4.8 Article

Induction of fetal meiotic oocytes from embryonic stem cells in cynomolgus monkeys

期刊

EMBO JOURNAL
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/embj.2022112962

关键词

epigenetic reprogramming; in vitro oogenesis; meiotic prophase; primates; X-chromosome reprogramming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human in vitro oogenesis is better understood through studying in vitro oogenesis in cynomolgus monkeys. In this model, epigenetic reprogramming, including inactivation of the Xi and activation of the Xa, occurs during differentiation of embryonic stem cells. However, Xa and Xi remain epigenetically asymmetric. This in vitro model closely resembles the human system and can be used to advance research on human in vitro oogenesis.
Human in vitro oogenesis provides a framework for clarifying the mechanism of human oogenesis. To create its benchmark, it is vital to promote in vitro oogenesis using a model physiologically close to humans. Here, we establish a foundation for in vitro oogenesis in cynomolgus (cy) monkeys (Macaca fascicularis): cy female embryonic stem cells harboring one active and one inactive X chromosome (Xa and Xi, respectively) differentiate robustly into primordial germ cell-like cells, which in xenogeneic reconstituted ovaries develop efficiently into oogonia and, remarkably, further into meiotic oocytes at the zygotene stage. This differentiation entails comprehensive epigenetic reprogramming, including Xi reprogramming, yet Xa and Xi remain epigenetically asymmetric with, as partly observed in vivo, incomplete Xi reactivation. In humans and monkeys, the Xi epigenome in pluripotent stem cells functions as an Xi-reprogramming determinant. We further show that developmental pathway over-activations with suboptimal up-regulation of relevant meiotic genes impede in vitro meiotic progression. Cy in vitro oogenesis exhibits critical homology with the human system, including with respect to bottlenecks, providing a salient model for advancing human in vitro oogenesis.

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

4.8
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