MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547804365 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab26

26 ABERRANT REPROGRAMMING OF IMPRINTED GENE EXPRESSION IN ENLARGED PLACENTAS OF MICE CLONED FROM ES CELLS TREATED WITH TSA OR 5AZAC

2004· article· en· W1547804365 on OpenAlexafffund
Senan Baqir, Qian Zhou, Alice Jouneau, J.P. Renard, Dean H. Betts, Lawrence C. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Guelph
FundersInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsGenomic imprintingBiologyDNA methylationReprogrammingEpigeneticsMolecular biologyXISTGeneGene expressionSomatic cell nuclear transferHistoneHousekeeping geneAndrologyGeneticsX-inactivationBlastocystX chromosomeEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success rate of producing cloned animals is very low, and in many cases is associated with the formation of enlarged placentas. Increasing evidence has pointed towards epigenetic deregulation of imprinted genes due to incomplete or abnormal resetting of DNA methylation and/or histone acetylation patterns during development. It has previously been shown that drugs that alter DNA methylation (5AzaC) and histone acetylation (TSA) over-express imprinted genes in mouse ES cells (Baqir and Smith, 2001, Theriogenology 55, 410). Our objective in this study was to determine whether nuclear transfer is able to reprogram imprinted gene expression patterns in the placenta of mice cloned from ES donor nuclei exposed to 5AzaC and TSA. ES donor cells were treated with either TSA or 5AzaC prior to injection into enucleated oocytes. Total RNA was extracted from placentas of day 14–15 fetus clones, and reversed transcribed; the expression pattern of imprinted genes (Ipl, Mash2, Igf2, H19, Igf2r, p57, Peg1), non-imprinted placental-specific genes (Esx1, Dlx3, Tpbp) and a housekeeping gene (Gapdh) was examined by Real Time PCR. Samples were standardized with an exogenous control (Globin) and expressed as fold changes in relation to placentas of cloned fetus derived from non-treated donor cells. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and mean gene expression values were compared using the Tukey-Kramer test. Our results show that several imprinted genes (Mash2, H19, Ipl) and placenta-specific genes (Esx1 and Dlx1) were properly reprogrammed in non-enlarged (71 mg) placentas of fetus clones derived from the TSA and 5AzaC treated ES donor cells. Although Gapdh expression did not differ among normal and enlarged 210 mg) placenta groups, the expression level of Igf2 and Mash2 was higher in enlarged placentas from fetus clones produced from TSA-treated ES donor cells (4.6 and 3.5 fold) compared to non-enlarged placentas from non-treated ES cells (1 fold). Conversely, oversized placentas from cloned fetuses derived from TSA-treated donor ES cells under-expressed Peg1, H19 and Ipl (0.5, 0.2 and 0.2 fold, respectively) compared to control placentas (1 fold). In addition, enlarged placentas from the TSA- and 5AzaC-treated group displayed down-regulation of placenta specific genes Esx1 and Dlx3 and up-regulation of Tpbp, suggesting the presence of abnormal distribution of placental layers. These results indicate that while several imprinted and non-imprinted placenta specific genes were correctly expressed in normal size placentas of fetus clones derived from TSA and 5AzaC treated donor ES cells, enlarged placentas displayed aberrant gene expression patterns, suggesting that improper resetting of the epigenetic program after nuclear transfer is directly related to altered DNA methylation and histone acetylation patterns. Funded by NSERC & CIHR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207