4.4 Article

Simple FISH-based evaluation of spermatic nuclear architecture shows an abnormal chromosomal organization in balanced chromosomal rearrangement carriers

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01736-3

关键词

Sperm nucleus; Nuclear architecture; Chromosomal translocation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Interphasic DNA has a constant three-dimensional conformation, which is particularly striking for spermatic DNA, with distinct chromosomal territories and a constant chromosomal conformation. We hypothesized that this organization is fragile, and that an excess or a lack of chromosomal segments could hinder the genomic structure as a whole. Methods Five human male chromosomal translocation carriers and five controls were included. Spermatic DNA spatial organization was studied, in both balanced and unbalanced spermatozoa, with two-dimensional fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) via analysis of chromosomes not implicated in the cases' translocations, compared to that of normal controls. Two parameters were studied: the distance between the two telomeric ends of chromosome 1, and the area of the chromosomal territories of chromosomes 1 and 17. Results Sperm FISH analysis of rearrangement carriers revealed changes in the nuclear architecture compared to that of controls. Inter-telomeric distance and chromosomal territories areas were both significantly increased. Discussion We show that an excess or lack of chromosomal segments can hinder the normal spatial nuclear architecture in sperm. These results show that nuclear architecture is a fragile assembly, and that local chromosomal abnormalities may impact the nucleus as a whole. This suggests a potential avenue for selection of spermatozoa prior to in vitro fertilization, not only in rearrangement carriers but also in the infertile population at large. Furthermore, we suggest that 2D-FISH could possibly be a useful tool in assessing spermatic nuclear organization in a way to evaluate male fertility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据