4.8 Article

The genetics of human infertility by functional interrogation of SNPs in mice

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1506974112

Keywords

CRISPR/Cas9; meiosis; spermatogenesis; cyclin; genome editing

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM45415]
  2. New York State Stem Cell Program [CO29155]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Infertility is a prevalent health issue, affecting similar to 15% of couples of childbearing age. Nearly one-half of idiopathic infertility cases are thought to have a genetic basis, but the underlying causes are largely unknown. Traditional methods for studying inheritance, such as genome-wide association studies and linkage analyses, have been confounded by the genetic and phenotypic complexity of reproductive processes. Here we describe an association-and linkage-free approach to identify segregating infertility alleles, in which CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing is used to model putatively deleterious nonsynonymous SNPs (nsSNPs) in the mouse orthologs of fertility genes. Mice bearing humanized alleles of four essential meiosis genes, each predicted to be deleterious by most of the commonly used algorithms for analyzing functional SNP consequences, were examined for fertility and reproductive defects. Only a Cdk2 allele mimicking SNP rs3087335, which alters an inhibitory WEE1 protein kinase phosphorylation site, caused infertility and revealed a novel function in regulating spermatogonial stem cell maintenance. Our data indicate that segregating infertility alleles exist in human populations. Furthermore, whereas computational prediction of SNP effects is useful for identifying candidate causal mutations for diverse diseases, this study underscores the need for in vivo functional evaluation of physiological consequences. This approach can revolutionize personalized reproductive genetics by establishing a permanent reference of benign vs. infertile alleles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available