1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

Successful transmission and transcriptional deployment of a human chromosome via mouse male meiosis

  1. Christina Ernst
  2. Jeremy Pike
  3. Sarah J Aitken
  4. Hannah K Long
  5. Nils Eling
  6. Lovorka Stojic
  7. Michelle C Ward
  8. Frances Connor
  9. Tim F Rayner
  10. Margus Lukk
  11. Robert J Klose
  12. Claudia Kutter
  13. Duncan T Odom  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  3. Science for Life Laboratory, Sweden
Short Report
  • Cited 3
  • Views 2,251
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e20235 doi: 10.7554/eLife.20235

Abstract

Most human aneuploidies originate maternally, due in part to the presence of highly stringent checkpoints during male meiosis. Indeed, male sterility is common among aneuploid mice used to study chromosomal abnormalities, and male germline transmission of exogenous DNA has been rarely reported. Here we show that despite aberrant testis architecture, males of the aneuploid Tc1 mouse strain produce viable sperm and transmit human chromosome 21 to create aneuploid offspring. In these offspring, we mapped transcription, transcriptional initiation, enhancer activity, non-methylated DNA and transcription factor binding in adult tissues. Remarkably, when compared with mice derived from female passage of human chromosome 21, the chromatin condensation during spermatogenesis and the extensive epigenetic reprogramming specific to male germline transmission resulted in almost indistinguishable patterns of transcriptional deployment. Our results reveal an unexpected tolerance of aneuploidy during mammalian spermatogenesis, and the surprisingly robust ability of mouse developmental machinery to accurately deploy an exogenous chromosome, regardless of germline transmission.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Christina Ernst

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3569-2209
  2. Jeremy Pike

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Sarah J Aitken

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Hannah K Long

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Nils Eling

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Lovorka Stojic

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Michelle C Ward

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Frances Connor

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Tim F Rayner

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Margus Lukk

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Robert J Klose

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8726-7888
  12. Claudia Kutter

    Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8047-0058
  13. Duncan T Odom

    Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Duncan.Odom@cruk.cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Duncan T Odom, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6201-5599

Funding

Cancer Research UK (A20412)

  • Christina Ernst
  • Sarah J Aitken
  • Nils Eling
  • Frances Connor
  • Tim F Rayner
  • Margus Lukk
  • Claudia Kutter
  • Duncan T Odom

European Research Council (615584)

  • Duncan T Odom

Wellcome (098024/Z/11/Z)

  • Robert J Klose

Wellcome (106563/Z/14/A)

  • Sarah J Aitken

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This investigation was approved by the Animal Welfare and Ethics Review Board and followed the Cambridge Institute guidelines for the use of animals in experimental studies under Home Office license PPL 70/7535.

Human subjects: Previously published human data from Ward et al. 2013 were used for comparisons in this study.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Edith Heard, Institut Curie, France

Publication history

  1. Received: August 1, 2016
  2. Accepted: November 14, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 18, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: November 22, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: December 16, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Ernst et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,251
    Page views
  • 440
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Scopus, Crossref.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Natalia Petrenko, Kevin Struhl
    Research Article Updated

    The preinitiation complex (PIC) for transcriptional initiation by RNA polymerase (Pol) II is composed of general transcription factors that are highly conserved. However, analysis of ChIP-seq datasets reveals kinetic and compositional differences in the transcriptional initiation process among eukaryotic species. In yeast, Mediator associates strongly with activator proteins bound to enhancers, but it transiently associates with promoters in a form that lacks the kinase module. In contrast, in human, mouse, and fly cells, Mediator with its kinase module stably associates with promoters, but not with activator-binding sites. This suggests that yeast and metazoans differ in the nature of the dynamic bridge of Mediator between activators and Pol II and the composition of a stable inactive PIC-like entity. As in yeast, occupancies of TATA-binding protein (TBP) and TBP-associated factors (Tafs) at mammalian promoters are not strictly correlated. This suggests that within PICs, TFIID is not a monolithic entity, and multiple forms of TBP affect initiation at different classes of genes. TFIID in flies, but not yeast and mammals, interacts strongly at regions downstream of the initiation site, consistent with the importance of downstream promoter elements in that species. Lastly, Taf7 and the mammalian-specific Med26 subunit of Mediator also interact near the Pol II pause region downstream of the PIC, but only in subsets of genes and often not together. Species-specific differences in PIC structure and function are likely to affect how activators and repressors affect transcriptional activity.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Luka Bacic et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The chromatin remodeler ALC1 is recruited to and activated by DNA damage-induced poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) chains deposited by PARP1/PARP2/HPF1 upon detection of DNA lesions. ALC1 has emerged as a candidate drug target for cancer therapy as its loss confers synthetic lethality in homologous recombination-deficient cells. However, structure-based drug design and molecular analysis of ALC1 have been hindered by the requirement for PARylation and the highly heterogeneous nature of this post-translational modification. Here, we reconstituted an ALC1 and PARylated nucleosome complex modified in vitro using PARP2 and HPF1. This complex was amenable to cryo-EM structure determination without cross-linking, which enabled visualization of several intermediate states of ALC1 from the recognition of the PARylated nucleosome to the tight binding and activation of the remodeler. Functional biochemical assays with PARylated nucleosomes highlight the importance of nucleosomal epitopes for productive remodeling and suggest that ALC1 preferentially slides nucleosomes away from DNA breaks.