3.9 Article

The effect of a sertoli cell-selective knockout of the androgen receptor on testicular gene expression in prepubertal mice

期刊

MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 321-334

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1210/me.2005-0113

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U127684422, U.1276.00.002.00003.01 (85841), MC_U127685844, MC_U127685841] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U127685844, MC_U127685841, MC_U127684422] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U127685844, MC_U127685841, MC_U127684422] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To unravel the molecular mechanisms mediating the effects of androgens on spermatogenesis, testicular gene expression was compared in mice with Sertoli cell-selective androgen receptor knockout (SCARKO) and littermate controls on postnatal d 10. Microarray analysis identified 692 genes with significant differences in expression. Of these, 28 appeared to be down-regulated and 12 up-regulated at least 2-fold in SCARKOs compared with controls. For nine of the more than 2-fold down-regulated genes, androgen regulation was confirmed by treatment of wild-type mice with an antiandrogen ( flutamide). Some of them were previously described to be androgen regulated or essential for spermatogenesis. Serine-type protease inhibitors were markedly overrepresented in this down-regulated subgroup. A time study (d 8-20), followed by cluster analysis, allowed identification of distinct expression patterns of differentially expressed genes. Three genes with a pattern closely resembling that of Pem, a prototypical an-drogen-regulated gene expressed in Sertoli cells, were selected for confirmation by quantitative RTPCR and additional analysis. The data confirm that the SCARKO model allows identification of novel androgen-regulated genes in the testis. Moreover, they suggest that protease inhibitors and other proteins related to tubular restructuring and cell junction dynamics may be controlled in part by androgens.

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

3.9
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