Human Genetics

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 64–70

A test of the production line hypothesis of mammalian oogenesis

  • Paul E. Polani
  • John A. Crolla
Original Investigations

Summary

Germ cells in female mammals become committed to meiosis and enter its prophase sequentially in fetal life and, according to the Production Line Hypothesis, the oocytes thus generated are released after puberty as mature ova in the same sequence as that of meiotic entry in fetu. This hypothesis in its original and complete form has a subordinate proposition that concerns chiasma (Xma) frequency; it postulates that Xma number would decrease with fetal age. Consequently, univalents would increase, leading to errors of chromosome disjunction at the first meiotic division (MI), and thus to maternal age-dependent numerical chromosome anomalies. By using an in vitro/in vivo approach, we radioactively labelled the DNA of germ cells at premeiotic synthesis as they sequentially entered meiosis, while the fetal ovaries were in culture. At the end of this in vitro phase, pachytene/diplotene (P/D) stages were studied to determine their labelled fraction. The ovaries were then transplanted to spayed females and, after the in vivo phase, mature ova were harvested and the proportion of labelled first and second meiotic metaphases (MI/MII) determined. By marking the germ cells with label while in vitro during periods equivalent to early and late gestation, and by comparing the observed proportions of labelled MI/MII with those of oocytes labelled at P/D, we concluded that, in the mouse, ova do not mature at random for release, but are formed according to a production line system in which the time of release after puberty is related to the time of entry into meiosis in fetu.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beermann F, Bartels I, Franke U, Hansmann I (1987) Chromosome segregation at meiosis I in female T (2;4)1Go/+mice: no evidence for a decreased crossover frequency with maternal age. Chromosoma 95:1–7Google Scholar
  2. Bodmer WF (1961) Effects of maternal age on the incidence of congenital abnormalities in mouse and man. Nature 190:1134–1135Google Scholar
  3. Boer P de, Hoeven FA van der (1980) The use of translocation-derived “marker-bivalents” for studying the origin of meiotic instability in female mice. Cytogenet Cell Genet 26:49–58Google Scholar
  4. Bond DJ, Chandley AC (1983) Aneuploidy. (Oxford monographs on medical genetics 11) Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–76Google Scholar
  5. Gude WD (1968) Autoradiographic techniques: localization of radioisotopes in biological material. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Henderson SA (1969) Chromosome pairing, chiasmata and crossing-over. In: Lima-de-Faria A (ed) Handbook of molecular cytology. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 326–357Google Scholar
  7. Henderson SA (1970) The time and place of meiotic crossing-over. Annu Rev Genet 4:295–324Google Scholar
  8. Henderson SA, Edwards RG (1968) Chiasma frequency and maternal age in mammals. Nature 218:22–28Google Scholar
  9. Hummler E, Theuring F, Hansmann I (1987) Meiotic nondisjunction in oocytes from aged Djungarian hamsters correlates with an alteration in meiosis rate but not in univalent formation. Hum Genet 76:357–364Google Scholar
  10. Jagiello G, Fang JS (1979) Analyses of diplotene chiasma frequencies in mouse oocytes and spermatocytes in relation to ageing and sexual dimorphism. Cytogenet Cell Genet 23:53–60Google Scholar
  11. John B (1990) Meiosis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 70–73Google Scholar
  12. Luthardt FW, Palmer CG, Yu P-L (1973) Chiasma and univalent frequencies in aging female mice. Cytogenet Cell Genet 12:68–79Google Scholar
  13. Peters H, McNatty KP (1980) The ovary. A correlation of structure and function in mammals. Granada, London, p 15Google Scholar
  14. Polani PE (1981) Chiasmata, Down syndrome and nondisjunction: an overview. In: Cruz F de la, Gerald PS (eds) Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) research perspectives. University Park Press, Balitmore, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  15. Polani PE, Jagiello GM (1976) Chiasmata, meiotic univalents and age in relation to aneuploid imbalance in mice. Cytogenet Cell Genet 16:505–529Google Scholar
  16. Polani PE, Crolla JA, Seller MJ, Moir F (1979) Meiotic crossing over exchange in the female mouse visualised by BUdR substitution. Nature 278:348–349Google Scholar
  17. Polani PE, Crolla JA, Seller MJ (1981) An experimental approach to female mammalian meiosis: differential chromosome labelling and an analysis of chiasmata in the female mouse. In: Jagiello G, Vogel HJ (eds) Bioregulators of reproduction. (P & S biomedical sciences symposia series) Academic Press, New York, pp 59–97Google Scholar
  18. Perroni L, Bricarelli D, Grasso M, Pierluigi M, Baldi M, Pedemonte C, Strigini P (1990) Crossing over and chromosome 21 nondisjunction: a study of 60 families. Am J Med Genet 7 [Suppl]:141–147Google Scholar
  19. Reid DH, Parsons PA (1963) Sex of parent and variation of recombination with age in the mouse. Heredity 18:107–108Google Scholar
  20. Sherman SL, Takaesu N, Freeman S, Phillips C, Blackston RD, Kanta BJ, Jacobs PA, Cockwell AE, Kurnitt D, Uchida I, Hassold TJ (1990) Trisomy 21: association between reduced recombination and non-disjunction. Am J Hum Genet 47:A97Google Scholar
  21. Slizynski BM (1960) Sexual dimorphism in mouse gametogenesis. Genet Res 1:477–486Google Scholar
  22. Speed RM (1977) The effects of ageing on the meiotic chromosomes of male and female mice. Chromosoma 64:241–254Google Scholar
  23. Speed RM, Chandley AC (1983) Meiosis in the fetal mouse ovary. II. Oocyte development and age related aneuploidy. Does a production line exist? Chromosoma 88:184–189Google Scholar
  24. Sugawara S, Mikamo K (1983) Absence of correlation between univalent formation and meiotic nondisjunction in aged female Chinese hamsters. Cytogenet Cell Genet 35:34–40Google Scholar
  25. Sugawara S, Mikamo K (1986) Maternal ageing and nondisjunction: a comparative study of two chromosomal techniques on the formation of univalents in first meiotic metaphase oocytes of the mouse. Chromosoma 93:321–325Google Scholar
  26. Takaesu N, Jacobs PA, Cockwell A, Blackston RD, Freeman S, Nuccio J, Kurnit DM, Uchida I, Freeman V, Hassold T (1990) Nondisjunction of chromosome 21. Am J Med Genet 7 [Suppl]:175–181Google Scholar
  27. Tanzi RE, Haines JL, Gusella JF (1990) Detailed genetic linkage map of human chromosome 21: patterns of recombination according to age and sex. Prog Clin Biol Res 360: pp 15–26Google Scholar
  28. Tarkowski AK (1966) An airdrying method for chromosome preparations for mouse eggs. Cytogenetics 5:394–400Google Scholar
  29. Tease C, Fisher G (1986) Further examination of the productionline hypothesis in mouse foetal oocytes. I. Inversion heterozygotes. Chromosoma 93:447–452Google Scholar
  30. Tease C, Fisher G (1989) Further examination of the production-line hypothesis in mouse foetal oocytes. II. T(14;15) 6Ca heterozygotes. Chromosoma 97:315–320Google Scholar
  31. Wallace ME, MacSwiney FJ, Edwards RG (1976) Parental age and recombination frequency in the house mouse. Genet Res 28:241–251Google Scholar
  32. Warren AC, Chakravarti A, Wong C, Slaugenhaupt SA, Halloran SL, Watkins PC, Metaxotou C, Antonarakis SE (1987) Evidence for reduced recombination on the nondisjoined chromosomes 21 in Down syndrome. Science 237:652–654Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. Polani
    • 1
  • John A. Crolla
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Paediatric Research UnitUnited Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's HospitalsLondonUK
  2. 2.“Little Meadow”SurreyUK
  3. 3.Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, General HospitalSalisburyUK

Personalised recommendations