| Literature DB >> 24373333 |
Daniele Cassatella, Nicola Antonio Martino, Luisa Valentini, Antonio Ciro Guaricci, Maria Francesca Cardone, Flavia Pizzi, Maria Elena Dell'Aquila, Mario Ventura1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertility affects ~10-15% of couples trying to have children, in which the rate of male fertility problems is approximately at 30-50%. Copy number variations (CNVs) are DNA sequences greater than or equal to 1 kb in length sharing a high level of similarity, and present at a variable number of copies in the genome; in our study, we used the canine species as an animal model to detect CNVs responsible for male infertility. We aim to identify CNVs associated with male infertility in the dog genome with a two-pronged approach: we performed a sperm analysis using the CASA system and a cytogenetic-targeted analysis on genes involved in male gonad development and spermatogenesis with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), using dog-specific clones. This analysis was carried out to evaluate possible correlations between CNVs on targeted genes and spermatogenesis impairments or infertility factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24373333 PMCID: PMC3922845 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
List of BAC probes used in the analysis covering fertility-related genes in dog genome (canFam3)
| CH82-27F18 | chr27:40192610-40366638 | Baccetti, B. et al., Hum Reprod 20, 2790–4 (2005) | |
| CH82-334A11 | chrX:7765138-7950438 | Belangero S.I. et al., Fertil Steril 91(6):2732 (2009) | |
| CH82-65N01 | chr20:56704541-56944568 | Behringer, R.R. et al., Endocrinology 140, 5789–96 (1999) | |
| CH82-11J15 | chr27:1694095-1903282 | Mishina, Y. et al., Genes and Development 10, 2577–2587 (1996) | |
| CH82-407I16 | chr1:100742919-100931191 | Kimmins, S. et al., Mol Endocrinol 21, 726–39 (2007) | |
| CH82-305N04 | chr25:7711226-7886381 | Zhoucun, A. et al., Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 124, 61–4 (2006) | |
| CH82-368C17 | chr30:10463213-10662079 | Carlson, A.E. et al., J Biol Chem 280, 32238–44 (2005) | |
| CH82-253P13 | chr23:26086962-26275904 | Ferlin, A. et al., J Med Genet 42, 209–13 (2005) | |
| CH82-297B18 | chrX:35709014-35892273 | Kamp, C. et al., Mol Hum Reprod 7, 987–94 (2001) | |
| CH82-445I13 | chr14:35426377-35621549 | Zuccarello, D. et al., Hum Reprod 23, 996–1001 (2008) | |
| CH82-321J09 | chr20:50322273-50530852 | Kusumi N. et al., Cell Struct Funct 32(2):101–13 (2007) | |
| CH82-440F04 | chr15:29579158-29772026 | Galan, J.J. et al., Hum Reprod 21, 3185–92 (2006) | |
| CH82-405N09 | chr35:18700928-18891574 | Dauwerse, J.G. et al., Eur J Hum Genet 15, 743–51 (2007) | |
| CH82-124P21 | chrX:1890901-2116844 | Beaulieu Bergeron M. et al., Sex Dev 5(1):1–6 (2011) | |
| CH82-201N14 | chrX:107062196-107233557 | Ferlin, A. et al., Hum Reprod 14, 1710–6 (1999) | |
| CH82-209K14 | chr18:52294310-52482357 | Wada, Y. et al., Fertil Steril 85, 787–90 (2006) | |
| CH82-324I01 | chr6:39621314-39791666 | O’Bryan, M.K. et al., Dev Biol 316, 359–70 (2008) | |
| CH82-26I08 | chr9:8216019-8376420 | Wagner, T. et al., Cell 79, 1111–20 (1994) | |
| CH82-74B17 | chr34:37043606-37239097 | Dam, A.H. et al., Am J Hum Genet 81, 813–20 (2007) | |
| CH82-509B23 | chr5:30594052-30773674 | Zuccarello, D. et al., Hum Reprod 23, 996–1001 (2008) | |
| CH82-393J06 | chr12:71836296-72027577 | Vodicka, R. et al., Reprod Biomed Online 14, 579–87 (2007) | |
| CH82-53P08 | chrX:35486398-35688401 | Kuo, P.L. et al., Fertil Steril 81, 1034–40 (2004) | |
| CH82-488G17 | chrX:38803472-38976270 | Foresta, C. et al., Hum Mol Genet 9, 1161–9 (2000) |
Figure 1Hamilton-Thorne IVOS 12.3 screenshots showing normal sperm cells morphology for dog #1 (A) and abnormal morphology in dog #8, with presence of cytoplasmic droplets (white arrows) and coiled tails (black arrows) (B).
Figure 2Hamilton-Thorne IVOS 12.3 CASA analyses on 11 sperm samples. Total and progressive motility computed LS-MEAN values are displayed, as well as percentages of rapid, medium, slow and static cells. Statistical significance analysis was performed with SAS software. a vs b, c vs d, e vs f: P ≤ 0.0002.
Figure 3FISH experiments on lymphocytes. A. Co-hybridizations of BACs CH82-321J09, CH82-324I01, and CH82-509B23 (Cy-3 labeled, in red) with single-copy control BACs CH82-297B18 and CH82-53P08 (Cy-5 labeled, in green) on lymphocytes from 6 samples. Bigger sizes of hybridization signals for BAC CH82-321 J09 and CH82-509B23 compared with single-copy control BACs CH82-297B18 and CH82-53P08 reveal duplications in those genomic regions in all the analyzed samples except for sample #12. Sample #11 shows bigger hybridization signals for probe CH82-324I01 compared with other samples and single-copy control probe, suggesting a clear and isolated duplication pattern. B. same co-hybridizations on sperm cells from the 5 out of the 6 samples shown in part A.
Fluorescence Hybridization results on sperm cells (S-FISH) and lymphocytes from 6 samples
| | | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | ||||||||||||||||||
| CH82-321J09 | Dup | 1.93 | Dup | Dup | 1.83 | Dup | Dup (Het) | 1.5 | Dup (Het) | Dup | 2 | Dup | Dup | 1.81 | Dup | Sin | - | - | |
| CH82-324I01 | Sin | 1.36 | Sin | Sin | 1.45 | Sin | Sin | 1.15 | Sin | Sin | 1.42 | Sin | Dup | 1.69 | Dup | Sin | - | - | |
| CH82-509B23 | Dup | 1.71 | Dup | Dup | 2 | Dup | Dup | 1.63 | Dup | Dup | 1.68 | Dup | Dup | 1.95 | Dup | Sin | - | - | |
| CH82-297B18 | Sin | 1 | Sin | Sin | 1 | Sin | Sin | 1.00 | Sin | Dup | 1.78 | Dup | Sin | 1 | Sin | Sin | - | - | |
| CH82-53P08 | Sin | 1.31 | Sin | Sin | 1.21 | Sin | Dup | 1.67 | Dup | Sin | 1 | Sin | Dup | 1.76 | Dup | Dup | - | - | |
BAC CH82-297B18 was used as a single-copy control for all samples except for case #7, where it showed a duplication pattern. In this particular case we used BAC CH82-53P08 for this purpose. Sin, Single; Dup, Duplicated; CN, copy number; Het, Duplication in Heterozygosis.