4.3 Article

The role of cell death in sexually dimorphic muscle development:: Male-specific muscles are retained in female bax/bak knockout mice

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROBIOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue 11, Pages 1303-1314

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dneu.20658

Keywords

bulbocavernosus; cell death; sex difference; bax; bak

Funding

  1. NIH [MH07285, MH068482]
  2. NCI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The bulbocavernosus (BC) and levator ani (LA) muscles are present in males but absent or severely reduced in females, and the fate of these muscles controls the survival of motoneurons in the sexually dimorphic spinal nucleus of the bulbocavernosus. However, the mechanism underlying the sex difference in BC and LA development has been controversial. We examined the role of cell death in sexual differentiation of the bulbocavernosus BC/LA muscles in mice. Muscle development was mapped from embryonic day 16 (E16) to postnatal day 5 (P5). A sex difference (male > female) first arose on E17 (BC) or E18 (LA), and increased in magnitude postnatally. TUNEL labeling revealed dying cells in the BC and LA muscles of both sexes perinatally. However, females had a significantly higher density of TUNEL-positive cells than did males. A role for the proapoptotic factors, Bax and Bak, in BC/LA development was tested by examining mice lacking one or both of these proteins. In females lacking either Bax or Bak, the BC was absent and the LA rudimentary. Deletion of both bax and bak genes, however, rescued the BC, increased LA size similar to 20-fold relative to controls, and virtually eliminated TUNEL-positive cells in both muscles. We conclude that cell death plays an essential role in sexual differentiation of the BC/LA muscles. The presence of either Bax or Bak is sufficient for cell death in the BC/LA, whereas the absence of both prevents sexually dimorphic muscle cell death. (C) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available