MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2069478547 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.112.101402

Rhox5 Rules in an Evolving Saga of Reproductive Diversity

2012· letter· en· W2069478547 sur OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey L. Hammond

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiology of Reproduction · 2012
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyDiversity (politics)Evolutionary biologyZoologyComputational biologyAnthropology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Homeobox (Hox) genes encode several subfamilies of nuclear proteins with structurally conserved helix-turn-helix domains that recognize specific DNA sequences [1]. As transcription factors, HOX family members control key events during early development, influencing the organization of body patterning and tissue structures in all species of the animal kingdom from invertebrates to humans [1, 2]. In fully developed organisms, Hox genes contribute to tissue damage and repair mechanisms by controlling apoptosis, receptor signaling, differentiation, motility, and angiogenesis; when expressed abnormally, these activities can have oncogenic consequences [3]. Rhox5 was first identified by Wilkinson et al. [4] as an oncofetal gene (originally called Pem because it was expressed in placenta and embryos) that influenced the progression of Tcell lymphomas to their oncogenic phenotype. During the decade following its discovery, Pem was classified as an orphan member of the Hox gene family that is selectively expressed in reproductive tissues. It therefore followed that Pem was renamed Rhox5 when it was located within a syntenically conserved cluster of other, related reproductive Hox genes on the mouse X chromosome, which was dubbed the Rhox gene family locus in a groundbreaking report in 2005 [5]. In the intervening years, MacLean, Wilkinson, and their colleagues defined the roles of Rhox genes in reproductive tissues [6]. In an elegant report published in the current issue of Biology of Reproduction, MacLean et al. [7] have integrated the power of mouse genetics with the emerging discipline of comparative genomics to gain insight into how Rhox gene expression is regulated within specific regions of the epididymis. The rodent epididymis is ideal for these studies because of its well-established segmentation into three anatomically and functionally distinct regions; the head, or caput; the main body, or corpus; and the tail, or cauda. Over the ;16M years since the Mus/Rattus evolutionary divergence, the segmented anatomical arrangement of the rodent epididymis has remained intact, but each of the segments has acquired distinct roles in terms of the maturation and storage of spermatozoa in the different species. In a clear example of this, the caput epididymidis of mice plays a key role in sperm maturation and the acquisition of forward motility, whereas this occurs in the rat cauda epididymidis, which is normally considered to be a site of sperm storage. Building on a previous finding that the sperm of Rhox5 null mice lack forward motility [5], MacLean et al. [7] embarked on a series of experiments. Their results now show that Rhox5 is a master regulator of many other members of the X-linked Rhox gene cluster in the mouse caput epididymidis and that it acts in almost the same way in the rat cauda epididymidis. This remarkable evolutionary shift in the Rhox5-dominated regionspecific expression of Rhox genes in the rodent epididymis sets the stage for additional experiments that promise to provide insight into mechanisms responsible for the functional maturation of sperm. Comparative studies of gene expression profiles of different segments of the rat and mouse epididymis have already been performed [8], and similar studies will undoubtedly follow in mice with either a functional or a disrupted Rhox5 gene. This should help define whether Rhox5 or other members of the Rhox family act directly or indirectly by controlling spatially defined networks of genes to explain why sperm from the mouse caput and corpus epididymidis are functionally much more mature than rat sperm taken from the same anatomical locations. These types of studies integrate the power of comparative genomics with a wealth of information about the functional diversity of reproductive tissues in two closely related species, and they offer huge potential for the discovery of key mechanisms that control male fertility. In this context, the report by MacLean et al. [7] is a harbinger of many other such studies that will follow in the wake of the Genome10K Project (http://www.genome10k.org), which sets out to assemble the genomic DNA sequences of 10 000 vertebrate species and to thereby cover every vertebrate genus. When overlaid on the well-documented diversity in reproductive strategies within the animal kingdom and the remarkable evolutionary divergence of reproductive anatomy and physiology that occurs in even the most closely related of species, these genomic data sets are in essence the virtual keys that may allow us to unlock many of the secrets that have long eluded reproductive biologists. This new age of comparative genomics is fast approaching, and it will have a huge impact on fields like reproductive biology, where sometimes dramatic biological adaptations have occurred in concert with rapid evolutionarily changes in the sequences of genes, like the Rhox family. It can be anticipated that these rapidly evolving genes will surface as the drivers or mediators of adaptive mechanisms that have ensured the diversity and, ultimately, the survival of species. Most important, these advances in knowledge are poised to occur quickly and can be expected to reveal new and unexpected ways of modifying the fertility of different species across the animal kingdom.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,267
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,739

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiology of ReproductionMême sujetGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesTravaux en français237 207