4.6 Article

Aberrant mRNA expression of chromatin remodelling factors in round spermatid maturation arrest compared with normal human spermatogenesis

期刊

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 726-733

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaq054

关键词

chromatin remodelling; human spermatogenesis; gene expression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During human spermiogenesis, chromatin condensation is associated with replacement of histones by protamines. This exchange is supported by acetylated histones and chromatin remodelling factors. Ten chromatin remodelling factor protein families are known. This study aims to analyse whether a different chromatin remodelling factor expression pattern exists between normal spermatogenesis and round spermatid maturation arrest as potential reason for impaired spermatogenesis and idiopathic male infertility. Laser capture microdissection was used to excise seminiferous tubules from testicular biopsies with normal spermatogenesis and round spermatid maturation arrest. RNA was isolated, first strand cDNA synthesis and pre-amplification were performed using Epigenetic Chromatin Remodelling Factors PCR arrays with 84 genes. Applying hierarchical cluster analysis, three gene expression clusters with six subgroups were identified. The expression pattern ranges from a few high expressed genes in round spermatid maturation arrest to a multitude of genes (74) which are more highly expressed in normal spermatogenesis than in maturation arrest. A total of 22 genes showed a significant difference between normal spermatogenesis and round spermatid maturation arrest (1 gene was up-regulated and 21 genes were down-regulated in the developmental arrest). The significantly different expression of chromatin remodelling factors between normal spermatogenesis and round spermatid maturation arrest may lead to impaired epigenetic information and aberrant transcription during sperm development representing one possible reason for developmental arrest of round spermatids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据