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

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Edith Heard, Institut Curie, France

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.

Version 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

  • 2,472
    Page views
  • 450
    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)

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

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

  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
(2016)
Successful transmission and transcriptional deployment of a human chromosome via mouse male meiosis
eLife 5:e20235.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20235

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20235

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erandi Velazquez-Miranda, Ming He
    Insight

    Endothelial cell subpopulations are characterized by unique gene expression profiles, epigenetic landscapes and functional properties.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Monica Salinas-Pena, Elena Rebollo, Albert Jordan
    Research Article

    Histone H1 participates in chromatin condensation and regulates nuclear processes. Human somatic cells may contain up to seven histone H1 variants, although their functional heterogeneity is not fully understood. Here, we have profiled the differential nuclear distribution of the somatic H1 repertoire in human cells through imaging techniques including super-resolution microscopy. H1 variants exhibit characteristic distribution patterns in both interphase and mitosis. H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are universally enriched at the nuclear periphery in all cell lines analyzed and co-localize with compacted DNA. H1.0 shows a less pronounced peripheral localization, with apparent variability among different cell lines. On the other hand, H1.4 and H1X are distributed throughout the nucleus, being H1X universally enriched in high-GC regions and abundant in the nucleoli. Interestingly, H1.4 and H1.0 show a more peripheral distribution in cell lines lacking H1.3 and H1.5. The differential distribution patterns of H1 suggest specific functionalities in organizing lamina-associated domains or nucleolar activity, which is further supported by a distinct response of H1X or phosphorylated H1.4 to the inhibition of ribosomal DNA transcription. Moreover, H1 variants depletion affects chromatin structure in a variant-specific manner. Concretely, H1.2 knock-down, either alone or combined, triggers a global chromatin decompaction. Overall, imaging has allowed us to distinguish H1 variants distribution beyond the segregation in two groups denoted by previous ChIP-Seq determinations. Our results support H1 variants heterogeneity and suggest that variant-specific functionality can be shared between different cell types.