Desiccation and supra-zero temperature storage of cat germinal vesicles lead to less structural damage and similar epigenetic alterations compared to cryopreservation.
H3K4me3
H3K9me3
desiccation
germinal vesicle
nuclear envelope
Journal
Molecular reproduction and development
ISSN: 1098-2795
Titre abrégé: Mol Reprod Dev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8903333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
27
06
2019
accepted:
04
09
2019
pubmed:
25
9
2019
medline:
16
7
2020
entrez:
25
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Understanding cellular and molecular damages in oocytes during exposure to extreme conditions is essential to optimize long-term fertility preservation approaches. Using the domestic cat (Felis catus) model, we are developing drying techniques for oocytes' germinal vesicles (GVs) as a more economical alternative to cryopreservation. The objective of the study was to characterize the influence of desiccation on nuclear envelope conformation, chromatin configuration, and the relative fluorescent intensities of histone H3 trimethylation at lysine 4 (H3K4me3) and at lysine 9 (H3K9me3) compared to vitrification. Results showed that higher proportions of dried/rehydrated GVs maintained normal nuclear envelope conformation and chromatin configuration than vitrified/warmed counterparts. Both preservation methods had a similar influence on epigenetic patterns, lowering H3K4me3 intensity to under 40% while maintaining H3K9me3 levels. Further analysis revealed that the decrease of H3K4me3 intensity mainly occurred during microwave dehydration and subsequent rehydration, whereas sample processing (permeabilization and trehalose exposure) or storage did not significantly affect the epigenetic marker. Moreover, rehydration either directly or stepwise with trehalose solutions did not influence the outcome. This is the first report demonstrating that the incidence of GV damages is lower after desiccation/rehydration than vitrification/warming.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31549479
doi: 10.1002/mrd.23276
pmc: PMC7386781
mid: NIHMS1611654
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1822-1831Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01 OD023139
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH Office of the Director
ID : R01OD023139
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley-Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company.
Références
Cryobiology. 2001 Sep;43(2):168-81
pubmed: 11846471
Genes Dev. 2015 Dec 1;29(23):2449-62
pubmed: 26584620
Hum Reprod. 2011 Aug;26(8):2165-77
pubmed: 21665874
Mol Reprod Dev. 2005 May;71(1):123-8
pubmed: 15736133
Reprod Domest Anim. 2009 Jul;44 Suppl 2:269-74
pubmed: 19754584
Reprod Domest Anim. 2012 Dec;47 Suppl 6:210-4
pubmed: 23279502
Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Regul Mech. 2017 Oct;1860(10):1058-1068
pubmed: 28801151
Biopreserv Biobank. 2015 Jun;13(3):164-71
pubmed: 26035005
Hum Reprod Update. 2015 Mar-Apr;21(2):209-27
pubmed: 25519143
Cryobiology. 2001 Mar;42(2):79-87
pubmed: 11448110
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 May 19;45(9):5126-5141
pubmed: 28175341
Biotechnol Lett. 2016 Mar;38(3):395-402
pubmed: 26588904
Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:87-100
pubmed: 20811827
J Histochem Cytochem. 2013 Jan;61(1):75-89
pubmed: 23019017
Anim Sci J. 2018 Sep;89(9):1253-1260
pubmed: 29943513
Reproduction. 2007 Jan;133(1):85-94
pubmed: 17244735
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 8;106(49):20912-7
pubmed: 19934035
EMBO J. 2005 Jul 6;24(13):2379-90
pubmed: 15944735
Vet Res Commun. 2012 Sep;36(3):165-71
pubmed: 22706936
Mol Hum Reprod. 2009 Jan;15(1):1-9
pubmed: 19019837
Nature. 2016 Sep 22;537(7621):548-552
pubmed: 27626377
FEBS Lett. 2018 Aug;592(15):2594-2611
pubmed: 30019436
Hum Reprod. 2012 Jul;27(7):2160-8
pubmed: 22587994
PLoS Genet. 2018 Nov 28;14(11):e1007812
pubmed: 30485261
Biol Reprod. 2013 Jun 06;88(6):140
pubmed: 23575154
Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2018;336:205-222
pubmed: 29413891
Langmuir. 2019 Jun 11;35(23):7496-7508
pubmed: 30339402
Mol Reprod Dev. 2008 Feb;75(2):345-54
pubmed: 17701993
J Reprod Fertil. 1997 Jul;110(2):355-60
pubmed: 9306990
Nature. 2016 Sep 22;537(7621):553-557
pubmed: 27626382
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 26;113(17):4830-5
pubmed: 27078100
Biopreserv Biobank. 2019;17(1):76-83
pubmed: 30256133
Reprod Domest Anim. 2012 Dec;47 Suppl 6:295-9
pubmed: 23279523
Fertil Steril. 2012 Oct;98(4):1009-16
pubmed: 22818287
Biol Reprod. 2013 Jun 06;88(6):139
pubmed: 23575153
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2010;22(6):920-5
pubmed: 20591326
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 2;8(1):14694
pubmed: 30279538
Cell Rep. 2017 Aug 1;20(5):1161-1172
pubmed: 28768200
J Reprod Dev. 2018 Oct 12;64(5):393-400
pubmed: 29973438
Biopreserv Biobank. 2013 Oct;11(5):278-84
pubmed: 24835259
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Oct;44:90-104
pubmed: 28844405
Nat Cell Biol. 2019 Mar;21(3):319-327
pubmed: 30510156
Genet Mol Res. 2012 Apr 27;11(2):1099-108
pubmed: 22614279
Int J Androl. 1991 Oct;14(5):328-32
pubmed: 1794917
Plant J. 2014 Jul;79(1):67-81
pubmed: 24779858
Cell Stem Cell. 2017 Jul 6;21(1):135-143.e6
pubmed: 28366589
J Biol Chem. 2017 Feb 3;292(5):1798-1807
pubmed: 28031467
Mol Plant. 2014 Mar;7(3):502-13
pubmed: 24482435
Fertil Steril. 2012 Sep;98(3):752-760.e3
pubmed: 22766176
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 17;8(1):6132
pubmed: 29666467
Curr Biol. 2014 Dec 1;24(23):2758-66
pubmed: 25456447
Nat Commun. 2012 Mar 13;3:740
pubmed: 22415831
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2001 Oct;130(3):421-8
pubmed: 11913455
Biol Res. 2018 Aug 20;51(1):27
pubmed: 30124164
Development. 2016 Aug 1;143(15):2767-79
pubmed: 27317807
IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2018 Oct;17(4):485-497
pubmed: 30307873
Genes Dev. 2008 Apr 1;22(7):832-53
pubmed: 18381888
Gamete Res. 1988 Sep;21(1):51-7
pubmed: 2465984