Abstract

The X-linked gene Rlim plays major roles in female mouse development and reproduction, where it is crucial for the maintenance of imprinted X chromosome inactivation in extraembryonic tissues of embryos. However, while females carrying a systemic Rlim knockout (KO) die around implantation, male Rlim KO mice appear healthy and are fertile. Here we report an important role for Rlim in testis where it is highly expressed in post-meiotic round spermatids as well as in Sertoli cells. Systemic deletion of the Rlim gene results in lower numbers of mature sperm that contains excess cytoplasm, leading to decreased sperm motility and in vitro fertilization rates. Targeting the conditional Rlim cKO specifically to the spermatogenic cell lineage largely recapitulates this phenotype. These results reveal functions of Rlim in male reproduction specifically in round spermatids during spermiogenesis.

Data availability

RNAseq data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE114593.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Feng Wang

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Maria Gracia Gervasi

    Department of Veterinary and Animal Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ana Bošković

    Biochemistry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fengyun Sun

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vera D Rinaldi

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0051-1754
  6. Jun Yu

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Mary C Wallinghurst

    Dept of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Darya A Tourzani

    Dept of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jesse Mager

    Dept of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Lihua J Zhu

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Oliver J Rando

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1516-9397
  12. Pablo E Visconti

    Dept of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Lara Strittmatter

    Electron microscopy core, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ingolf Bach

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    ingolf.bach@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4505-8946

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM128168)

  • Ingolf Bach

National Institutes of Health (HD080224)

  • Oliver J Rando

National Institutes of Health (HD38082)

  • Pablo E Visconti

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mice were housed in the animal facility of UMMS and utilized according to NIH guidelines and those established by the UMMS Institute of Animal Care and Usage Committee (IACUC; protocol #201900344).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeannie T Lee, Massachusetts General Hospital, United States

Version history

  1. Received: September 29, 2020
  2. Accepted: February 22, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 23, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 24, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 5, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Wang 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

  • 1,309
    Page views
  • 207
    Downloads
  • 6
    Citations

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

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. Feng Wang
  2. Maria Gracia Gervasi
  3. Ana Bošković
  4. Fengyun Sun
  5. Vera D Rinaldi
  6. Jun Yu
  7. Mary C Wallinghurst
  8. Darya A Tourzani
  9. Jesse Mager
  10. Lihua J Zhu
  11. Oliver J Rando
  12. Pablo E Visconti
  13. Lara Strittmatter
  14. Ingolf Bach
(2021)
Deficient spermiogenesis in mice lacking Rlim
eLife 10:e63556.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63556

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Nico Posnien, Vera S Hunnekuhl, Gregor Bucher
    Review Article

    Gene expression has been employed for homologizing body regions across bilateria. The molecular comparison of vertebrate and fly brains has led to a number of disputed homology hypotheses. Data from the fly Drosophila melanogaster have recently been complemented by extensive data from the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum with its more insect-typical development. In this review, we revisit the molecular mapping of the neuroectoderm of insects and vertebrates to reconsider homology hypotheses. We claim that the protocerebrum is non-segmental and homologous to the vertebrate fore- and midbrain. The boundary between antennal and ocular regions correspond to the vertebrate mid-hindbrain boundary while the deutocerebrum represents the anterior-most ganglion with serial homology to the trunk. The insect head placode is shares common embryonic origin with the vertebrate adenohypophyseal placode. Intriguingly, vertebrate eyes develop from a different region compared to the insect compound eyes calling organ homology into question. Finally, we suggest a molecular re-definition of the classic concepts of archi- and prosocerebrum.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Tao Zhang, Liyang Wan ... Hongbin Lu
    Research Article Updated

    The attachment site of the rotator cuff (RC) is a classic fibrocartilaginous enthesis, which is the junction between bone and tendon with typical characteristics of a fibrocartilage transition zone. Enthesis development has historically been studied with lineage tracing of individual genes selected a priori, which does not allow for the determination of single-cell landscapes yielding mature cell types and tissues. Here, in together with open-source GSE182997 datasets (three samples) provided by Fang et al., we applied Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to delineate the comprehensive postnatal RC enthesis growth and the temporal atlas from as early as postnatal day 1 up to postnatal week 8. And, we furtherly performed single-cell spatial transcriptomic sequencing on postnatal day 1 mouse enthesis, in order to deconvolute bone-tendon junction (BTJ) chondrocytes onto spatial spots. In summary, we deciphered the cellular heterogeneity and the molecular dynamics during fibrocartilage differentiation. Combined with current spatial transcriptomic data, our results provide a transcriptional resource that will support future investigations of enthesis development at the mechanistic level and may shed light on the strategies for enhanced RC healing outcomes.