted p&lt;0.05). For simplicity, significance is only indicated for 56F16-59B1 genotypes. ns – difference not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). * - difference significant (p&lt;0.05). ** - difference highly significant (p&lt;0.01).</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig10sdata1"><label>Figure 10—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Source data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig10">Figure 10B</xref>.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig10-data1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig10-v1.tif"/></fig></sec></sec><sec id="s3" sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><p>We sought to test the hypothesis that cell competition is a mechanism that can target aneuploid cells based on their altered <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). It was already known that cells carrying point mutations at <italic>Rp</italic> loci are eliminated from developing imaginal discs by cell competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Morata and Ripoll, 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Simpson, 1979</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Baker, 2020</xref>). Here, we tested whether cells with more extensive genetic defects that reduce <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose also experience cell competition, and if so how significant this is for the removal of cells with damaged genomes.</p><p>The idea that cell competition eliminates aneuploid cells developed from studies of cellular responses to DNA damage, where a delayed, p53-independent process follows after the acute, p53-dependent DNA damage response (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib73">Wichmann et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib64">Titen and Golic, 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). We found that a substantial proportion of p53-independent cell death shared genetic requirements with cell competition, consistent with cell competition being responsible (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Accordingly, when the cell competition pathway was inhibited, more Minute-like bristles were recovered on the irradiated flies, an indication that cell competition could be removing cells that experience substantial losses of genetic material (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1R</xref>). A proportion of both the p53-independent cell death and Minute-like bristles were independent of <italic>rpS12</italic>, however, suggesting that cell competition might not be the only process at work.</p><p>To measure the role of cell competition on defined genotypes, where the role of surrounding wild type cells could also be assessed, we then used site-specific recombination to excise chromosome segments from isolated cells during imaginal disc development. As expected, segmental aneuploidy prevented cells contributing clones to the adult eye whenever <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose was reduced (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig11">Figure 11A</xref>). More significantly, cell competition appears to be the primary mechanism limiting the contribution of segmental aneuploidies in the tested size ranges to adult tissues, because segmental aneuploid cells easily survived and contributed large fractions of the adult tissue when they did not affect <italic>Rp</italic> loci, when diploidy for <italic>Rp</italic> loci was restored with a transgene, or when the cell competition pathway that depends on RpS12 and Xrp1 function was mutated.</p><fig id="fig11" position="float"><label>Figure 11.</label><caption><title>Models.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Model for the elimination of segmentally aneuploid cells from imaginal discs. Cells that lose part of one chromosome may become haploinsufficient for one or more <italic>Rp</italic> loci, affecting ribosome assembly and triggering RpS12 and Xrp1 activities that lead to cell elimination by competition with unaffected neighboring cells. (<bold>B</bold>) Our studies show that segmentally aneuploid cells proliferate and contribute to adult tissues in animals where all cells are heterozygous for an <italic>Rp</italic> mutation, reducing the difference between aneuploid and diploid cells. A similar situation might apply in Diamond-Blackfan patients, many of whom are haploinsufficient for <italic>Rp</italic> loci. If <italic>Rp</italic> loci are also indicators of chromosome rearrangements in mammalian cells, such patients might face a greater accumulation of aneuploid cells.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-61172-fig11-v1.tif"/></fig><p>The segmental-aneuploid genotypes examined here were able to form entire heads of aneuploid cells when eyFlp was used to drive recombination in all the cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). The removal of sporadic aneuploid cells therefore depended on competition with diploid cells. In fact in the cases of Df(2R)56F16-59B1/+, heterozygous for the <italic>RpS16</italic> and <italic>RpS24</italic> genes, and Df(3L)65A5-65A9/+, heterozygous for the <italic>RpL28</italic> gene, we bred flies that received heat-shock recombination, and recovered non-mosaic, entirely segmentally aneuploid flies in the next generation, derived from FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> recombination in the germlines of the parents. Thus, these segmentally aneuploid genotypes, which rarely survived in sporadic clones, were viable in all tissues when competing wild type cells were not present.</p><p>The most effective suppression of <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic> segmental aneuploid clones was generally seen when the whole animal was heterozygous for a point mutation in <italic>RpS3</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>). This is further, compelling evidence that cell competition due to reduced <italic>Rp</italic> gene dose is the main mechanism eliminating segmentally aneuploid because it shows that the feature of euploid cells that enables them to eliminate aneuploid cells is their <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> genotype.</p><p>In contrast to these results, segmental aneuploidy leaving <italic>Rp</italic> loci unaffected was compatible with clonal growth and differentiation for four of the five genomic regions tested (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). In the exception, we identified <italic>eIF2γ</italic> as the locus responsible for loss Df(3R)87B8-89B16/+ clones and Df(3R)87B8-89E5/+ clones (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4I</xref>). No point mutant alleles of the <italic>eIF2γ</italic> gene are known and the locus is believed to be haplo-lethal to <italic>Drosophila</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>). It is cell competition that eliminates <italic>eIF2γ</italic><sup>+/-</sup> aneuploid cells from the eye, however, since they could form apparently normal adult heads when no diploid competitor cells were present (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2P–R</xref>). Moreover, clones of the <italic>eIF2γ</italic><sup>+/-</sup> genotypes Df(3R)87B8-89B16/+ and Df(3R)87B8-89E5/+ were restored by both the <italic>Xrp1</italic> mutant and by the <italic>RpS3<sup>+/-</sup></italic> mutant background, as expected for cell competition (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>). It is possible that the 26A1-28C3 region might also contain a non-<italic>Rp</italic> gene whose deletion leads to a cell competition, although much less severe.</p><p>Out of 63 other translation factor genes examined in a systematic study of whole body, non-mosaic phenotypes, <italic>eIF2</italic>α and <italic>eIF2</italic>γ were the only haploinsufficient loci found (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>). Notably, the <italic>eIF2</italic>α gene is the only other locus known where point mutants lead to the developmental delay and thin bristle phenotype that is otherwise typical of heterozygous <italic>Rp</italic> mutants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Marygold et al., 2007</xref>), suggesting a functional relationship between <italic>Rp</italic> mutants and the eIF2 complex. Independent studies in our laboratory already indicate that eIF2α is regulated by Xrp1 and contributes directly to the cell competition mechanism (Kiparaki, Khan, Cheun and Baker, in preparation).</p><p>Previous studies suggested that cells with whole chromosome aneuploidies experience a stress associated with mismatched dose of many proteins (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib65">Torres et al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib76">Zhu et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib61">Terhorst et al., 2020</xref>). We cannot measure how such stresses reduced clonal growth of segmental aneuploid cells in our experiments, but the effect must be small compared to cell competition, since without cell competition, segmental aneuploid cells easily contributed half or more of the eye, whereas cell competition drastically reduces this contribution. It seems unlikely that all five independent genomic regions examined here, comprising 21.1% of the euchromatic genome, represent exceptional cases. It is plausible, however, that additional stresses increase with more extensive loss of genetic material, eg clones heterozygous for a 6.3 Mb deletion removing the <italic>RpL14</italic>, <italic>RpL18</italic>, and <italic>RpL28</italic> loci were recovered less well than smaller deletions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>), as if larger monosomies experience other stresses in addition to cell competition. Since extra copies of at least two <italic>Rp</italic> genes (RpS12 and RpL36) do not trigger cell removal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref>), other mechanisms would also be required to eliminate cells with triploidies, or act in tissues that lack cell competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib52">Ripoll, 1980</xref>). Finally, preventing apoptosis of <italic>Drosophila</italic> cells that have chromosome instability leads to invasive tumor growth that can be propagated after transplantation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Dekanty et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib12">Benhra et al., 2018</xref>). We did not observe invasive growth after blocking cell death of segmentally aneuploid cells, suggesting that chromosome instability may lead to different classes of aneuploidy, or to other additional effects.</p><p>If cell competition is the main mechanism eliminating cells with segmental monosomies, at least up to a certain size, how important is this? The segmental aneuploidies we studied were comparable in genetic content to some whole chromosome monosomies in humans. For example, cells heterozygous for Df(2R)56F16-58E2 were hemizygous for a 2.2 Mb region including 1.5% of the genome, about as large a region as can be expected to lack any <italic>Rp</italic> gene, encoding 333 protein coding genes and 55 non-coding RNAs. Human chromosome 21, which also contains 1.5% of the genome that lacks any <italic>Rp</italic> gene, encodes 234 protein coding genes and 404 non-coding RNAs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Uechi et al., 2001</xref>). The similarity is not coincidental, because Rp number is conserved and the total gene number is also comparable, so genome segments that lack <italic>Rp</italic> loci are expected to be similar when measured by gene number or fraction of the genome. Thus, Df(2R)56F16-58E2 is comparable in genetic terms to loss of a small human chromosome. Some of the segmental aneuploidies we studied in <italic>Drosophila</italic> were several-fold larger than Df(2R)56F16-58E2 (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>), Thus, our studies may best model aneuploidies affecting one or a few human chromosomes. Because ~80% of the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genome is carried on two autosomes, whole-chromosome aneuploidies in <italic>Drosophila</italic>, by contrast, better mimic complex karyotypes seen in tumors or in cells with chromosome instability, which affect many chromosomes.</p><p>Little is known about what aneuploidies arise spontaneously in normal development. Ionizing radiation generates many kinds of chromosome aberration, so if more than half the p53-independent cell death following irradiation resembles cell competition (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>), this suggests cell competition could be significant for removing many, although not all, the damaged cells that arise.</p><p>Could cell competition be important in humans? As in <italic>Drosophila</italic>, the 80 <italic>Rp</italic> gene loci are distributed seemingly randomly around the 24 pairs of human chromosomes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Uechi et al., 2001</xref>). At least 21 human <italic>Rp</italic> genes have so far been found to be haploinsufficient and are responsible for the dominant syndrome Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA)(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib69">Ulirsch et al., 2018</xref>). Thus <italic>Rp</italic> genes could be sensors for aneuploidy in humans. The retention of aneuploid cells in <italic>Drosophila</italic> that inherit an <italic>Rp</italic> mutation from the germline (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>) resembles the situation in human DBA patients, the majority of whom are constitutively heterozygous for a <italic>Rp</italic> gene mutation or deletion (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib69">Ulirsch et al., 2018</xref>). DBA patients experience 4.8x higher lifetime incidence of multiple cancers, not limited to the hematopoietic system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib72">Vlachos et al., 2018</xref>). Current hypotheses for this cancer predisposition include specific alterations to the spectrum of translation due to defective ribosome biogenesis, a loss of translational fidelity due to selection of second-site suppressor mutations, selective pressure for p53 mutations due to the chronic p53 activity in such genotypes, and oxidative stress or metabolic reprogramming in <italic>Rp<sup>+/-</sup></italic>cells (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib60">Sulima et al., 2019</xref>). To these we can now add the possibility that DBA patients experience a diminished capacity to recognize and eliminate aneuploid cells, because their euploid cells are not <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic>(<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig11">Figure 11B</xref>). The nearly fivefold increase in tumor incidence suggests that if this was correct, cell competition might remove as many as 80% of pre-neoplastic cells from normal individuals due to their aneuploidy, This seems comparable to our findings that cell competition removes 58–86% of the cells with radiation-damaged genomes in <italic>Drosophila</italic>(<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1M,P,R</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s4" sec-type="materials|methods"><title>Materials and methods</title><sec id="s4-1"><title>Fly strains and FLP-<italic>FRT</italic> methods</title><p>Flies were reared on standard medium at 25°C unless otherwise noted. The genetic strains used are described in the Key Resources Table.</p><p>Strains carrying pairs of <italic>FRT</italic> transgenic elements in cis were obtained after meiotic recombination using appropriate genetic crosses, monitoring recombination frequency to confirm the expected transgene locations. FLP expression was induced by 37°C heat shock for 30 or 60 min at 36 ± 12 hr after egg laying. Adult flies were aged ~1 week to allow eye color to darken fully, then stored at −20°C for later measurement and photography. The fraction of each adult eye populated by unpigmented cells was estimated manually under a dissecting microscope. Samples were blinded for genotype before scoring by an independent investigator. We estimate the clonal composition of the eye by conceptually dividing each eye into segments so as to focus on the composition of the mosaic subregions. For example, an eye that is 56% white might be half white with an additional quarter of the eye that was one quarter white. Estimates are no doubt approximate although we do not think the errors are large. Importantly, the Mann Whitney procedure used to compare results statistically ranks relative clone size between genotypes rather than using the absolute values of the estimates.</p><p>Many of the genetic backgrounds in which mosaics were generated carried other, distant <italic>FRT</italic> sites as part of the <italic>FRT82B Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></italic>, <italic>FRT82B RpS3</italic>, <italic>rpS12<sup>G97D</sup> FRT80B, Df(3L)H99 FRT80B</italic> chromosomes. Accordingly, the control backgrounds in these experiments always included <italic>FRT82B</italic> or <italic>FRT80B</italic>, as appropriate, and as described in the figure legends.</p><p>The <italic>RpL28</italic> rescue transgene was obtained by inserting genomic sequences 3L: 3220152–3225729 (<italic>Drosophila</italic> genome Release 6) into pTL780, which uses DsRed expression as a transgenic marker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib14">Blanco-Redondo and Langenhan, 2018</xref>). The genomic DNA was amplified from the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genomic reference strain (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib2">Adams et al., 2000</xref>). The resulting pTL780(RpL28+) plasmid was used for integration at the VK37 landing site on chromosome 2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib71">Venken et al., 2009</xref>).</p><p>For irradiation, food vials containing larvae were exposed to 500, 1000 or 4000 rad from a <italic>γ-</italic>ray source 84 ± 12 hr after egg laying. Dissection, fixation, and immuno-labeling of wing imaginal discs with anti-active Dcp1 and anti-Xrp1 was performed as described previously (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib8">Baker et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lee et al., 2018</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s4-2"><title>Statistics</title><p>Frequencies of cell death and of Xrp1 expression were compared pairwise by t-tests (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). For multiple comparisons, one-way ANOVA was used with the Holm correction for multiple testing (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig10">Figure 10</xref>). Previous studies indicated that significant results could be obtained from five biological replicates, where a biological replicate is an imaginal disc preparation labeled, imaged, and quantified (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">McNamee and Brodsky, 2009</xref>). N for each experiment is reported in the figure legends. The extent of white tissue in mosaic eyes was compared using pairwise Mann-Whitney tests with the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction for multiple testing, using FDR ≤ 0.05. There are 109 pairwise Mann-Whitney comparisons made in the main text of this paper, their P-values and the BH corrections are summarized in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>. Where the extent of white tissue in mosaic eyes was compared between multiple genotypes simultaneously, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used with post-hoc follow-up tests using the method of Conover with BH correction using FDR ≤ 0.05. No explicit power analysis was used. All flies obtained were scored in initial experiments, sometimes leading to unequal sample sizes, subsequently we considered 20 eyes of each sex generally sufficient for significant results (while the number of flies that can be obtained is rarely limiting, blinding and scoring clone sizes is time-consuming). N is given in the figures for each experiment. All the figures show experimental and control data obtained from simultaneous parallel experiments in each case, for which all the data scored were included. Some of the genotypes have been generated on multiple occasions with similar results, not all included in the figures.</p></sec></sec></body><back><ack id="ack"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank Jorge Blanco, Michael Brodsky, Kevin Cook, Kent Golic, and Cristina Montagna for useful discussions, Tao Wang for statistical advice, and D Rio for Xrp1-specific antibodies. This study would not have been possible without genetic strains obtained from the Exelixis Collection at Harvard Medical School and from the Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center (supported by NIH P40OD018537). We also thank Erika Bach, Susan Celniker, and Gunter Reuter for genetic strains. We thank S Emmons, J Hebert, A Jenny, M Kiparaki, A Kumar, C Montagna, J Secombe, and A Tomlinson for comments on this or earlier versions of the manuscript. Supported by a grant from the NIH (GM104213). Confocal Imaging was performed at the Analytical Imaging Facility, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, supported by NCI cancer center support grant (P30CA013330), using Leica SP5 and SP8 microscopes, the latter acquired through NIH SIG 1S10 OD023591. This paper includes data from a thesis partially fulfilling of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Division of Medical Sciences, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University.</p></ack><sec id="s5" sec-type="additional-information"><title>Additional information</title><fn-group content-type="competing-interest"><title>Competing interests</title><fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="conf1"><p>No competing interests declared</p></fn></fn-group><fn-group content-type="author-contribution"><title>Author contributions</title><fn fn-type="con" id="con1"><p>Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con2"><p>Data curation, Investigation</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con3"><p>Conceptualization</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con4"><p>Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing</p></fn></fn-group></sec><sec id="s6" sec-type="supplementary-material"><title>Additional files</title><supplementary-material id="supp1"><label>Supplementary file 1.</label><caption><title>FRT insertions used in this study and their combinations.</title><p>Columns indicate the specific insertion, genome location, and cytological position of the elements used as the left FRT site. Rows indicate the same information for the right FRT site. Insertions in the ‘d’ family are of the P{XP} element, the ‘e’ family the PBac{RB} element, and ‘f’ family PBac{WH} (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref>). For clarity, in the main text we refer to genetic strains by the cytological insertion point eg ‘63A3-65A9’ is the shorthand descriptive name for the PBac{WH}<sup>f01922</sup> P{XP}<sup>d02570</sup> chromosome. Which <italic>Rp</italic> genes are included between FRT sites is shown, as is <italic>eIF2γ.</italic> Some FRT combinations were poor substrates for Flp, either retained the parental eye color in the presence of eyFlp, or produce a salt and pepper pattern of very small clones that is indicative of excision occurring only late in development once large cell numbers are present (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2U–Z</xref>). These results are summarized by shading FRT combinations tested as follows: Green – eyFlp recombination in essentially all cells; Blue – eyFlp recombination in most cells, associated with small eye size (≤0.5 linear dimensions); magenta – eyFlp recombination not detected; Orange – eyFlp recombination only late in development gives a mottled eye. The interpretation that recombination is reduced or absent is preferred to the alternative possibility that excision results in a cell-lethal genotype that later disappears, in part because results correlated with individual FRT elements and not with the genetic material between them. For example, recombination between 26A1 and 28F3 or 29C1, revealed only small, late recombination, but the 26A1-29F8 recombination that deletes all the same sequences was completely excised from EyFlp eyes and developed normal eye size with entirely Df(2L)26A1-29F8/+ cells (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>). Other examples of recombinations that could not readily be obtained were 87B8-89B18, 87B8-91B8, 87B8-92F1 and 89B13-92F1, although the larger 89B8-93A2 and 89B13-93A2 recombinations were readily obtained (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2R–T</xref>). In contrast to the lack of correlation with deleted chromosome regions, when an element was not recombined by eyFLP this was the case with all the partner elements tested, so each FRT element could be designated as green or orange/magenta without ambiguity (for the 21-23/4 region elements there is insufficient information to identify the particular non-recombining elements). These data suggest that some <italic>FRT</italic>-containing Exelixis elements are poor substrates for cis-recombination in the head. Interestingly, all 7 insertions of the PBac (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib3">Adams and Cory, 1998</xref>) element tested belong in this category, although this element has previously been recombined successfully in the germline (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib50">Parks et al., 2004</xref>).</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-supp1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp2"><label>Supplementary file 2.</label><caption><title>Statistical comparisons of segmental-aneuploid cell contribution to adult eyes.</title><p>109 pairwise comparison between segmental aneuploid genotypes were performed in this study, which requires multiple testing correction. The table shows each comparison ranked according to raw p-value (Mann-Whitney), Benjamini-Hochberg critical value for FDR ≤ 0.05, adjusted p-value, and significance.</p></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-supp2-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="transrepform"><label>Transparent reporting form</label><media mime-subtype="pdf" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-61172-transrepform-v1.pdf"/></supplementary-material></sec><sec id="s7" sec-type="data-availability"><title>Data availability</title><p>All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.</p></sec><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="bib1"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Abbott</surname> <given-names>MK</given-names></name><name><surname>Lengyel</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1991">1991</year><article-title>Embryonic head involution and rotation of male Terminalia require the <italic>Drosophila</italic> locus head involution defective</article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>129</volume><fpage>783</fpage><lpage>789</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/genetics/129.3.783</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib2"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Adams</surname> <given-names>MD</given-names></name><name><surname>Celniker</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Holt</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Evans</surname> <given-names>CA</given-names></name><name><surname>Gocayne</surname> <given-names>JD</given-names></name><name><surname>Amanatides</surname> <given-names>PG</given-names></name><name><surname>Scherer</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>PW</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoskins</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Galle</surname> <given-names>RF</given-names></name><name><surname>George</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Lewis</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Richards</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Ashburner</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Henderson</surname> <given-names>SN</given-names></name><name><surname>Sutton</surname> <given-names>GG</given-names></name><name><surname>Wortman</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Yandell</surname> <given-names>MD</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>LX</given-names></name><name><surname>Brandon</surname> <given-names>RC</given-names></name><name><surname>Rogers</surname> <given-names>YH</given-names></name><name><surname>Blazej</surname> <given-names>RG</given-names></name><name><surname>Champe</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Pfeiffer</surname> <given-names>BD</given-names></name><name><surname>Wan</surname> <given-names>KH</given-names></name><name><surname>Doyle</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Baxter</surname> <given-names>EG</given-names></name><name><surname>Helt</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname> <given-names>CR</given-names></name><name><surname>Gabor</surname> <given-names>GL</given-names></name><name><surname>Abril</surname> <given-names>JF</given-names></name><name><surname>Agbayani</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>An</surname> <given-names>HJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Andrews-Pfannkoch</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Baldwin</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Ballew</surname> <given-names>RM</given-names></name><name><surname>Basu</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Baxendale</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Bayraktaroglu</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Beasley</surname> <given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Beeson</surname> <given-names>KY</given-names></name><name><surname>Benos</surname> <given-names>PV</given-names></name><name><surname>Berman</surname> <given-names>BP</given-names></name><name><surname>Bhandari</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Bolshakov</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Borkova</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Botchan</surname> <given-names>MR</given-names></name><name><surname>Bouck</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Brokstein</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Brottier</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Burtis</surname> <given-names>KC</given-names></name><name><surname>Busam</surname> <given-names>DA</given-names></name><name><surname>Butler</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Cadieu</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Center</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Chandra</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Cherry</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Cawley</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Dahlke</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Davenport</surname> <given-names>LB</given-names></name><name><surname>Davies</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>de Pablos</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Delcher</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Deng</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Mays</surname> <given-names>AD</given-names></name><name><surname>Dew</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Dietz</surname> <given-names>SM</given-names></name><name><surname>Dodson</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Doup</surname> <given-names>LE</given-names></name><name><surname>Downes</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Dugan-Rocha</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Dunkov</surname> <given-names>BC</given-names></name><name><surname>Dunn</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Durbin</surname> <given-names>KJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Evangelista</surname> <given-names>CC</given-names></name><name><surname>Ferraz</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Ferriera</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Fleischmann</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Fosler</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Gabrielian</surname> <given-names>AE</given-names></name><name><surname>Garg</surname> <given-names>NS</given-names></name><name><surname>Gelbart</surname> <given-names>WM</given-names></name><name><surname>Glasser</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Glodek</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Gong</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Gorrell</surname> <given-names>JH</given-names></name><name><surname>Gu</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Guan</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Harris</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Harris</surname> <given-names>NL</given-names></name><name><surname>Harvey</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Heiman</surname> <given-names>TJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Hernandez</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Houck</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Hostin</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Houston</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Howland</surname> <given-names>TJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Wei</surname> <given-names>MH</given-names></name><name><surname>Ibegwam</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Jalali</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Kalush</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Karpen</surname> <given-names>GH</given-names></name><name><surname>Ke</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kennison</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Ketchum</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Kimmel</surname> <given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Kodira</surname> <given-names>CD</given-names></name><name><surname>Kraft</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Kravitz</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Kulp</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Lai</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Lasko</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Lei</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Levitsky</surname> <given-names>AA</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Liang</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Lin</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Mattei</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>McIntosh</surname> <given-names>TC</given-names></name><name><surname>McLeod</surname> <given-names>MP</given-names></name><name><surname>McPherson</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Merkulov</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Milshina</surname> <given-names>NV</given-names></name><name><surname>Mobarry</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Morris</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Moshrefi</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mount</surname> <given-names>SM</given-names></name><name><surname>Moy</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Murphy</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Murphy</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Muzny</surname> <given-names>DM</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname> <given-names>DL</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname> <given-names>DR</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Nixon</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Nusskern</surname> <given-names>DR</given-names></name><name><surname>Pacleb</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Palazzolo</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Pittman</surname> <given-names>GS</given-names></name><name><surname>Pan</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Pollard</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Puri</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Reese</surname> <given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Reinert</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Remington</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Saunders</surname> <given-names>RD</given-names></name><name><surname>Scheeler</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Shen</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Shue</surname> <given-names>BC</given-names></name><name><surname>Sidén-Kiamos</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Simpson</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Skupski</surname> <given-names>MP</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Spier</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Spradling</surname> <given-names>AC</given-names></name><name><surname>Stapleton</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Strong</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Sun</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Svirskas</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Tector</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Turner</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Venter</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>AH</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>ZY</given-names></name><name><surname>Wassarman</surname> <given-names>DA</given-names></name><name><surname>Weinstock</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name><name><surname>Weissenbach</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Williams</surname> <given-names>SM</given-names></name><name><surname>Woodage</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Worley</surname> <given-names>KC</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Yang</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Yao</surname> <given-names>QA</given-names></name><name><surname>Ye</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Yeh</surname> <given-names>RF</given-names></name><name><surname>Zaveri</surname> <given-names>JS</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhan</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname> <given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Zheng</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Zheng</surname> <given-names>XH</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>FN</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhou</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhu</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhu</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname> <given-names>HO</given-names></name><name><surname>Gibbs</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Myers</surname> <given-names>EW</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubin</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name><name><surname>Venter</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2000">2000</year><article-title>The genome sequence of <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Science</source><volume>287</volume><fpage>2185</fpage><lpage>2195</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.287.5461.2185</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10731132</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib3"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Adams</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Cory</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1998">1998</year><article-title>The Bcl-2 protein family: arbiters of cell survival</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>281</volume><fpage>1322</fpage><lpage>1326</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.281.5381.1322</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9735050</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib4"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Andriani</surname> <given-names>GA</given-names></name><name><surname>Faggioli</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Dollé</surname> <given-names>ME</given-names></name><name><surname>Sellers</surname> <given-names>RS</given-names></name><name><surname>Hébert</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Van Steeg</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoeijmakers</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Vijg</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Montagna</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Whole chromosome aneuploidy in the brain of Bub1bH/H and Ercc1-/Δ7 mice</article-title><source>Human Molecular Genetics</source><volume>25</volume><fpage>755</fpage><lpage>765</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/hmg/ddv612</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26681803</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib5"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baillon</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Germani</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockel</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Hilchenbach</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Basler</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Xrp1 is a transcription factor required for cell competition-driven elimination of loser cells</article-title><source>Scientific Reports</source><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>17712</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41598-018-36277-4</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30531963</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib6"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>BS</given-names></name><name><surname>Carpenter</surname> <given-names>AT</given-names></name><name><surname>Ripoll</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1978">1978</year><article-title>The utilization during mitotic cell division of loci controlling meiotic recombination and disjunction in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>90</volume><fpage>531</fpage><lpage>578</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17248870</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib7"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Jin</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Jeganathan</surname> <given-names>KB</given-names></name><name><surname>van Deursen</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Whole chromosome instability caused by Bub1 insufficiency drives tumorigenesis through tumor suppressor gene loss of heterozygosity</article-title><source>Cancer Cell</source><volume>16</volume><fpage>475</fpage><lpage>486</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ccr.2009.10.023</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19962666</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib8"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Quiquand</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ruggiero</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>LH</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Eye development</article-title><source>Methods</source><volume>68</volume><fpage>252</fpage><lpage>259</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.04.007</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24784530</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib9"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>Emerging mechanisms of cell competition</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Genetics</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>683</fpage><lpage>697</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41576-020-0262-8</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32778819</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib10"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bazrgar</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Gourabi</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Valojerdi</surname> <given-names>MR</given-names></name><name><surname>Yazdi</surname> <given-names>PE</given-names></name><name><surname>Baharvand</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells</article-title><source>Stem Cells and Development</source><volume>22</volume><fpage>2449</fpage><lpage>2456</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1089/scd.2013.0053</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23557100</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib11"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ben-David</surname> <given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>Context is everything: aneuploidy in Cancer</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Genetics</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>44</fpage><lpage>62</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41576-019-0171-x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31548659</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib12"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Benhra</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Barrio</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Muzzopappa</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Milán</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Chromosomal instability induces cellular invasion in epithelial tissues</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>47</volume><fpage>161</fpage><lpage>174</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2018.08.021</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30245154</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib13"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Blanco</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Cooper</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>Roles of C/EBP class bZip proteins in the growth and cell competition of <italic>rp</italic> ('Minute') mutants in <italic>Drosophila</italic></article-title><source>eLife</source><volume>9</volume><elocation-id>e50535</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.50535</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31909714</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib14"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Blanco-Redondo</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Langenhan</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Parallel genomic engineering of two <italic>Drosophila</italic> genes using orthogonal <italic>attB/attP</italic> sites</article-title><source>G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics</source><volume>8</volume><fpage>3109</fpage><lpage>3118</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/g3.118.200565</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib15"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bolton</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Graham</surname> <given-names>SJL</given-names></name><name><surname>Van der Aa</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Theunis</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Fernandez Gallardo</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Voet</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Zernicka-Goetz</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential</article-title><source>Nature Communications</source><volume>7</volume><elocation-id>11165</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ncomms11165</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27021558</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib16"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Boveri</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1914">1914</year><source>Zur Frage Der Entstehung Maligner Tumoren [Origin of Malignant Tumors]</source><publisher-name>Jena Gustav Fischer</publisher-name></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib17"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brodsky</surname> <given-names>MH</given-names></name><name><surname>Weinert</surname> <given-names>BT</given-names></name><name><surname>Tsang</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Rong</surname> <given-names>YS</given-names></name><name><surname>McGinnis</surname> <given-names>NM</given-names></name><name><surname>Golic</surname> <given-names>KG</given-names></name><name><surname>Rio</surname> <given-names>DC</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubin</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title><italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic> MNK/Chk2 and p53 regulate multiple DNA repair and apoptotic pathways following DNA damage</article-title><source>Molecular and Cellular Biology</source><volume>24</volume><fpage>1219</fpage><lpage>1231</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/MCB.24.3.1219-1231.2004</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14729967</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib18"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chunduri</surname> <given-names>NK</given-names></name><name><surname>Storchová</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>The diverse consequences of aneuploidy</article-title><source>Nature Cell Biology</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>54</fpage><lpage>62</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41556-018-0243-8</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30602769</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib19"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>de la Cruz</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Karbstein</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Woolford</surname> <given-names>JL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>Functions of ribosomal proteins in assembly of eukaryotic ribosomes in vivo</article-title><source>Annual Review of Biochemistry</source><volume>84</volume><fpage>93</fpage><lpage>129</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-033917</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25706898</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib20"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dekanty</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Barrio</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Muzzopappa</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Auer</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Milán</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>Aneuploidy-induced delaminating cells drive tumorigenesis in <italic>Drosophila</italic> epithelia</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>109</volume><fpage>20549</fpage><lpage>20554</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1206675109</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23184991</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib21"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ferrus</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1975">1975</year><article-title>Parameters of mitotic recombination in minute mutants of <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>79</volume><fpage>589</fpage><lpage>599</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/genetics/79.4.589</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">805750</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib22"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Foijer</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Draviam</surname> <given-names>VM</given-names></name><name><surname>Sorger</surname> <given-names>PK</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Studying chromosome instability in the mouse</article-title><source>Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer</source><volume>1786</volume><fpage>73</fpage><lpage>82</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bbcan.2008.07.004</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18706976</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib23"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Francis</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Roche</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Cho</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Beall</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Min</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Panganiban</surname> <given-names>RP</given-names></name><name><surname>Rio</surname> <given-names>DC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title><italic>Drosophila</italic> IRBP bZIP heterodimer binds P-element DNA and affects hybrid dysgenesis</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>113</volume><fpage>13003</fpage><lpage>13008</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1613508113</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27799520</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib24"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gerlach</surname> <given-names>SU</given-names></name><name><surname>Herranz</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>Genomic instability and Cancer: lessons from <italic>Drosophila</italic></article-title><source>Open Biology</source><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>200060</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1098/rsob.200060</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32485126</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib25"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Golic</surname> <given-names>KG</given-names></name><name><surname>Lindquist</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1989">1989</year><article-title>The FLP recombinase of yeast catalyzes site-specific recombination in the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genome</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>59</volume><fpage>499</fpage><lpage>509</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0092-8674(89)90033-0</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">2509077</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib26"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Greco</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Minasi</surname> <given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Fiorentino</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts</article-title><source>New England Journal of Medicine</source><volume>373</volume><fpage>2089</fpage><lpage>2090</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1056/NEJMc1500421</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26581010</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib27"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hanahan</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Weinberg</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Hallmarks of Cancer: the next generation</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>144</volume><fpage>646</fpage><lpage>674</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21376230</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib28"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hassold</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Hunt</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Genetics</source><volume>2</volume><fpage>280</fpage><lpage>291</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/35066065</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11283700</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib29"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hazelrigg</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Levis</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubin</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1984">1984</year><article-title>Transformation of white locus DNA in <italic>Drosophila</italic>: dosage compensation, zeste interaction, and position effects</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>36</volume><fpage>469</fpage><lpage>481</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0092-8674(84)90240-X</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">6319027</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib30"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hook</surname> <given-names>EB</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1981">1981</year><article-title>Prevalence of chromosome abnormalities during human gestation and implications for studies of environmental mutagens</article-title><source>The Lancet</source><volume>2</volume><fpage>169</fpage><lpage>172</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0140-6736(81)90356-1</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">6114243</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib31"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiparaki</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Folgado</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Blanco</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Rimesso</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Chuen</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Zheng</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title><italic>Drosophila</italic> RpS12 controls translation, growth, and cell competition through Xrp1</article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>15</volume><elocation-id>e1008513</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1008513</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31841522</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib32"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kale</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname> <given-names>CH</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>Apoptotic mechanisms during competition of ribosomal protein mutant cells: roles of the initiator caspases dronc and dream/Strica</article-title><source>Cell Death &amp; Differentiation</source><volume>22</volume><fpage>1300</fpage><lpage>1312</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/cdd.2014.218</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25613379</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib33"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kale</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiparaki</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Blanco</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Rimesso</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Flibotte</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Ribosomal protein S12e has a distinct function in cell competition</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>44</volume><fpage>42</fpage><lpage>55</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2017.12.007</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29316439</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib34"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kucinski</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Dinan</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Kolahgar</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Piddini</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>Chronic activation of JNK JAK/STAT and oxidative stress signalling causes the loser cell status</article-title><source>Nature Communications</source><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>136</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41467-017-00145-y</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28743877</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib35"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname> <given-names>C-H</given-names></name><name><surname>Rimesso</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Reynolds</surname> <given-names>DM</given-names></name><name><surname>Cai</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Whole-Genome Sequencing and iPLEX MassARRAY Genotyping Map an EMS-Induced Mutation Affecting Cell Competition in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics</source><volume>6</volume><fpage>3207</fpage><lpage>3217</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/g3.116.029421</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib36"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname> <given-names>CH</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiparaki</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Blanco</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Folgado</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumar</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Rimesso</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>A regulatory response to ribosomal protein mutations controls translation, growth, and cell competition</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>46</volume><fpage>456</fpage><lpage>469</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2018.07.003</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30078730</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib37"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>Engulfment is required for cell competition</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>129</volume><fpage>1215</fpage><lpage>1225</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.054</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17574031</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib38"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>López-Otín</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Blasco</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Partridge</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Serrano</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Kroemer</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>The hallmarks of aging</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>153</volume><fpage>1194</fpage><lpage>1217</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23746838</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib39"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mallik</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Catinozzi</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Hug</surname> <given-names>CB</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Wagner</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Bussmann</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Bittern</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Mersmann</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Klämbt</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Drexler</surname> <given-names>HCA</given-names></name><name><surname>Huynen</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Vaquerizas</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Storkebaum</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title><italic>Xrp1</italic> genetically interacts with the ALS-associated <italic>FUS</italic> orthologue <italic>caz</italic> and mediates its toxicity</article-title><source>Journal of Cell Biology</source><volume>217</volume><fpage>3947</fpage><lpage>3964</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1083/jcb.201802151</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30209068</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib40"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Marygold</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Roote</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Reuter</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Lambertsson</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Ashburner</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Millburn</surname> <given-names>GH</given-names></name><name><surname>Harrison</surname> <given-names>PM</given-names></name><name><surname>Yu</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kenmochi</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Kaufman</surname> <given-names>TC</given-names></name><name><surname>Leevers</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Cook</surname> <given-names>KR</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>The ribosomal protein genes and minute loci of <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genome Biology</source><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>R216</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/gb-2007-8-10-r216</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17927810</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib41"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McNamee</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Brodsky</surname> <given-names>MH</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>p53-independent apoptosis limits DNA damage-induced aneuploidy</article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>182</volume><fpage>423</fpage><lpage>435</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.109.102327</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19364807</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib42"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Meyer</surname> <given-names>SN</given-names></name><name><surname>Amoyel</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Bergantiños</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>de la Cova</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Schertel</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Basler</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnston</surname> <given-names>LA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>An ancient defense system eliminates unfit cells from developing tissues during cell competition</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>346</volume><elocation-id>1258236</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1258236</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25477468</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib43"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Morais da Silva</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Moutinho-Santos</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Sunkel</surname> <given-names>CE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>A tumor suppressor role of the Bub3 spindle checkpoint protein after apoptosis inhibition</article-title><source>Journal of Cell Biology</source><volume>201</volume><fpage>385</fpage><lpage>393</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1083/jcb.201210018</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23609535</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib44"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Morata</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Ripoll</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1975">1975</year><article-title>Minutes: mutants of <italic>Drosophila</italic> autonomously affecting cell division rate</article-title><source>Developmental Biology</source><volume>42</volume><fpage>211</fpage><lpage>221</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib45"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Moreno</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Basler</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Morata</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2002">2002</year><article-title>Cells compete for decapentaplegic survival factor to prevent apoptosis in <italic>Drosophila</italic> wing development</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>416</volume><fpage>755</fpage><lpage>759</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/416755a</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11961558</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib46"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mukherjee</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ge</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Edwards</surname> <given-names>DG</given-names></name><name><surname>Sumazin</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Sharan</surname> <given-names>SK</given-names></name><name><surname>Rao</surname> <given-names>PH</given-names></name><name><surname>Medina</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Pati</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>MMTV-Espl1 transgenic mice develop aneuploid, estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-positive mammary adenocarcinomas</article-title><source>Oncogene</source><volume>33</volume><fpage>5511</fpage><lpage>5522</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/onc.2013.493</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24276237</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib47"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nagata</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Nakamura</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Sanaki</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Igaki</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>Cell competition is driven by autophagy</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>51</volume><fpage>99</fpage><lpage>112</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2019.08.018</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31543447</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib48"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Naylor</surname> <given-names>RM</given-names></name><name><surname>van Deursen</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Aneuploidy in Cancer and aging</article-title><source>Annual Review of Genetics</source><volume>50</volume><fpage>45</fpage><lpage>66</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-035303</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27893964</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib49"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Newsome</surname> <given-names>TP</given-names></name><name><surname>Asling</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Dickson</surname> <given-names>BJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2000">2000</year><article-title>Analysis of <italic>Drosophila</italic> photoreceptor axon guidance in eye-specific mosaics</article-title><source>Development</source><volume>127</volume><fpage>851</fpage><lpage>860</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10648243</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib50"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Parks</surname> <given-names>AL</given-names></name><name><surname>Cook</surname> <given-names>KR</given-names></name><name><surname>Belvin</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Dompe</surname> <given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Fawcett</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Huppert</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Tan</surname> <given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Winter</surname> <given-names>CG</given-names></name><name><surname>Bogart</surname> <given-names>KP</given-names></name><name><surname>Deal</surname> <given-names>JE</given-names></name><name><surname>Deal-Herr</surname> <given-names>ME</given-names></name><name><surname>Grant</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Marcinko</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Miyazaki</surname> <given-names>WY</given-names></name><name><surname>Robertson</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Shaw</surname> <given-names>KJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Tabios</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Vysotskaia</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Andrade</surname> <given-names>RS</given-names></name><name><surname>Edgar</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Howie</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Killpack</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Milash</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Norton</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Thao</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Whittaker</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Winner</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Friedman</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Margolis</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Singer</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Kopczynski</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Curtis</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Kaufman</surname> <given-names>TC</given-names></name><name><surname>Plowman</surname> <given-names>GD</given-names></name><name><surname>Duyk</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Francis-Lang</surname> <given-names>HL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>Systematic generation of high-resolution deletion coverage of <italic>the Drosophila melanogaster</italic> genome</article-title><source>Nature Genetics</source><volume>36</volume><fpage>288</fpage><lpage>292</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ng1312</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14981519</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib51"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pfau</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Silberman</surname> <given-names>RE</given-names></name><name><surname>Knouse</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Aneuploidy impairs hematopoietic stem cell fitness and is selected against in regenerating tissues in vivo</article-title><source>Genes &amp; Development</source><volume>30</volume><fpage>1395</fpage><lpage>1408</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/gad.278820.116</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27313317</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib52"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ripoll</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1980">1980</year><article-title>Effect of terminal aneuploidy on epidermal cell viability in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>94</volume><fpage>135</fpage><lpage>152</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib53"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rutledge</surname> <given-names>SD</given-names></name><name><surname>Cimini</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Consequences of aneuploidy in sickness and in health</article-title><source>Current Opinion in Cell Biology</source><volume>40</volume><fpage>41</fpage><lpage>46</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ceb.2016.02.003</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26919076</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib54"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Santaguida</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Richardson</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Iyer</surname> <given-names>DR</given-names></name><name><surname>M'Saad</surname> <given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Zasadil</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Knouse</surname> <given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Wong</surname> <given-names>YL</given-names></name><name><surname>Rhind</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Desai</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>Chromosome Mis-segregation generates Cell-Cycle-Arrested cells with complex karyotypes that are eliminated by the immune system</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>41</volume><fpage>638</fpage><lpage>651</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2017.05.022</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28633018</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib55"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sheltzer</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>The aneuploidy paradox: costs and benefits of an incorrect karyotype</article-title><source>Trends in Genetics</source><volume>27</volume><fpage>446</fpage><lpage>453</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.tig.2011.07.003</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21872963</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib56"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shinoda</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Hanawa</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Chihara</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Koto</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Miura</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>Dronc-independent basal executioner caspase activity sustains <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal tissue growth</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>116</volume><fpage>20539</fpage><lpage>20544</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1904647116</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31548372</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib57"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Simpson</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1979">1979</year><article-title>Parameters of cell competition in the compartments of the wing disc of <italic>Drosophila</italic></article-title><source>Developmental Biology</source><volume>69</volume><fpage>182</fpage><lpage>193</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0012-1606(79)90284-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">446891</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib58"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Simpson</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Morata</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1981">1981</year><article-title>Differential mitotic rates and patterns of growth in compartments in the <italic>Drosophila</italic> wing</article-title><source>Developmental Biology</source><volume>85</volume><fpage>299</fpage><lpage>308</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0012-1606(81)90261-X</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7262460</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib59"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Struhl</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Basler</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1993">1993</year><article-title>Organizing activity of <italic>wingless</italic> protein in <italic>Drosophila</italic></article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>72</volume><fpage>527</fpage><lpage>540</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0092-8674(93)90072-X</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8440019</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib60"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sulima</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Kampen</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>De Keersmaecker</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>Cancer biogenesis in ribosomopathies</article-title><source>Cells</source><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>229</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/cells8030229</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib61"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Terhorst</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Sandikci</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Keller</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Whittaker</surname> <given-names>CA</given-names></name><name><surname>Dunham</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>The environmental stress response causes ribosome loss in aneuploid yeast cells</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>117</volume><fpage>17031</fpage><lpage>17040</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.2005648117</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32632008</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib62"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Thibault</surname> <given-names>ST</given-names></name><name><surname>Singer</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Miyazaki</surname> <given-names>WY</given-names></name><name><surname>Milash</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Dompe</surname> <given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Singh</surname> <given-names>CM</given-names></name><name><surname>Buchholz</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Demsky</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Fawcett</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Francis-Lang</surname> <given-names>HL</given-names></name><name><surname>Ryner</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheung</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Chong</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Erickson</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Fisher</surname> <given-names>WW</given-names></name><name><surname>Greer</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Hartouni</surname> <given-names>SR</given-names></name><name><surname>Howie</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Jakkula</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Joo</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Killpack</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Laufer</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mazzotta</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname> <given-names>RD</given-names></name><name><surname>Stevens</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Stuber</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Tan</surname> <given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Ventura</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Woo</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Zakrajsek</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Swimmer</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Kopczynski</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Duyk</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Winberg</surname> <given-names>ML</given-names></name><name><surname>Margolis</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>A complementary transposon tool kit <italic>for Drosophila melanogaster</italic> using P and piggyBac</article-title><source>Nature Genetics</source><volume>36</volume><fpage>283</fpage><lpage>287</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ng1314</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14981521</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib63"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Titen</surname> <given-names>SWA</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>MTB</given-names></name><name><surname>Capecchi</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Golic</surname> <given-names>KG</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year><article-title>Site-Specific recombination with inverted target sites: a cautionary tale of dicentric and acentric chromosomes</article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>215</volume><fpage>923</fpage><lpage>930</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.120.303394</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32586890</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib64"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Titen</surname> <given-names>SWA</given-names></name><name><surname>Golic</surname> <given-names>KG</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Telomere Loss Provokes Multiple Pathways to Apoptosis and Produces Genomic Instability in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>180</volume><fpage>1821</fpage><lpage>1832</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.108.093625</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib65"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Torres</surname> <given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Sokolsky</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Tucker</surname> <given-names>CM</given-names></name><name><surname>Chan</surname> <given-names>LY</given-names></name><name><surname>Boselli</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Dunham</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Amon</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>317</volume><fpage>916</fpage><lpage>924</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1142210</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17702937</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib66"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tschiersch</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Hofmann</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Krauss</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Dorn</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Korge</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Reuter</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1994">1994</year><article-title>The protein encoded by the <italic>Drosophila</italic> position-effect variegation suppressor gene su(var)3-9 combines domains of antagonistic regulators of homeotic gene complexes</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>13</volume><fpage>3822</fpage><lpage>3831</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06693.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7915232</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib67"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tyler</surname> <given-names>DM</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhuo</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Pellock</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>NE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>Genes affecting cell competition in <italic>Drosophila</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>175</volume><fpage>643</fpage><lpage>657</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.106.061929</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17110495</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib68"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Uechi</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Tanaka</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Kenmochi</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>A complete map of the human ribosomal protein genes: assignment of 80 genes to the cytogenetic map and implications for human disorders</article-title><source>Genomics</source><volume>72</volume><fpage>223</fpage><lpage>230</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1006/geno.2000.6470</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11401437</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib69"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ulirsch</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name><name><surname>Verboon</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Kazerounian</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Guo</surname> <given-names>MH</given-names></name><name><surname>Yuan</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Ludwig</surname> <given-names>LS</given-names></name><name><surname>Handsaker</surname> <given-names>RE</given-names></name><name><surname>Abdulhay</surname> <given-names>NJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Fiorini</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Genovese</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Lim</surname> <given-names>ET</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Cummings</surname> <given-names>BB</given-names></name><name><surname>Chao</surname> <given-names>KR</given-names></name><name><surname>Beggs</surname> <given-names>AH</given-names></name><name><surname>Genetti</surname> <given-names>CA</given-names></name><name><surname>Sieff</surname> <given-names>CA</given-names></name><name><surname>Newburger</surname> <given-names>PE</given-names></name><name><surname>Niewiadomska</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Matysiak</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Vlachos</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Lipton</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Atsidaftos</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Glader</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Narla</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Gleizes</surname> <given-names>PE</given-names></name><name><surname>O'Donohue</surname> <given-names>MF</given-names></name><name><surname>Montel-Lehry</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Amor</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>McCarroll</surname> <given-names>SA</given-names></name><name><surname>O'Donnell-Luria</surname> <given-names>AH</given-names></name><name><surname>Gupta</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Gabriel</surname> <given-names>SB</given-names></name><name><surname>MacArthur</surname> <given-names>DG</given-names></name><name><surname>Lander</surname> <given-names>ES</given-names></name><name><surname>Lek</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Da Costa</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Nathan</surname> <given-names>DG</given-names></name><name><surname>Korostelev</surname> <given-names>AA</given-names></name><name><surname>Do</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Sankaran</surname> <given-names>VG</given-names></name><name><surname>Gazda</surname> <given-names>HT</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>The genetic landscape of Diamond-Blackfan Anemia</article-title><source>The American Journal of Human Genetics</source><volume>103</volume><fpage>930</fpage><lpage>947</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.027</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30503522</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib70"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>van Echten-Arends</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Mastenbroek</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Sikkema-Raddatz</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Korevaar</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name><name><surname>Heineman</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>van der Veen</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Repping</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systematic review</article-title><source>Human Reproduction Update</source><volume>17</volume><fpage>620</fpage><lpage>627</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/humupd/dmr014</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21531753</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib71"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Venken</surname> <given-names>KJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Carlson</surname> <given-names>JW</given-names></name><name><surname>Schulze</surname> <given-names>KL</given-names></name><name><surname>Pan</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>He</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Spokony</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Wan</surname> <given-names>KH</given-names></name><name><surname>Koriabine</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>de Jong</surname> <given-names>PJ</given-names></name><name><surname>White</surname> <given-names>KP</given-names></name><name><surname>Bellen</surname> <given-names>HJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoskins</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Versatile P[acman] BAC libraries for transgenesis studies in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Nature Methods</source><volume>6</volume><fpage>431</fpage><lpage>434</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nmeth.1331</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19465919</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib72"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Vlachos</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Rosenberg</surname> <given-names>PS</given-names></name><name><surname>Atsidaftos</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Kang</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Onel</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Sharaf</surname> <given-names>RN</given-names></name><name><surname>Alter</surname> <given-names>BP</given-names></name><name><surname>Lipton</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Increased risk of Colon cancer and osteogenic sarcoma in Diamond-Blackfan Anemia</article-title><source>Blood</source><volume>132</volume><fpage>2205</fpage><lpage>2208</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1182/blood-2018-05-848937</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30266775</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib73"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wichmann</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Jaklevic</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Su</surname> <given-names>TT</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2006">2006</year><article-title>Ionizing radiation induces caspase-dependent but Chk2- and p53-independent cell death in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>103</volume><fpage>9952</fpage><lpage>9957</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.0510528103</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16785441</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib74"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Xie</surname> <given-names>HB</given-names></name><name><surname>Golic</surname> <given-names>KG</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>Gene deletions by ends-in targeting in <italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>168</volume><fpage>1477</fpage><lpage>1489</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.104.030882</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15579700</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib75"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Xu</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubin</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1993">1993</year><article-title>Analysis of genetic mosaics in the developing and adult <italic>Drosophila</italic> tissues</article-title><source>Development</source><volume>117</volume><fpage>1223</fpage><lpage>1236</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8404527</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib76"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhu</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Tsai</surname> <given-names>HJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Gordon</surname> <given-names>MR</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Cellular stress associated with aneuploidy</article-title><source>Developmental Cell</source><volume>44</volume><fpage>420</fpage><lpage>431</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.devcel.2018.02.002</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29486194</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="appendix-1"><title>Appendix 1</title><boxed-text><table-wrap id="keyresource" position="anchor"><label>Appendix 1—key resources table</label><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th valign="top">Reagent type <break/>(species) or resource</th><th valign="top">Designation</th><th valign="top">Source or reference</th><th valign="top">Identifiers</th><th valign="top">Additional information</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Gene (<italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">RpL28</td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">Flybase: FBgn0035422</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Gene (<italic>Drosophila melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">eIF2<italic>γ</italic></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">Flybase: FBgn0263740</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">w<sup>11-18</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Hazelrigg et al., 1984</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib35">Lee et al., 2016</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE: FBal0018186</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #3605</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">Xrp1<sup>m2-73</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib35">Lee et al., 2016</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0346068</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #81270</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">rpS12<sup>G97D</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib67">Tyler et al., 2007</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0193403</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">(Df3L)H99</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1">Abbott and Lengyel, 1991</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBab0022359</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center <break/>#1576</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">(M3R)w<sup>124</sup> aka RpS3<sup>2</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib21">Ferrus, 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1">Abbott and Lengyel, 1991</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE: FBal0011951</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">hs-FLP</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib59">Struhl and Basler, 1993</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBtp0001101</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">ey-FLP</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib49">Newsome et al., 2000</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0098303</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{neoFRT}80B</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBti0002073</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center <break/>#1988</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{neoFRT}82B</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBti0002074</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #2050, 2051</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{rpS12+8 kb}</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0337985</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{rpS12-G97D8kb}</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0337986</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{ry<sup>+</sup> Su(var)3–9<sup>+</sup> eIF2<italic>γ</italic> <sup>+</sup>}</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib66">Tschiersch et al., 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Kale et al., 2018</xref></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{DsRed; RpL28<sup>+</sup>}</td><td valign="top">This study</td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">See Materials and methods; Dr. Nicholas Baker’s lab.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P53<sup>5A-1-4</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib74">Xie and Golic, 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0138188</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #6815</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041403.html">PBac{RB}CG11617<sup>e00462</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162546</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #17859</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">PBac{WH}MED15<sup>f04180</sup></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBti0042319</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18739</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042907.html">P{XP}CG9016<sup>d08241</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160858</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19290</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042941.html">P{XP}CG9003<sup>d09761</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160860</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19321</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042934">P{XP}salto<sup>d09417</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159854</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19315</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042776">P{XP}CG11200<sup>d02302</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162606</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19173</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042840">P{XP}sob<sup>d06074</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0158622</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19230</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042400">PBac{WH}Uro<sup>f04888</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159557</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18814</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041583">PBac{RB}Ssb-c31a<sup>e02272</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159728</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18032</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041769">PBac{RB}CG31898<sup>e03937</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0161732</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18211</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041945">PBac{WH}CG9582<sup>f00857</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160790</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18378</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041865">PBac{WH}tei<sup>f00157</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159247</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18299</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041407">PBac{RB}CG13018<sup>e00535</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162408</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #17863</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041779">PBac{RB}Cpr51A<sup>e03998</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162723</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18221</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042343">PBac{WH}CG10384<sup>f04349</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162694</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18762</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0049309">PBac{WH}CG42260<sup>f00464</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0225307</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042057">PBac{WH}Jafrac2<sup>f01922</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160273</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18489</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042420">PBac{WH}CG17746<sup>f05041</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162020</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18834</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042850">P{XP}Leash<sup>d06455</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0161383</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19240</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042835">P{XP}cu<sup>d05983</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0158886</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19225</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBal0018186">w<sup>1118</sup></ext-link>; <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042862">P{XP}d06796</ext-link>/<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBba0000057">TM6B</ext-link>, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBal0016730">Tb<sup>1</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBti0042862</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19250</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042867">P{XP}CG10311<sup>d06928</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162706</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19255</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top">P{XP}d02570</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBti0054904</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042786">P{XP}wrm1<sup>d02813</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160902</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19182</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042879">P{XP}UGP<sup>d07256</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159573</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #19267</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042407">PBac{WH}CG14894<sup>f04937</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162215</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18821</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041684">PBac{RB}Cad89D<sup>e03186</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0160726</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18129</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041964">PBac{WH}Actn3<sup>f00971</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162831</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18397</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041743">PBac{RB}qin<sup>e03728</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0162275</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18186</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0041675">PBac{RB}DPCoAC<sup>e03144</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0175762</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18121</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042242">PBac{WH}KaiR1D<sup>f03502</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0161451</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18663</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Genetic reagent (<italic>D. melanogaster</italic>)</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://flybase.org/reports/FBti0042028">PBac{WH}TotC<sup>f01700</sup></ext-link></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Xu and Rubin, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Thibault et al., 2004</xref></td><td valign="top">FLYBASE:FBal0159656</td><td valign="top">Bloomington <italic>Drosophila</italic> Stock Center #18460</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Antibody</td><td valign="top">polyclonalRabbit anti-XRP1(short)</td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Francis et al., 2016</xref></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">(1:200) dilution</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Antibody</td><td valign="top">Polyclonal Rabbit anti-active-Dcp1</td><td valign="top">Cell Signalling Technology</td><td valign="top">Cat #9578</td><td valign="top">(1:50) dilution</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Antibody</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.thermofisher.com/antibody/product/A32723">Polyclonal Donkey anti-Rabbit IgG, Cy3 conjugate</ext-link></td><td valign="top">Jackson Immunoresearch</td><td valign="top">Cat # 711-165-152</td><td valign="top">(1:200) dilution</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Recombinant DNA reagent</td><td valign="top">P{DsRed; RpL28<sup>+</sup>}</td><td valign="top">This study</td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">See Materials and methods; Dr. Nicholas Baker’s lab.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Recombinant DNA reagent</td><td valign="top">pGE-attBTT-loxP-DsRed (pTL780) <break/></td><td valign="top"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib14">Blanco-Redondo and Langenhan, 2018</xref></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">Addgene Plasmid #115160</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></boxed-text></app></app-group></back><sub-article article-type="decision-letter" id="sa1"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.61172.sa1</article-id><title-group><article-title>Decision letter</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Bach</surname><given-names>Erika A</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution>New York University School of Medicine</institution><country>United States</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name><surname>Bach</surname><given-names>Erika A</given-names></name><role>Reviewer</role><aff><institution>New York University School of Medicine</institution><country>United States</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name><surname>Johnston</surname><given-names>Laura</given-names> </name><role>Reviewer</role><aff><institution/></aff></contrib></contrib-group></front-stub><body><boxed-text><p>In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.</p></boxed-text><p><bold>Acceptance summary:</bold></p><p>Aneuploid cells are found in developing mammalian embryos but are not present in the adult. These results suggest that aneuploid cells are recognized and eliminated, but there have been no molecular insights into how such surveillance occurs. Dr. Baker and colleagues provide rigorous experiments in developing <italic>Drosophila</italic> tissues to show that cell competition eliminates aneuploid cells based on ribosomal protein (Rp) gene dosage. Since Rp genes are found throughout the genome, their results suggest that Rp genes are sentinels for genomic aberrations like aneuploidy. These results will likely have broad implications for vertebrate development and human tumors, which are frequently comprised of aneuploid cells.</p><p><bold>Decision letter after peer review:</bold></p><p>Thank you for submitting your article &quot;Cell competition removes aneuploid cells from <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal discs based on ribosomal protein gene dose&quot; for consideration by <italic>eLife</italic>. Your article has been reviewed by four peer reviewers, including Erika A Bach as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Maureen Murphy as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Laura Johnston (Reviewer #3).</p><p>The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.</p><p>As the editors have judged that your manuscript is of interest, but as described below that additional experiments are required before it is published, we would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). First, because many researchers have temporarily lost access to the labs, we will give authors as much time as they need to submit revised manuscripts. We are also offering, if you choose, to post the manuscript to bioRxiv (if it is not already there) along with this decision letter and a formal designation that the manuscript is &quot;in revision at <italic>eLife</italic>&quot;. Please let us know if you would like to pursue this option. (If your work is more suitable for medRxiv, you will need to post the preprint yourself, as the mechanisms for us to do so are still in development.)</p><p>Summary:</p><p>Li and colleagues test the role of cell competition in removing segmental aneuploid cells. They make chromosomal deletions in the developing <italic>Drosophila</italic> eye imaginal disc that either include or exclude a ribosomal (Rp) locus. They find that segmental aneuploid cells heterozygous for an Rp gene are eliminated while those that are +/+ for Rp genes are not. They show that the elimination of Rp/+ segmental aneuploid cells requires ribosomal protein S12 and the transcription factor Xrp1, which the Baker lab previously found was required to remove suboptimal (Rp/+) cells from developing tissues through cell competition. These results lead the authors to conclude that cell competition performs a surveillance function to remove potentially dangerous aneuploid cells based on the cell's Rp gene dosage. They try to extend these results to the late, p53-independent cell death after ionizing radiation (IR), but more data are needed to prove this. The strengths of the study include elegant and classical genetic approaches using FLP/FRT to make defined chromosomal deletions and an impressive number of genetic backgrounds in which to test them. The weaknesses include lack of proof that cell competition causes the late cell death after IR, testing a comparatively small number of aneuploidies that do not remove Rp genes which potentially skews the results, lack of confidence in stated methodology, overstating the results, and the need for extensive editorial changes.</p><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) The reviewers judged that the authors do not yet prove that the late cell death after IR occurs through cell competition because (a) the authors do not show that cells die because of their proximity to wild type cells and (b) removing both p53 and S12 does not block completely late cell death. To strengthen this conclusion, the authors could irradiate M/+ animals and look at death 4 hours post IR. If interpretable, this result may (1) solidify the conclusion that the late death is due to cell competition and (2) give more weight to their hypothesis that the increased cancer incidence in Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA) patients is because M/+ cells are not able to perform a surveillance function for aneuploid cells. The authors should perform this experiment (or one very similar to it) and temper their conclusions.</p><p>2) The number of aneuploidies that do not remove Rp genes was quite small (only 4 out of 17). Additionally, the deletions that remove Rp genes are always larger than those than do not remove Rp genes, raising alternative (i.e., non-cell competition) explanations about their elimination. In order to strengthen their major conclusion that aneuploid cells heterozygous for an Rp gene are eliminated by cell competition, the authors ideally should test additional deletions that do not remove an Rp gene. Since this may not be feasible, the authors should at least moderate their conclusions.</p><p>3) Methodology:</p><p>a) The authors need to address how they performed the percentage white assay. Specifically, they need explain whether the area occupied by white (unpigmented) ommatidia was assigned by observation on the part of the experimentalist using a dissecting scope or was made by measurements using micrographs and software like ImageJ. This is a key assay in the paper and it is not clear how an experimentalist using a dissecting scope could determine whether white ommatidia represent a precise value (e.g. 46%) of the eye tissue.</p><p>b) The authors need to better describe how they induced hs-FLP clones (stage of development when clone was induced, etc).</p><p>4) The manuscript requires extensive editorial changes. These include:</p><p>a) Abstract: should be re-phrased to remove overstatements that cell competition is the major driver of aneuploidy-induced cell death.</p><p>b) Title: should be rephrased so that it does not imply that all aneuploid cells are removed as a consequence of ribosomal protein gene dose. This is a suggested title from the reviewers &quot;&quot;Cell competition in <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal discs removes cells with small aneuploidies based on ribosomal protein gene dose&quot;</p><p>c) Introduction:</p><p>– include publications demonstrating that the death of aneuploid cells in the wing disc is p53-independent (for example, Dekanty et al., 2012 and Morais da Silva et al., 2013) and provide a more thorough explanation of IR-induced aneuploidies, citing the original Brodsky paper and more recent publications based on it.</p><p>– reference the literature of aneuploidy-induced stresses (see review Zhu et al., 2018).</p><p>– modify the last paragraph to reflect the fact that removing both p53 and S12 does not block completely late cell death.</p><p>d) Results:</p><p>– revise the paragraph describing the &quot;y&quot; bristle</p><p>– revise the paragraph about Xrp1 and about RpS3</p><p>– state that one cannot conclude whether aneuploid cells not lacking an Rp gene grow at the same rate as wild type cells</p><p>– clarify how much of the genome was tested in each aneuploid condition as suggested by the reviewers, who indicated that 2-4% of the genome was tested, and make clear that segmental aneuploidies are rather small.</p><p>e) Discussion:</p><p>– remove redundancies and reduce the semblance of a review article.</p><p>– mention that segmental aneuploidies generated in this study are comparatively smaller in size than aneuplodies generated in other model organisms and/or in other <italic>Drosophila</italic> studies.</p><p>– when talking about the role of Xrp1 and S12 in IR-induced late cell death, state that these results &quot;suggest&quot; that cell competition is in action.</p><p>– edit the Discussion to reflect the fact that DBA patients have higher rate of hematopoietic malignancies. Their proposed aneuploidy surveillance mechanism works well for epithelial tumors, but it is not clear how this would function in blood cancers.</p><p>5) Figures:</p><p>a) The authors should consider which figures could be moved to supplementary (e.g., the y bristle figure)</p><p>b) Figure 1: The authors need to explain why did not perform experiments with S12 mutation alone. If possible, they should add these data.</p><p>6) Tables: All of the raw data should be put into a new supplementary file.</p><p>7) Statistics: the authors need to address how their statistical analyses accounted for the large variation in sample sizes.</p></body></sub-article><sub-article article-type="reply" id="sa2"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.61172.sa2</article-id><title-group><article-title>Author response</article-title></title-group></front-stub><body><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) The reviewers judged that the authors do not yet prove that the late cell death after IR occurs through cell competition because (a) the authors do not show that cells die because of their proximity to wild type cells and (b) removing both p53 and S12 does not block completely late cell death. To strengthen this conclusion, the authors could irradiate M/+ animals and look at death 4 hours post IR. If interpretable, this result may (1) solidify the conclusion that the late death is due to cell competition and (2) give more weight to their hypothesis that the increased cancer incidence in Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA) patients is because M/+ cells are not able to perform a surveillance function for aneuploid cells. The authors should perform this experiment (or one very similar to it) and temper their conclusions.</p></disp-quote><p>a) We agree that we did not formally prove that late cell death after IR occurs via cell competition, since we did not demonstrate a requirement for proximity to wild type cells. The reviewers suggested measuring late cell death in the background of a germline <italic>Rp</italic> mutant, since this could demonstrate a requirement for <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells in the mechanism. We had avoided this experiment previously because: 1) <italic>Rp</italic> mutant strains exhibit an elevated background of cell death that is not related to cell competition that might interfere; 2) <italic>Rp</italic> mutant strains exhibit a developmental delay. Although it is possible to adjust the time of irradiation so that it occurs at the same developmental stage, it is not then possible to measure cell death at the same time post-irradiation and know that this corresponds to the same developmental timepoint.</p><p>Given the enthusiasm of the reviewers, we constructed an <italic>RpS18p53</italic> double mutant strain, with some difficulty, and performed the requested experiment. The results were shared with the editors.</p><p>The expected result, if p53-independent cell death is cell competition requiring proximity to <italic>Rp<sup>+/+</sup></italic> cells, is that less cell death should be seen in irradiated <italic>RpS18<sup>+/-</sup>p53<sup>-/-</sup></italic> wing discs compared to <italic>p53<sup>-/-</sup></italic>. If the hypothesis is false, the expected result is that levels of cell death should be the same. Increased cell death in irradiated <italic>RpS18<sup>+/-</sup>p53<sup>-/-</sup></italic> is unexpected in either model and can’t yet be interpreted with respect to the cell competition hypothesis. It suggests there may be a distinct susceptibility to radiation in the <italic>RpS18<sup>+/-</sup></italic> genotype, related to another process occurring in this genotype. Many more experiments would be necessary, however, to draw this conclusion. At a minimum, we would need to perform time-courses of the p53-dependent and p53independent cell death in the <italic>RpS18<sup>+/-</sup>p53<sup>-/-</sup></italic>, to evaluate the cumulative amount of cell death and to assess whether, for example, the developmental delay difference means that the 24h post-irradiation timepoints are not comparable. Since we have already taken more than twice the normal time allotted for revisions to analyze this unhealthy genotype, however, and since the results make it unclear that this experiment can address the original hypothesis, we suggest that this line of experiments is not worth continuing at present. As this experiment was uninformative, we have revised the manuscript to make it clear that it cannot be considered proven that cell competition is responsible for the delayed, p53-independent cell death. Our results still represent significant progress, because we have shown that much of this cell death shares genetic requirements with cell competition, which is consistent with cell competition being responsible. We make it clear in the revised manuscript that the section on the p53-independent cell death served as a motivation for the subsequent studies of precisely-defined genetic damage, which are more definitive.</p><p>b) We do not understand why the reviewers think it so significant that late cell death is blocked incompletely in <italic>p53 rps12</italic> double mutants. Our results show that the majority of the late cell death has properties consistent with cell competition. Our conclusions are not affected if there is also another component of late cell death. We now temper our conclusions, however, by mentioning that the RpS12-independent process might not be cell competition. The explanation could be as simple as that the <italic>rpS12</italic> mutant allele allows a small amount of cell competition to continue.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>2) The number of aneuploidies that do not remove Rp genes was quite small (only 4 out of 17). Additionally, the deletions that remove Rp genes are always larger than those than do not remove Rp genes, raising alternative (i.e., non-cell competition) explanations about their elimination. In order to strengthen their major conclusion that aneuploid cells heterozygous for an Rp gene are eliminated by cell competition, the authors ideally should test additional deletions that do not remove an Rp gene. Since this may not be feasible, the authors should at least moderate their conclusions.</p></disp-quote><p>The number of aneuploidies that do not remove <italic>Rp</italic> genes is 5 (actually 6, but two are overlapping). We now mention the reviewers’ suggestion that there could be something exceptional about these regions in the revised manuscript, but only to argue against this idea. If there are regions of the genome with unusual properties, then it is not likely that we would have picked these regions. If the other, non-Rp mechanisms were widespread, then they would be likely have been shown by some of the regions we examined. The likelihood that there is a widespread mechanism for removing monosomic genotypes that has not been encountered in any of 5 randomly-selected genomic regions is therefore not very high. It is worth mentioning that we have tried to select the largest non-Rp regions possible for analysis. This is for the practical reason that we need to select germline recombinants between two linked transgenes in setting up these experiments, and this is easier to do when they map further apart. This is probably how we managed to find eIF2g, one of the few non-Rp genes causing cell competition, because we picked a large region lacking any Rp gene for study, which in fact contained the eIF2g locus. Our data suggest that if there are such <italic>Rp</italic> gene-free regions with different properties, they are in the minority.</p><p>The reviewers’ suggest that the <italic>Rp</italic>-containing deletions are in fact eliminated because they are larger and not because they contain <italic>Rp</italic> genes. This is not supported by the existing data. It is true that Df(3L)63A3-65A9, which is eliminated, is larger than Df(3L)63C1-65A9, which is not, but we show clearly by germline transformation that this difference is mediated by a single locus, <italic>RpL28</italic>. In ongoing experiments in the lab, we have shown that a second region also is eliminated because of a single Rp gene, not because it is larger. We also show that Df(3R)87B8-89B16 and Df(3R)87B8-89B5 cells are eliminated because of a single gene, eIF2g. Thus, in 3 out of 3 cases, we demonstrate directly that single genes led to elimination of particular monosomies are eliminated, not size.</p><p>We agree that it is possible that there is a cumulative effect of gene dose that only becomes apparent at still larger monosomy sizes and can also cause cell competition independently of <italic>Rp</italic> loci. Accordingly, we included this possibility in the revised manuscript. If correct, larger monosomies would then be eliminated both because of <italic>Rp</italic> loci and the cumulative effect of other loci, ie it is not correct to state they would not be subject to <italic>Rp</italic>-dependent cell competition.</p><p>We do not understand how non-cell competition mechanisms could be proposed for removal of any of these aneuploidies. Figure 2 showed that all 17 genotypes survive when the whole eye is mutant, thus competition with wild type cells is required for their loss. It seems possible there is a typo in the review summary and that “non-Rp cell competition” was the intended meaning. If so, this would be addressed by the preceding paragraph.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>3) Methodology:</p><p>a) The authors need to address how they performed the percentage white assay. Specifically, they need explain whether the area occupied by white (unpigmented) ommatidia was assigned by observation on the part of the experimentalist using a dissecting scope or was made by measurements using micrographs and software like ImageJ. This is a key assay in the paper and it is not clear how an experimentalist using a dissecting scope could determine whether white ommatidia represent a precise value (e.g. 46%) of the eye tissue.</p></disp-quote><p>The revised manuscript explains more clearly that this was done manually by an experimenter. We agree that the measurements (like any measurements) will be subject to a margin of error. We do not think that the error needs to be large or significant. Does the reviewer not agree that a reasonably careful observer could distinguish between an eye that was 1/5 white and an eye that was 1/6 white? That is a 3% difference (20% vs 17%). We have done the controls of scoring samples by different investigators, or scoring the same samples on different occasions, and do not think that large errors are involved. It is worth mentioning (and included in the revised manuscript) that the Mann Whitney procedure used to evaluate results statistically compares relative clone size, not absolute measurements. Finally, if our measurements were error-prone, the result would be that statistical differences between samples would be harder to obtain, because they would be randomized by the errors. Random errors cannot easily lead to significant differences between genotypes when the genotypes are scored blind, unlike what we find.</p><p>In our opinion, this is a robust assay, the most quantitative, convenient and reliable assay yet devised for cell competition, and likely to be adopted rapidly throughout the field once it is available.</p><p>It may be useful to develop a digital scoring assay in future, although there will be challenges. Since the fly eye is not flat, eye clone photography is challenging because of depth of field (not all the eye is in focus), also parts of the eye are always tilted away from the camera, distorting clone area. Addressing these issues might require software development. Preparing the eye clone photographs for this paper using conventional methods was in fact very time-consuming.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>b) The authors need to better describe how they induced hs-FLP clones (stage of development when clone was induced, etc).</p></disp-quote><p>How the white clones were induced by hsFlp is described in the Materials and methods.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>4) The manuscript requires extensive editorial changes. These include:</p><p>a) Abstract: should be re-phrased to remove overstatements that cell competition is the major driver of aneuploidy-induced cell death.</p></disp-quote><p>The revised Abstract has been modified to state only that removal of damaged cells often required cell competition genes, rather than concluding that cell competition itself has been demonstrated. Because of the strict 150 word limit, adding this caveat required removing other information from the Abstract, such as that irradiation and FLP-FRT recombination were used, and that aneuploidy is deleterious in humans.</p><p>We are not sure this was the right choice.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>b) Title: should be rephrased so that it does not imply that all aneuploid cells are removed as a consequence of ribosomal protein gene dose. This is a suggested title from the reviewers &quot;&quot;Cell competition in <italic>Drosophila</italic> imaginal discs removes cells with small aneuploidies based on ribosomal protein gene dose&quot;</p></disp-quote><p>We revised the title to refer to segmental aneuploidies. We would like to also replace “removes” with “can remove”, but this is not possible because it exceeds the character limit (by 1 character). We prefer not to use the word “small”, which is subjective (see discussion under part d below).</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>c) Introduction:</p><p>– include publications demonstrating that the death of aneuploid cells in the wing disc is p53-independent (for example, Dekanty et al., 2012 and Morais da Silva et al., 2013) and provide a more thorough explanation of IR-induced aneuploidies, citing the original Brodsky paper and more recent publications based on it.</p><p>– reference the literature of aneuploidy-induced stresses (see review Zhu et al., 2018).</p><p>– modify the last paragraph to reflect the fact that removing both p53 and S12 does not block completely late cell death.</p></disp-quote><p>Additional publications demonstrating the p53-independent death of aneuploid cells are included in the revised Introduction. More details of IR-induced aneuploidies are now given, including the Brodsky 2004 and 2009 papers. The introduction to aneuploidy-induced stresses has been expanded, also the Discussion. We modified the last Introduction paragraph so that it states only that most late IR-induced cell death resembles cell competition genetically.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>d) Results:</p><p>– revise the paragraph describing the &quot;y&quot; bristle</p><p>– revise the paragraph about Xrp1 and about RpS3</p><p>– state that one cannot conclude whether aneuploid cells not lacking an Rp gene grow at the same rate as wild type cells</p><p>– clarify how much of the genome was tested in each aneuploid condition as suggested by the reviewers, who indicated that 2-4% of the genome was tested, and make clear that segmental aneuploidies are rather small.</p></disp-quote><p>We made minor revisions to the paragraph describing IR-induced y bristles. We have shortened and clarified the Xrp1 paragraph. The possibility that aneuploid cells grow less well than wild type cells is mentioned in the revised Discussion. We discuss the size of our segmental aneuploid regions and compare them to aneuploidies in other studies. We prefer not to say that they are “rather small”. We explain that most of the aneuploidies studied are as large or larger in genetic content than some whole human chromosomes. The complete genomic information is given in Supplementary file 1. We state how much of the genome was tested. The salient fact here is that 80% of the <italic>Drosophila</italic> genome is carried on 2 pairs of autosomes, so that whole chromosome aneuploidies in <italic>Drosophila</italic> mimic very abnormal human karyotypes affecting ~10 chromosomes at once. We prefer to give these specifics rather than to use the adjective “small”, which could be interpreted as “unimportant”. We note that the other papers that the reviewers’ want cited have not clarified that they only studied “large” aneuploidies.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>e) Discussion:</p><p>– remove redundancies and reduce the semblance of a review article.</p><p>– mention that segmental aneuploidies generated in this study are comparatively smaller in size than aneuplodies generated in other model organisms and/or in other <italic>Drosophila</italic> studies.</p><p>– when talking about the role of Xrp1 and S12 in IR-induced late cell death, state that these results &quot;suggest&quot; that cell competition is in action.</p><p>– edit the Discussion to reflect the fact that DBA patients have higher rate of hematopoietic malignancies. Their proposed aneuploidy surveillance mechanism works well for epithelial tumors, but it is not clear how this would function in blood cancers.</p></disp-quote><p>We have removed some redundancy from the Discussion, but still think it important that the Discussion include some summary of the Results. Since the Results section contains rather technical <italic>Drosophila</italic> genetics, we imagine that readers from other fields may skip to the Discussion, and we wish to keep the article accessible for such readers. We hope the editors will agree. We are not sure what “resemblance to a review article” means. The reviewers have in fact requested that we expand the discussion of other studies, some of which we do not think strictly relevant, for example studies of aneuploidy in <italic>Drosophila</italic> cells with chromosome instability, where the actual genotypes and role of competition are unknown. We have completely omitted many interesting topics, such as potential implications of our study for p53 function in cell competition, and in fact do intend to publish a follow-up review article addressing such topics. We acknowledge that the final paragraph is speculative, but this paragraph makes an important prediction about the potential role of cell competition in human cancer surveillance. We are surprised if the Editors would not like this prediction associated with the e<italic>Life</italic> paper. After all, it may prove to be correct. We have moderated the discussion of roles of Xrp1 and RpS12 in post-irradiation cell death to state that their requirements resemble those of cell competition. We do not understand the reviewers’ comments about tumors in DBA. In fact there is no enrichment for hematological malignancy in DBA, the cancer predisposition appears to affect all sites (eg PMID: 30266775; 22362038). We are not certain that the tissue architecture of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in situ is well enough known to say how epithelial it is. In any case, cell competition is well established in the hematopoietic system, contradicting the reviewers’ assumption (eg PMID: 20208998; 20362536; 24828041).</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>5) Figures:</p><p>a) The authors should consider which figures could be moved to supplementary (e.g., the y bristle figure)</p></disp-quote><p>The y bristles figure represents only a single panel (Figure 1S), 1/19 of a figure. We have no replacement to occupy the space if it this panel is removed, so no advantage accrues to making Figure 1S supplemental.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>b) Figure 1: The authors need to explain why did not perform experiments with S12 mutation alone. If possible, they should add these data.</p></disp-quote><p>Experiments with the S12 mutation alone are in fact shown for multiple experiments in this figure (panels 1B, 1F, 1J). Perhaps the review means that we should have quantified cell death in RpS12 alone? Presumably the intention is to address whether the p53-independent. RpS12-dependent cell death also occurs in the presence of wild type p53? This is indeed an interesting question, but unfortunately in the presence of wild type p53 the amount of cell death observed is simply too high to be quantified. Even if we did find a way to quantify the massive number of dead cells clumped together in these discs, we have no confidence at all they are not affected by, for example, saturation of the corpse disposal mechanisms. We discussed this in the figure legend. The radiation dose chosen to maximize the detection of the p53-dependent cell death (4000 rad) is very high. If we study lower IR doses the number of p53-independent deaths may become quite low. We are currently preparing another paper for publication that directly addresses the potential roles of RpS12 and Xrp1 in the DNA damage response (rather than cell competition) and it seems better to address this question there.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>6) Tables: All of the raw data should be put into a new supplementary file.</p></disp-quote><p>We added nine source files containing the raw data for all the quantitative assays.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>7) Statistics: the authors need to address how their statistical analyses accounted for the large variation in sample sizes.</p></disp-quote><p>The Mann Whitney procedure can lose sensitivity if sample sizes are unequal. This would result in a failure to detect significance. We mention sample sizes in the revised manuscript.</p></body></sub-article></article>