Back

Deletion of an evolutionarily conserved TAD boundary compromises spermatogenesis in mice

Lima, A. C.; Okhovat, M.; Stendahl, A. M.; VanCampen, J.; Nevonen, K. A.; Herrera, J.; Li, W.; Harshman, L.; Yang, R.; Fedorov, L.; Vigh-Conrad, K.; Ahituv, N.; Conrad, D.; Carbone, L.

2024-07-10 genetics
10.1101/2024.07.08.602428 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Spermatogenesis is a complex process that can be disrupted by genetic and epigenetic changes, potentially leading to male infertility. Recent research has rapidly increased the number of protein coding mutations causally linked to impaired spermatogenesis in humans and mice. However, the role of non-coding mutations remains largely unexplored. As a case study to evaluate the effects of non-coding mutations on spermatogenesis, we first identified an evolutionarily conserved topologically associated domain (TAD) boundary near two genes with important roles in mammalian testis function: Dmrtb1 and Lrp8. We then used CRISPR-Cas9 to generate a mouse line where 26kb of the boundary was removed including a strong and evolutionarily conserved CTCF binding site. ChIP-seq and Hi-C experiments confirmed the removal of the CTCF site and a resulting increase in the DNA-DNA interactions across the domain boundary. Mutant mice displayed significant changes in testis gene expression, abnormal testis histology, a 35% drop in the estimated efficiency of spermatogenesis and a 28% decrease in daily sperm production compared to littermate controls. Despite these quantitative changes in testis function, mutant mice show no significant changes in fertility. This suggests that non-coding deletions affecting testis gene regulation may have smaller effects on fertility compared to coding mutations of the same genes. Our results demonstrate that disruption of a TAD boundary can have a negative impact on sperm production and highlight the importance of considering non-coding mutations in the analysis of patients with male infertility.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.