4.4 Article

Maternal bias and escape from X chromosome imprinting in the midgestation mouse placenta

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 390, Issue 1, Pages 80-92

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2014.02.020

Keywords

Placenta; X-inactivation; Imprinting; Parent-of-origin bias; RNA sequencing

Funding

  1. Stanford Graduate Fellowship (SGF)
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1147470]
  3. National Institutes of Health (National Institute of General Medical Sciences) [GM103787-02]
  4. Stanford BioX Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the epigenetic landscape at the interface between mother and fetus, we provide a comprehensive analysis of parent-of-origin bias in the mouse placenta. Using Fl interspecies hybrids between mus musculus (C57BL/6J) and mus musculus castaneus, we sequenced RNA from 23 individual midgestation placentas, five late stage placentas, and two yolk sac samples and then used SNPs to determine whether transcripts were preferentially generated from the maternal or paternal allele. In the placenta, we find 103 genes that show significant and reproducible parent-of-origin bias, of which 78 are novel candidates. Most (96%) show a strong maternal bias which we demonstrate, via multiple mathematical models, pyrosequencing, and FISH, is not due to maternal decidual contamination. Analysis of the X chromosome also reveals paternal expression of Xist and several genes that escape inactivation, most significantly Alas2, Fhll, and S1c38a5. Finally, sequencing individual placentas allowed us to reveal notable expression similarity between littermates. In all, we observe a striking preference for maternal transcription in the midgestation mouse placenta and a dynamic imprinting landscape in extraembryonic tissues, reflecting the complex nature of epigenetic pathways in the placenta. (c) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available