MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529157706 · doi:10.1093/biolreprod/85.s1.185

Sperm Chromatin Fragmentation Occurs at Specific Chromatin Sites.

2011· article· en· W2529157706 on OpenAlexaff
Chris D. R. Arca, Graham D. Johnson, Frédéric Leduc, Guylain Boissonneault, Stephen A. Krawetz, W. Steven Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinBiologyDNADNA fragmentationAgaroseDivalentSpermMolecular biologyGel electrophoresisAgarose gel electrophoresisDeoxyribonuclease IFragmentation (computing)BiophysicsBiochemistryGeneticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously demonstrated that when treated with divalent cations mouse epididymal spermatozoa fragment their DNA by inducing Topoisomerase 2B (TOP2B) to create double strand breaks at 25 kb to 50 kb intervals that can be reversed with EDTA. We term this sperm chromatin fragmentation (SCF). Our evidence supports a model that these DNA breaks occur at the sites of attachment of DNA loop domains to the sperm nuclear matrix. This model implies that the break points caused by TOP2B occur at specific sites in the chromatin. We tested this model using genome-wide DNA sequencing of the break points then verifying the specificity of individual break points using PCR. Epididymal spermatozoa were isolated and embedded in low-melting agarose plugs in a buffer containing 0.25% Triton X-100. The plugs were then treated with 10 mM MnCl2 and 10 mM CaCl2 for 1 hr at 37°C, then either placed directly in a digestion buffer containing 0.5% SDS, or incubated further with 50 mM EDTA for 30 min and then placed in a digestion buffer. The sperm DNA was then separated on agarose gels by field inversion gel electrophoresis. Spermatozoa treated with divalent cations fragmented their DNA to 25 kb to 50 kb sizes (SCF-DNA), but those that were subsequently treated with EDTA repaired the double strand breaks and their DNA remained near the top of the gel (SCFrev-DNA) similarly to control DNA from untreated spermatozoa. Sperm DNA was extracted from gel slices from control, divalent cation treated, and cation then EDTA treated samples. SCF-DNA was isolated and end labeled with biotin. The DNA was then fragmented further to much smaller sizes and biotin labeled fragments were isolated with antibodies to biotin using a method called "dDIP" for DNA damage immunoprecipitation. These fragments were sequenced using high throughput analysis, and mapped in the mouse genome. PCR primers were then developed that spanned the break points of the most frequently identified sequences. Control primers were designed to amplify similar sized fragments adjacent to the break points that would not be expected to be cleaved by SCF. These primers were used to test for the presence of the fragments in control DNA, SCF-DNA and SCFrev-DNA. The genome wide sequencing of SCF-DNA identified 3,004 possible break points. Of these, 43.1% (1,296) were identified more than 10 times, and 21.9% (657) were identified more than 100 times. We then focused on two sites that were identified more than 10,000 times, one on chromosome 9 and the other on chromosome 15. We amplified genomic DNA fragments of similar sizes that both crossed the putative break points, and were adjacent to them. In control DNA, both fragments were present. In SCF-DNA, only the regions adjacent to the break point could be amplified. In SCFrev-DNA, both fragments could be amplified, indicating that the break point was repaired correctly. SCF is a controlled breakage of the entire sperm chromatin to small fragments, but the cleavage sites are at specific points. These data support our model that SCF is the result of TOB2B induced double strand DNA breaks at specific sequences, probably at the sites of DNA attachment to the sperm nuclear matrix. They also indicate that the very condensed sperm chromatin retains enough enzymatic machinery to respond to its environment, which may also contribute to normal embryogenesis. This research was supported in part by NIH grants HD060722 (WSW) and HD36512 (SAK). (platform)

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207