Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:58:09.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partial deletion of the Y chromosome removes the effect of paternal genome imprinting on periovum sensitivity to hyaluronidase in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Józefa Styrna
Józefa Styrna
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Jagiellonian University, R. Ingardena 6, 30-060 Kraków, Poland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Cumulus-oocyte complexes from the two consomic strains of mice, B10. BR and BIO.BR-Ydel (with a partial deletion of the Y chromosome) and the BALB/c strain, as well as reciprocal Fl and F2 hybrids, were tested for their susceptibility to attack by hyaluronidase. The cumulus cell dispersal was significantly more rapid in the eggs of B10.BR females and of Fl and F2 hybrid females sired by the B10.BR males than in those of BALB/c females and hybrids sired by BALB/c males. These results confirm the earlier data of Bander et al. (1989) which were interpreted as evidence of paternal imprinting of the C57BL genome. In contrast, cumulus cell dispersal in the eggs of females sired by BIO.BR-Ydel males was significantly slower than in females sired by B10.BR males, and did not differ from that in the BALB/c strain. The results suggest that the partial deletion of the Y chromosome abolished the effect of paternal genome imprinting which is observed in the B10.BR strain.

Type
Short Paper
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 229 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

Bander, S. A. A., Watson, S. C. & Shire, J. G. M. (1988). Genetic differences in periovum sensitivity to hyaluronidase and protease between C57BL/6, BALB and CXB recombinant mice. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 84, 709–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bander, S. A. A., Watson, S. C., & Shire, J. G. M. (1989). Parental inheritance of egg traits in mice: a case of genomic imprinting. Genetical Research 54, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beechey, C. V., & Cattanach, B. M. (1994). Genetic imprinting map. Mouse Genome 92, 108–110.Google Scholar
Conway, S. J., Mahadevaiah, S. K., Darling, S. M., Capel, B., Rattigan, A. M., & Burgoyne, P. S. (1994). Y353/B: a candidate multiple-copy spermiogenesis gene on the mouse Y chromosome. Mammalian Genome 5, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriwaki, K., Suh, D. S., & Styrna, J. (1988). Genetics factors governing sperm morphology of the mouse. Mouse News Letter 82, 138.Google Scholar
Peterson, K., & Sapienza, K. (1993). Imprinting the genome: imprinted genes, imprinting genes, and a hypothesis for their interaction. Annual Reviews in Genetics 27, 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styrna, J., Imai, H. T., & Moriwaki, K. (1988). Partial deletion of Y chromosome and sperm abnormalities. Mouse News Letter 80, 171.Google Scholar
Styrna, J., Imai, H. T., & Moriwaki, K. (1991 a). An increased level of sperm abnormalities in mice with a partial deletion of the Y chromosome. Genetical Research 57, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Styrna, J., Klag, J., & Moriwaki, K. (1991 b). Influence of partial deletion of the Y chromosome on mouse sperm phenotype. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 92, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surani, M. A. H., Barton, S. C., & Norris, M. L. (1987). Experimental reconstruction of mouse eggs and embryos: an analysis of mammalian development. Biology of Reproduction 36, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zar, J. H. (1984). Biostatistical Methods 2nd ed.Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs N.J.Google Scholar