4.7 Article

Non-Canonical and Sexually Dimorphic X Dosage Compensation States in the Mouse and Human Germline

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL CELL
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 289-301

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2016.12.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. Francis Crick Institute from Cancer Research UK
  2. UK Medical Research Council [U117588498]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. NIHR Clinical Lectureship
  5. Academy of Medical Sciences grant [AMS-SGCL5]
  6. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) [AMS-SGCL5-Sangrithi] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_U117588498] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2010-18-003, ACF-2007-18-013] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. The Francis Crick Institute [10415, 10193] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. MRC [MC_U117588498] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Somatic X dosage compensation requires two mechanisms: X inactivation balances X gene output between males (XY) and females (XX), while X upregulation, hypothesized by Ohno and documented in vivo, balances X gene with autosomal gene output. Whether X dosage compensation occurs in germ cells is unclear. We show that mouse and human germ cells exhibit non-canonical X dosage states that differ from the soma and between the sexes. Prior to genome-wide reprogramming, X upregulation is present, consistent with Ohno's hypothesis. Subsequently, however, it is erased. In females, erasure follows loss of X inactivation, causing X dosage excess. Conversely, in males, erasure leads to permanent X dosage decompensation. Sex chromosomally abnormal models exhibit a sex-reversed X dosage state: XX males, like XX females, develop X dosage excess, while XO females, like XY males, develop X dosage decompensation. Thus, germline X dosage compensation states are determined by X chromosome number, not phenotypic sex. These unexpected differences in X dosage compensation states between germline and soma offer unique perspectives on sex chromosome infertility.

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

4.7
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