Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:34:30.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and Molecular Studies on Om, a Locus Controlling Mouse Preimplantation Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

M. Cohen-Tannoudj ,
P. Balducci ,
C. Kress ,
V. Richoux-Duranthon ,
J.P. Renard  and
C. Babinet
M. Cohen-Tannoudj
Affiliation:
Unité de Biologie du Développement, Institut Pasteur, Paris
P. Balducci
Affiliation:
Unité de Biologie du Développement, Institut Pasteur, Paris
C. Kress
Affiliation:
Unité de Biologie du Développement, Institut Pasteur, Paris
V. Richoux-Duranthon
Affiliation:
Biologie du Développement, INRA Jouy en Josas, France
J.P. Renard
Affiliation:
Biologie du Développement, INRA Jouy en Josas, France
C. Babinet*
Affiliation:
Biologie du Développement, INRA Jouy en Josas, France
*
Institut Pasteur, Unité de Biologie du Développement - 25, rue du Docteur Roux, 75724 Paris Cedex 15, France

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Several lines of evidence have accumulated in recent years indicating that nuclear cytoplasmic interactions play an important role in the formation and fate of the developing mouse embryo. Early nuclear transplantation experiments indicated that the ability of nuclei to direct cleavage after transfer into enucleated zygotes falls abruptly with nuclei from more advanced preimplantation stages [1]. Transcriptional activation of the nuclei, which occurs during the second cell cycle probably precludes the reprogramming of nuclei from later cleavage stages [2]. Thus, when an 8-cell nucleus is transferred to an enucleated zygote, such a reconstituted zygote is blocked at the 2-cell stage. However, when identical 8-cell nuclei were transferred into both blastomeres of enucleated 2-cell embryos, they were able to support development to the blastocyst stage and even gave rise to live offspring [2-4]. This indicated the importance of the cytoplasmic environment for the ability of the incoming nucleus to support development. It should be noted that in these experiments, the nuclear cytoplasmic ratio was also an important factor in determining the development of the reconstituted embryos [2]. Similar observations were also made when monitoring the development of haploid embryos [5]. In another study, Latham and Solter [6] examined the ability of androgenones, obtained by replacing the female pronucleus of a zygote by the male pronucleus, to develop to the blastocyst stage. Androgenones generated from C57B1/6 eggs were found to be much more competent to give rise to blastocysts than were DBA/2 androgenones. However, when androgenones were constructed from (DBA/2×C57B1/6)F1, zygotes (genetic constitution of the embryos will hereafter be indicated with the female parent coming first followed by the male parent), by replacing the DBA/2 female pronucleus with a C57B1/6 pronucleus, they also developed poorly. This was not simply due to the lack of some component in DBA/2 cytoplasm, since the impaired development was also observed when C57B1/6 male pronuclei from pairs of (DBA/2×C57B1/6) F1, were transferred to an enucleated C57B1/6 egg.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 1-2 , April 1996 , pp. 3 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. McGrath, J, Solter, D: Inability of mouse blastomere nuclei transferred to enucleated zygotes to support development in vitro. Science 1984; 226: 1317–1319.Google Scholar
2. Howlett, SK, Barton, SC, Surani, MA: Nuclear cytoplasmic interactions following nuclear transplantation in mouse embryos. Development 1987; 101: 915–923.Google Scholar
3. Tsunoda, Y, Yasui, T, Shioda, Y, Nakamura, K, Uchida, T, Sugie, T: Full term development of mouse blastomere nuclei transplanted to enucleated two-cell embryos. J Exp Zool 1987; 242: 147–151.Google Scholar
4. Barnes, FL, Robl, JM, First, NL: Transplantation in mouse embryos: Assessment of nuclear function. Biol Reprod 1987; 36: 1267–1274.Google Scholar
5. McGrath, J, Solter, D: Nucleocytoplasmic interactions in the mouse embryo. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1986; 97 (suppl): 277–289.Google Scholar
6. Latham, KE, Solter, D: Effect of egg composition on the developmental capacity of androgenetic mouse embryos. Development 1991; 113: 561–568.Google Scholar
7. Reik, W, Römer, I, Barton, SC, Surani, MA, Howlett, SK, Klose, J: Adult phenotype in the mouse can be affected by epigenetic events in the early embryo. Development 1993; 119: 933–942.Google Scholar
8. Wakasugi, N, Tomita, T, Kondo, K: Differences of fertility in reciprocal crosses between inbred strains of mice DDK, KK and NC. J Reprod Fertil 1967; 13: 41–50.Google Scholar
9. Wakasugi, N: Studies on fertility of DDK and C57B1/6J strains and experimental transplantation of the ovary. J Reprod Fertil 1972; 33: 283–291.Google Scholar
10. Buehr, M, Lee, S, McLaren, A, Warner, A: Reduced gap junctional communications is associated with the lethal condition characteristic of DDK mouse eggs fertilized by foreign sperm. Development 1987; 101: 449–459.Google Scholar
11. Leclerc, C, Becker, D, Buehr, M, Warner, A: Low intracellular pH is involved in the early embryonic death of DDK mouse eggs fertilized by alien sperm. Dev Dyn 1994; 200: 257–267.Google Scholar
12. Wakasugi, N: A genetically determined incompatibility system between spermatozoa and eggs leading to embryonical death in mice. J Reprod Fertil 1974; 41: 85–94.Google Scholar
13. McGrath, J, Solter, D: Nuclear transplantation in the mouse embryo by microsurgery and cell fusion. Science 1983; 220: 1300–1302.Google Scholar
14. Renard, JP, Babinet, C: Identification of a paternal developmental effect on the cytoplasm of one-cell-stage mouse embryos. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986; 83: 6883–6886.Google Scholar
15. Mann, JR: DDK egg-foreign sperm incompatibility in mice is not between the pronuclei. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 76: 779–781.Google Scholar
16. Wassarman, PM, Kinloch, RA: Gene expression during oogenesis in mice. Mutat Res 1992; 296: 3–15.Google Scholar
17. Babinet, C, Richoux, V, Guenet, JL, Renard, JP: The DDK inbred strain as a model for the study of interactions between parental genomes and egg cytoplasm in mouse preimplantation development. Development 1990; (suppl): 81–87.Google Scholar
18. Renard, JP, Baldacci, P, Richoux-Duranthon, V, Pournin, S, Babinet, C: A maternal factor affecting mouse blastocyst formation. Development 1994; 120: 797–802.Google Scholar
19. Baldacci, PA, Richoux, V, Renard, JP, Guénet, JL, Babinet, C: The locus Om, responsible for the DDK syndrome, maps close to Sigje on mouse chromosome 11. Mamm Genome 1992; 2: 100–105.Google Scholar
20. Sapienza, C, Paquette, J, Pannunzio, P, Albrechtson, S, Morgan, K: The polar-lethal ovum mutant gene maps to the distal portion of mouse chromosome 11. Genetics 1992; 132: 241–246.Google Scholar
21. Wilson, GN: Mutational risks in females: Genomic imprinting and maternal molecules. Mutat Res 1992; 296: 157–165.Google Scholar
22. Schultz, GA, Heyner, S: Gene expression in pre-implantation mammalian embryos. Mutat Res 1992; 296: 17–31.Google Scholar
23. Chess, A, Simon, I, Cedar, H, Axel, R: Allelic inactivation regulates olfactory receptor gene expression. Cell 1994;78: 823–834.Google Scholar