Advertisement

Chromosome Research

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 511–527 | Cite as

Meiotic pairing and gene expression disturbance in germ cells from an infertile boar with a balanced reciprocal autosome-autosome translocation

  • Harmonie Barasc
  • Annabelle Congras
  • Nicolas Mary
  • Lidwine Trouilh
  • Valentine Marquet
  • Stéphane Ferchaud
  • Isabelle Raymond-Letron
  • Anne Calgaro
  • Anne-Marie Loustau-Dudez
  • Nathalie Mouney-Bonnet
  • Hervé Acloque
  • Alain Ducos
  • Alain Pinton
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Individuals carrying balanced constitutional reciprocal translocations generally have a normal phenotype, but often present reproductive disorders. The aim of our research was to analyze the meiotic process in an oligoasthenoteratospermic boar carrying an asymmetric reciprocal translocation involving chromosomes 1 and 14. Different multivalent structures (quadrivalent and trivalent plus univalent) were identified during chromosome pairing analysis. Some of these multivalents were characterized by the presence of unpaired autosomal segments with histone γH2AX accumulation sometimes associated with the XY body. Gene expression in spermatocytes was studied by RNA-DNA-FISH and microarray-based testis transcriptome analysis. Our results revealed a decrease in gene expression for chromosomes 1 and 14 and an up-regulated expression of X-chromosome genes for the translocated boar compared with normal individuals. We hypothesized that the observed meiotic arrest and reproductive failure in this boar might be due to silencing of crucial autosomal genes (MSUC) and disturbance of meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). Further analysis revealed abnormal meiotic recombination (frequency and distribution) and the production of a high rate of unbalanced spermatozoa.

Keywords

Infertility Meiosis Reciprocal translocation MSUC Recombination MSCI disturbance 

Abbreviations

AMCA

1-Amino-4-methylcoumarin-3-acetic acid

BAC

Bacterial artificial chromosome

CO

Crossing-over

DE

Differentially expressed

FISH

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FITC

Fluorescein isothiocyanate

HRP

Horse radish peroxidase

ICE

Interchromosomal effect

INRA

National Institute for Agricultural Research

lfc

Log-fold change

LH

Luteinizing hormone

MLH1

mutL homolog 1

MSCI

Meiotic sex chromosome inactivation

MSUC

Meiotic silencing of unsynapsed chromatin

OAT

Oligoasthenoteratospermia

PCA

Principal component analysis

PER V

Porcine endogenous retrovirus

SC

Synaptonemal complex

SCP1

Synaptonemal complex proteins 1

SCP3

Synaptonemal complex proteins 3

Introduction

Balanced constitutional reciprocal translocations are the most commonly identified structural chromosomal rearrangements in humans and pigs (frequencies of 0.1 and 0.4 %, respectively—Benet et al. 2005; Ducos et al. 2007). Although carriers are generally phenotypically normal, such rearrangements frequently lead to reproductive disorders. Indeed, the prevalence of reciprocal translocations is about 10 times higher in infertile men and some carriers present spermatogenesis disturbances leading to oligospermia or azoospermia, sometimes associated with teratosermia and/or asthenospermia (Dong et al. 2012; Mau-Holzmann 2005; Van Assche et al. 1996). Reciprocal translocations are also responsible for recurrent miscarriages and congenital defects in the offspring of carrier parents (Benet et al. 2005).

In reciprocal translocation heterozygotes, homologous regions of the normal and derivative chromosomes involved in the rearrangement pair during the prophase of the first meiotic division, due to the synaptonemal complex (SC), and form a particular structure called a multivalent (Oliver-Bonet et al. 2005; Villagomez and Pinton 2008). In some cases, chromosomal regions within the multivalent, especially around the breakpoints, remain unsynapsed which may trigger meiosis checkpoints leading to spermatogenesis arrest at the pachytene stage (MacQueen and Hochwagen 2011; Roeder and Bailis 2000). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such effects of pairing failure on gametogenesis. The first concerns altered transcription of the genes located on the unpaired segments. Indeed, studies in mice revealed transcriptional repression of unpaired regions by a specific mechanism called “meiotic silencing of unsynapsed chromatin” (MSUC) in individuals with partial or total spermatogenesis arrest (Turner et al. 2005). If some genes essential to the correct course of meiosis are located in these unsynapsed regions of the genome, MSUC may lead to the halting of meiotic division. Secondly, associations between the quadrivalent and the XY bivalent, which is transcriptionally silenced by a phenomenon known as meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI, Turner 2007), were also observed in individuals with altered semen parameters (azoospermic or oligospermic) (Oliver-Bonet et al. 2005; Sciurano et al. 2007, 2012). Such an association could result in partial reactivation of the XY body, leading to the expression of some genes located on the X chromosome (Lifschytz and Lindsley 1972) or spreading of XY body inactivation towards the autosomal segments attached to the XY body, without reactivation of this latter (Jaafar et al. 1993). Both mechanisms induce abnormal genetic expression, possibly responsible for gametogenesis failure. Both hypotheses were confirmed by Homolka et al. (2007) who simultaneously observed the reactivation of some X chromosome genes and the repression of autosomal genes located on unpaired segments, in a case of autosomal reciprocal translocation in mice.

Apart from the above-mentioned potential spermatogenesis failure, reciprocal translocations are systematically responsible for the production of genetically unbalanced gametes (Benet et al. 2005), which can subsequently be responsible for the reported miscarriages (embryonic mortality) or newborn defects. Indeed, chromosomes in the quadrivalent may segregate via different mechanisms (i.e., alternate, adjacent I, adjacent II, 3:1 and 4:0), resulting in the possible production of 18 different types of gametes. Only some types of segregation mechanisms produce genetically balanced gametes which contain either the two normal or the two derivative chromosomes (i.e., alternate segregation, or adjacent I segregation with a crossing-over (CO) in the interstitial regions of the quadrivalent—Benet et al. 2005; Sybenga 1975). The frequencies of the different modes of segregation can vary from one translocation to another and depend on the number and distribution of meiotic recombination sites on the quadrivalents, which, in turn, determine their configurations between prophase I and anaphase (chain or ring) (Faraut et al. 2000). Reciprocal translocations can also lead to disturbances in meiotic recombination. These disturbances may only concern the chromosomes involved in the rearrangement. A decreased number of mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) foci on the quadrivalent, as compared to the corresponding bivalents, has been reported for different translocations (Ferguson et al. 2008; Leng et al. 2009; Oliver-Bonet et al. 2005; Pigozzi et al. 2005a). Such disturbances may also be more general and affect the segregation of other chromosomes, leading to aneuploid gametes. On some occasions, the percentage of aneuploidy is inversely correlated to the ejaculated sperm concentration (Douet-Guilbert et al. 2005; Rives et al. 1999; Vegetti et al. 2000).

In the cases of autosome-autosome translocations in pigs, the semen parameters of carriers were generally normal, and SC analyses did not reveal any particular chromosome pairing behavior which could explain meiotic cell death (Villagomez and Pinton 2008). In fact, reciprocal chromosome translocations in the pig species tend to undergo heterosynapsis during the early pachytene stages, a germ cell mechanism avoiding apoptosis and subsequent meiotic arrest (Gabriel-Robez et al. 1988; Jaafar et al. 1992; Villagomez et al. 1993).

Here, we report for the first time in pigs a case of autosome-autosome translocation associated with oligoasthenoteratospermia (OAT) and characterized by the presence of a tiny derivative chromosome prone to disrupted meiotic pairing.

Materials and methods

Animals

The reciprocal translocation t(1;14) was initially identified during national systematic controls of young boars to be used in artificial insemination centers. The carrier individual (Landrace × Duroc crossbred boar) was phenotypically normal, but presented abnormal semen parameters: 19 × 106 spz/mL (instead of 250 × 106, on average, in normal individuals), with only 5 % of live spermatozoa with good motility and 78 and 66 % with acrosome and distal droplets abnormalities, respectively. Plasmatic levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), progesterone, testosterone, and androstenedione were within normal ranges (0.1 ng/mL, 1 nmol/L, 22 nmol/L, and 9 nmol/L, respectively). Five sows were inseminated with sperm from this boar, but no pregnancy could be obtained.

Testicular samples were collected by surgical hemi-castration. Pre-anesthesia (intramuscular injection of ketamine, 10 mg/kg; Virbac, Carros, France) was followed by inhalation anesthesia (isoflurane; Virbac, Carros, France). Post-operative follow-up was carried out in a recovery room adjacent to the operating facility. The animal was monitored until he recovered approximately 15 min after the operation. Castration was minimally invasive. Pain was relieved by an intramuscular injection of Finadyne (2 mg/50 kg; MSD Sante animale, Beaucouze, France) which completed the pre-anesthetic analgesia. The times of first getting up and first meal were monitored, and the healing process was controlled daily for 2 weeks.

Cytogenetic and molecular characterization of breakpoints

Classical cytogenetic analysis (GTG banding) resulted in the identification of a highly asymmetrical reciprocal translocation involving the chromosomes Sus Scrofa chromosome 1 (SSC1) and 14 (SSC14).

The chromosomal breakpoints were finely localized by an array painting technique as described by Gribble et al. (2009). The two derivative chromosomes (114 and 141) (10 copies of each) were isolated from the GTG-banded metaphases by mechanical microdissection and their DNA amplified using the PicoPLEX WGA Kit (New Egland Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). The specificity of this material was controlled on normal metaphases by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (Pinton et al. 2003).

The amplified DNA samples were differentially labeled with dUTP cyanine 3 (114 chromosome) and dUTP cyanine 5 (141 chromosome) and co-hybridized onto a pan-genomic custom chip of 4.2-M probes (Roche NimbleGen, Madison, WI, USA), designed from the porcine reference genome Sscrofa10.2. The microarray was then scanned, and the log2 ratios calculated from the intensities were plotted against chromosome position. The translocation breakpoints were defined as the positions where the log2 ratios changed from high to low ratios (or vice versa). The data were then confirmed by FISH using bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones selected in the two breakpoint regions. The BACs CH242-298E5 (SSC1) and SBAB-234D5 (SSC14) were labeled with biotin using the BioPrime DNA Labeling System kit (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and revealed by Alexa 594 conjugated to streptavidin (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA).

Histopathological analysis of the testis sample

Testis samples were fixed in 10 % buffered formalin for 48 h before routine processing. Four-micrometer-thick paraffin sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin.

Anti-caspase-3a immunohistochemistry was performed as already described (Cheat et al. 2015) with an active caspase-3 antibody at 1:300 dilution (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA).

Briefly, 4-μm paraffin-embedded sections from a testis were dewaxed in toluene and rehydrated first in an acetone bath then in deionized water. Antigen retrieval was carried out in 10 mM citrate buffer at pH 6.0 for 30 min in a water bath at 95 °C. The cooled sections were then incubated in Dako peroxidase blocking solution (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) to quench any endogenous peroxidase activity. Non-specific binding was blocked by incubation in normal goat serum at 1:10 dilution (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) for 20 min at room temperature (RT). The primary antibody was anti-active caspase-3 (dilution 1:300) (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Sections were incubated with primary antibodies for 50 min at RT. Bound primary antibodies were detected with EnVision™ + Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP) Systems (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) for 30 min at RT. Peroxidase activity was revealed by 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride substrate (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). Finally, the sections were counterstained with Harris hematoxylin, dehydrated, and coverslipped.

Analysis of meiotic pairing

Immunocytology

Meiotic cells were prepared as described by Pinton et al. (2008) with some modifications. Detection of the synaptonemal complex proteins 3 (SCP3) and 1 (SCP1) and centromeres was carried out before immunostaining the γH2AX protein.

The meiotic proteins were immunolocalized using antibodies at 1:100 dilution in PBT (1× phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), 0.15 % bovine serum albumin (BSA), and 0.1 % Tween 20) as follows. First, the SCP1 and centromeres were detected using the following primary antibodies: rabbit anti-SCP1 (Abcan, Cambridge, UK) and human anti-centromere (Antibodies Incorporated, Davis, CA, USA). Secondary antibodies consisted of DyLight 488 conjugated goat anti-rabbit (KPL, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) and 1-amino-4-methylcoumarin-3-acetic acid (AMCA) conjugated donkey anti-human (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, Grove, PA, USA). Secondly, SCP3 was detected using rabbit anti-SCP3 (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and then revealed with secondary antibody Alexa 594 conjugated donkey anti-rabbit (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA). Spermatocytes were captured using a Zeiss Imager Z2 microscope with CytoVision imaging system (Leica Microsystemes, Nanterre, France). Finally, the γH2AX protein was detected using mouse anti-γH2AX (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and Alexa 488 conjugated goat anti-mouse (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) antibodies.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

After SC analysis, the same cells were subjected to FISH with BAC clones (SBAB-428G6, SBAB-413G8, SBAB-498D8 from the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) BAC library) (Rogel-Gaillard et al. 1999): one was located in the telomeric region of the SSC1 p arm (labeled with biotin), and two were located on SSC14, one in the telomeric region (labeled with digoxigenin) and the other in the centromeric region (containing porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) sequences, differentially labeled with biotin and digoxigenin). These BAC clones were labeled using the BioPrime DNA Labeling System kit (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and revealed by Alexa 594 conjugated to streptavidin (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) and fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugated mouse anti-digoxygenin antibodies (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA). FISH signals from the same cells for which SCs had previously been analyzed were captured and evaluated using an Imager Z2 microscope with CytoVision imaging system (Leica Microsystemes, Nanterre, France).

Recombination analysis

Analysis of meiotic recombination was carried out as described by (Mary et al. 2014). The quadrivalent was identified using the BAC clones previously mentioned in the “Fluorescence in situ hybridization” section. The images were analyzed using MicroMeasure 3.3 software (Reeves 2001) to determine the length of the SCs, as well as the positions of the centromeres and recombination sites (MLH1 foci).

RNA-DNA FISH and fluorescence immunostaining of the γH2AX protein

PERV RNA-DNA FISH, coupled with immunolocalization of the γH2AX protein, was performed as described by Barasc et al. (2012). RNA integrity was preserved by carrying out the PERV RNA-FISH experiment before the immunostaining and PERV DNA-FISH.

Microarrays for gene expression analysis

Total RNAs were extracted from testis samples from three fertile control boars with normal semen parameters (Supplementary Table 1) and from the t(1;14) boar using the method described in Congras et al. (2014). Three independent extractions from three samples were performed for each animal. RNA quantity and quality were measured by NanoDrop dosage and Bioanalyzer analysis (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Samples were then labeled with cyanine 3 fluorochrome and converted into complementary DNA (cDNA) before hybridization on the 60K customized porcine microarray from Agilent (Congras et al. 2016). Only spots of sufficient intensity and quality for at least two out of three technical replicates were retained. Intensity values were log-transformed, normalized by quantile normalization method, then subjected to differential analysis using the Limma package (Bioconductor). The selected threshold parameters were 0.01 for the maximal adjusted p value (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) and 2 for the minimal log-fold change (lfc).

Probes were mapped along the chromosomes by aligning all the microarray probe sequences on the pig reference genome (SGSC Sscrofa10.2/susScr3) using Blat software (Kent 2002) and then plotting the differentially expressed (DE) probes along the chromosome coordinates together with their Log2 ratio (microarray GEO accession codes: GSE80693)

Analysis of gene expression in the testis by real-time PCR

Total RNAs used for the microarray study were converted to cDNA with Superscript II Reverse Transcriptase (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Expression analysis of six genes located on the X chromosome and up-regulated in the microarray analysis was carried out by real-time qPCR using the primers listed in Supplementary Table 2 and the Mx3005P Real-Time PCR System from Agilent Technologies. Results were analyzed by the 2ΔΔCt method and statistical t test. RPL4 was used as the reference gene for relative quantification (Congras et al. 2016).

Sperm FISH analyses

Sperm was prepared as reported by Bonnet-Garnier et al. (2009)

Meiotic segregation profiles

Sperm FISH analyses were carried out using the above-mentioned BAC clones as described in the Fluorescence in situ hybridization” section. The signals from 1582 spermatozoa heads were analyzed.

Interchromosomal effects

Painting probes were used for chromosomes SSCX and SSCY and for the autosomal controls SSC13 and SSC18. These probes were produced by degenerate oligonucleotide-primed polymerase chain reaction from flow sorted (SSC13, SSC18, and SSCY) or microdissected (SSCX) chromosomes. The SSCX probe was labeled with biotin, the SSCY probe with biotin and digoxigenin, and chromosomes 13 and 18 with digoxigenin. Biotin-labeled probes were revealed in red using Alexa 594 conjugated to streptavidin and amplified with rabbit anti-streptavidin coupled to Texas Red (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and Alexa 594 conjugated donkey anti-rabbit antibodies. Digoxigenin-labeled probes were revealed in green by FITC conjugated mouse anti-digoxigenin and amplified with Alexa 488 conjugated goat anti-mouse and donkey anti-goat coupled to Alexa 488 (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) antibodies.

Slides were analyzed under a Zeiss microscope fitted with a triple bandpass filter. More than 10,000 sperm nuclei were scored for each experiment. Only spermatozoa with signals of equivalent intensity and separated by a distance at least the size of one signal were counted.

Statistical analysis (R software, Ihaka and Gentleman 1996)

Differences in the relative SC lengths in SSC1 and SSC14 between the translocated boar and controls were examined by applying the Wilcoxon test. The same test was used to compare the number of MLH1 foci (per cell, as well as on chromosomes 1 and 14) between the translocated boar and controls. The MLH1 distributions on SSC1 and SSC14 were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For the sperm FISH results, a classical 2 × 2 chi-square test with Yates continuity correction was used to compare the proportions of each sperm category in the t(1;14) boar and a control boar. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Molecular characterization of the breakpoints

Analysis of the GTG-banded karyotypes revealed a balanced reciprocal translocation between the q arm of one SSC1 chromosome and the q arm of one SSC14 chromosome (Fig. 1a). The breakpoint on SSC1 was very distal (q2.11 band), whereas the breakpoint on the acrocentric chromosome was located close to the centromere (q1.2 band). The array painting experiment accurately located the breakpoints at positions 293 924 898 (SSC1) and 148 080 (SSC14) (Fig. 1b) of the pig sequence assembly (Sscrofa10.2). These array painting results were confirmed by selecting BAC clones in the regions overlapping the breakpoints on both chromosomes and hybridizing them on to metaphases of the (1;14) boar (Fig. 1c). The hybridization signals for the two BAC probes were indeed observed to split on the two derivative chromosomes, thereby confirming the breakpoint positions.
Fig. 1

Characterization of the chromosomal rearrangement. a GTG-banded karyotype of the boar carrying a t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2) translocation. Arrows indicate the locations of the breakpoints on the derivative chromosomes. b Array painting of derivative chromosomes 1 and 14 on a custom 4.2-M whole genome array designed from the porcine sequence Sscrofa10.2. Transitions in the hybridization profiles indicate the chromosome breakpoints: positions 293 924 898 (SSC1) (B1) and 148 080 (SSC14) (B2). c Confirmation of the array painting results by FISH of BAC clones overlapping the breakpoints: clone CH242-298E5 on SSC1 (BAC position: start 293811882–end 293992669) (C1) and BAC SBAB-234D5 on SSC14 (BAC position: start 134867–end 279323) (C2). These array painting results were confirmed by splitting of the BAC hybridization signals on the derivative chromosomes. Scale bars are all equal to 10 μm

Histopathology

Histopathological evaluation of the testis revealed diffuse moderate seminiferous atrophy associated with diffuse severe interstitial cell hyperplasia. Seminiferous tubules showed altered spermatogenesis with few spermatozoa produced in accordance with the oligospermia detected during sperm analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1). In addition, a significant increase in the number of apoptotic cells, identified as spermatocytes due to their nuclear size and structure (Barasc et al. 2012; Koykul et al. 2000; Pinton et al. 2008), was demonstrated by anti-caspase-3a immunohistochemistry (Fig. 2). Apoptotic cells were observed as small multifocal clusters of contiguous positive cells (probably due to the fact that they undergo apoptosis at the same developmental stage of meiotic prophase), often in the middle or luminal portion of the seminiferous epithelium (spermatocyte stage). Binucleated positive cells or both daughter cells positive were also regularly observed, showing that apoptosis probably occurred in cells derived from the same spermatogonia lineage with impaired meiosis (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Histopathological analysis of testicular tissue. Anti-caspase-3 immunohistochemistry on paraffin sections from t(1;14) (a, b) and control (c) testis samples. Clusters of positive cells (dark brown staining of the nuclei) in moderately atrophic seminiferous tubules. (a ×100 magnification. b, c ×400 magnification) (anti-caspase-3a antibody). Scale bars are all equal to 100 μm and 50 μm respectively

Meiotic pairing

SC analysis of 284 pachytene nuclei revealed two pairing configurations: formation of a quadrivalent in 70 % of the cells (Fig. 3a–c) and a “trivalent plus univalent” configuration in 30 % of the others (Fig. 3d). The univalents always corresponded to the small 141 chromosome. Fifty-two percent of the 284 cells showed meiotic pairing abnormalities (γH2AX-positive unpaired autosomal regions associated or not with the XY body) (Fig. 3b–d).
Fig. 3

Analysis of meiotic pairing in pachytene spermatocytes using FISH and immunostaining of the synaptonenal complex proteins SCP1 (green) and SCP3 (red), as well as γH2AX (red) and the centromeres (blue). ac Spermatocytes with a quadrivalent configuration. a Complete synapsis, no γH2AX signal on the quadrivalent, and no association with the XY body. b Unsynapsed segment with γH2AX signal on the derivative 14 chromosome but no association with the XY body. c Colocalization of the univalent (derivative 14 chromosome) with the XY body in a γH2AX-positive region. d Spermatocyte with a “trivalent plus univalent” configuration. The univalent is characterized by an absence of SCP1 signal (red synaptonemal complex instead of orange) and is included in a γH2AX-positive region with the XY body. Scale bars are all equal to 10 μm

Recombination analysis

Overall recombination rate per cell

Autosomal MLH1 signals, markers of CO events during meiosis I, were counted in 80 pachytene spermatocytes from the boar carrying t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2) (Fig. 4a). The results were compared with those obtained for a pool of three normal boars (two Large White and one Meishan) in the study by Mary et al. 2016 (Table 1). The average number of recombination events per cell was 33.42 in the t(1;14) carrier (range 25–42), i.e., significantly higher than the value of 31.86 (range 21–40) obtained for the control boars (p < 0.05).
Fig. 4

Analysis of meiotic recombination in the t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2) boar. a Immunostaining of pachytene spermatocytes. Pachytene spermatocyte after immunostaining of centromeres in blue, MLH1 signals in green, SCs in red, and FISH (A1). Schematic representation of the quadrivalent observed in A1 (A2). Scale bar represents 10 μm. Distributions of MLH1 foci on chromosomes 1 and 14 (B1, B2). Comparison between rearranged chromosomes and controls (red curve: t(1;14); blue curve: control boars); red bar: centromere position on SSC1 for translocated boar; blue bar: centromere position on SSC1 for control boars; purple bar: centromere position on SSC14 for all individuals; dotted bar: position of the breakpoints. The x-axis represents the percent of SC length, and the y-axis indicates the frequency of MLH1 signals

Table 1

Average number of MLH1 foci per cell for chromosomes 1 and 14

Individuals

No. of cells analyzed

Average no. of recombination foci per cell (without sex chromosomes) and SE

Range

Reference

Controls

264

31.86 ± 0.18

21; 40

Mary et al. (2016)

t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2)

80

33.42 ± 0.39*

25; 42

Present study

Wilcoxon test

*p < 0.05

Recombination rates on the chromosomes involved in the translocation

Recombination was only studied in the spermatocytes with a quadrivalent configuration. The relative lengths of the SCs, expressed as a percentage of the total length of all the SCs within a cell, and the number of recombination events (MLH1 foci per chromosome) were measured for chromosomes 1 and 14 (part of the chromatin corresponding to SSC1 and SSC14 in the quadrivalent of the boar carrying the translocation) and compared to the values obtained for normal boars (Table 2). Both the relative SC length and the number of MLH1 foci were significantly higher in the boar carrying the translocation than in the controls for chromosome 1 (p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant difference was observed for chromosome 14.
Table 2

Comparisons of the relative lengths of SCs and of the number of recombination foci for chromosomes 1 and 14, between the translocated boar and a control

Individuals

No. of cells analyzed

Chromosome

Relative length of SCs in % (1 SD)

Number of recombination foci (ISE)

Reference

Controls

264

1

10.64 10.96

2.74 10.04

Mary et al. (2016)

14

8.15 11.28

1.94 10.03

t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2)

80

1

11.6511.39*

3.1210.09*

Present study

14

8.15 11.24

1.91 10.07

Wilcoxon test

*p < 0.05

Distributions of the MLH1 foci

The distributions of MLH1 foci observed along chromosomes 1 and 14 in spermatocytes from the boar carrying the translocation are presented in Fig. 4b. These distributions are clearly different (p < 0.05) from those obtained in the normal boars. The most important modifications were observed in the breakpoint regions, where a decrease in the number of MLH1 signals was noted.

Analysis of transcriptional activity in the spermatocytes

Spermatocytes from the translocated boar were analyzed by RNA-DNA FISH to detect PERV gene expression. Eighteen of the 35 spermatocytes analyzed showed co-localization of the PERV-DNA signal and γH2AX protein. No PERV-RNA signal was observed in these cells (Fig. 5a). The PERV-DNA signals in the 17 remaining cells were located outside the γH2AX-positive regions. In these cells, the PERV gene was expressed (co-localization of the DNA and RNA signals; Fig. 5b).
Fig. 5

Analysis of PERV expression by sequential RNA- and DNA-FISH. a Spermatocyte showing a “trivalent plus univalent” configuration with two DNA PERV signals located in down-regulated γH2AX regions (no RNA signals). One of the PERV signals is co-localized with the large γH2AX region (probable XY body). b Spermatocyte showing a transcription of the PERV gene, located outside the γH2AX region. Scale bars are all equal to 10 μm

We also measured the effect of t(1;14) on gene expression in the testis using an Agilent 60K customized porcine microarray. This enabled us to compare the transcriptome of the t(1;14) boar with the transcriptome obtained from a pool of control boars with normal semen parameters. Principal component analysis (PCA) highlighted the differences between the two groups, with all biological replicates clustering together (Fig. 6a). Interestingly, the first axis (68.4 % of the variance) was explained by the variation between t(1;14) and control boars, while the second axis (10.2 % of the variance) was explained by the heterogeneity between experimental replicates. We then compared probe intensity between t(1;14) and controls. We observed 2278 differential probes for t(1;14). Within the differentially expressed probes, 1707 (75 %) corresponded to a decrease in expression while 571 (25 %) corresponded to an increase in expression. We then mapped the differential probes on the porcine chromosomes and observed that the two chromosomes with the largest number of differential probes were chromosome 1 and chromosome 14, mostly for down-regulated probes (Fig. 6b). The X chromosome was the only one with more up-regulated than down-regulated probes (Fig. 6b). Nine genes on the X chromosome, identified through the microarray study, were up-regulated (LAMP2, TMEM47, SAT1, RGN, L1CAM, ZIC3, TSC22D3, PLP2, ARAF1). Real-time PCR was performed on six of them (ARAF1, LAMP2, RGN, SAT1, TSC22D3 and ZIC3). All six tested genes were more expressed in the testis from t(1;14), and the increase in ARAF1, LAMP2, RGN, SAT1, and TSC22D3 was significant and more than twofold (or higher) in the testis from the t(1;14) boar than in control boars (Supplementary Fig. 2).
Fig. 6

Gene expression profile from fertile and t(1;14) boar testis samples. a Principal component analysis of microarray transcriptomic data from testis RNA extracted from controls (red) and t(1;14) (black) boars. Gene expression profile from t(1;14) segregates differently from the control group and is reflected on axis 1 that explains 68.4 % of observed variance. The variance represented on axis 2 (10.2 % of variance) is mostly explained by the heterogeneity between experimental replicates (circle, triangle, and cross). b Number of differentially up-regulated (blue bars) and down-regulated (red bars) probes per chromosome in t(1;14) versus controls. Except for the X chromosome, down-regulated probes are always more abundant than up-regulated ones. ce Mapping of differentially expressed probes (blue dots) on chromosome 1, chromosome 14, and chromosome X in t(1;14) versus controls. The y-axis corresponds to the log2 ratio where negative values correspond to down-regulated probes and positive values to up-regulated probes. Only probes with log2 values over 2 or under −2 were kept. The breakpoint is highlighted by a vertical red line

We then determined the precise locations of the differential probes on chromosome 1, chromosome 14, and chromosome X. We first used array CGH to localize the DNA breakpoints at positions 293 924 898 on chromosome 1 and 148 080 on chromosome 14 (red lines on Fig. 6c, d). We found that the density of differential probes around the breakpoint was increased on chromosome 1 but not on chromosome 14 (Fig. 6c, d). Similarly, the probes were homogeneously distributed on chromosome X, except for a big gap of 50 Mb around the centromeric region (Fig. 6e).

Analysis of meiotic segregation profiles

The meiotic segregation profiles were studied using FISH of BAC clones on decondensed sperm heads (sperm FISH). These meiotic products originated from two different multivalent structures (quadrivalent or trivalent plus univalent configurations) in the presence (or not) of interstitial recombination. It was therefore impossible to determine the segregation mode at the origin of the different gametes unequivocally. We therefore employed the term “-like” for all the segregation products to indicate that their exact origin (segregation mode) could not be determined. The data are presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Segregation patterns for the boar carrying the (1;14) translocation

Segregation

Alternate

Adjacent I

Adjacent II

3:1

Chromosomal constitution

1/14

1 14 /14 1

1/14 1

1 14 /14

1 14 /1

14 1 /14

1 14

1/14/14 1

1 14 /14/14 1

1

1 14 /1/14 1

14

1 14 /1/14

14 1

Number of gametes investigated

430

366

2

13

80

50

12

3

48

0

375

4

199

% By combinations

27

 

23

6

44

The most frequently observed segregation products were “3:1-like” (44 %), followed by “alternate-like” (27 %), “adjacent I-like” (23 %), and “adjacent II-like” (6 %). The overall proportions of balanced and unbalanced spermatozoa were 27 and 73 %, respectively. In the “2:2-like” segregation products, a strong disequilibrium was observed between the proportions of reciprocal products: 99 %/1 % for the adjacent I segregation (instead of the theoretical 50 %/50 % distribution) and 86 %/14 % for the adjacent II segregation. Strong disequilibria were also noted for the 3:1-like segregation products. Two types of gametes in that category were highly prominent: sperm containing SSC14 only (54 % of all 3:1-like segregation products) and sperm containing the derivative chromosome 14 only (29 % of all 3:1-like segregation products).

Analysis of interchromosomal effects

Aneuploidy rates for the SSC13, SSC18, SSCX, and SSCY chromosomes were estimated in the boar carrying the (1;14) translocation and in a karyotypically normal control boar (Table 4). No significant difference was observed between the (1;14) boar and the control (p ˃ 0.05), demonstrating the lack of interchromosomal effect (ICE) for this particular rearrangement (at least in the chromosomes studied).
Table 4

Analysis of interchromosomal effects: disomy, nullisomy, and diploidy rates for chromosomes 13, 18, X, and Y in sperm from control and t(1;14) boars

Chromosome number

Frequency of disomy % (n)

Frequency of nullisomy % (n)

Frequency of diploidy % (n)

Control

t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2)

Control

t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2)

Control

t(1;14)(q2.11;q1.2)

13

0.009 (2)

0

0.02 (4)

0.01 (1)

0.005 (1)

0

18

0.05 (11)

0.03 (3)

0.04 (9)

0.02 (2)

0.02 (5)

0

XY

0.04 (9)

0.03 (3)

0

0.01 (1)

  

XX or YY

0.05 (11)

0.06 (6)

    

Total no. of spermatozoa

20,226

10,127

20,226

10,127

20,226

10,127

p < 0.05 when compared with the value of the control for the same chromosome (chi-square test)

Discussion

Meiotic pairing and transcriptional abnormalities

As suspected, our analysis of meiosis I (prophase) spermatocytes from the t(1;14) boar revealed meiotic pairing abnormalities, characterized by the presence of γH2AX-modified histone on the quadrivalents or univalents and some association with the XY body. Such phenomena have been already described in humans (Ferguson et al. 2008; Leng et al. 2009; Sciurano et al. 2007, 2012). Sciurano et al. (2012) hypothesized that the movements of chromatin loops from autosomes which are actively transcribed, but not involved in the rearrangement, may randomly displace the inactive regions of the multivalent until they associate with the silenced chromatin domain of the XY body. Complementary RNA-DNA FISH experiments revealed a lack of transcriptional activity in the γH2AX-positive regions.

Microarray gene expression analysis revealed 2278 differential probes on t(1;14) of which 75 % corresponded to down-regulated genes. The two chromosomes with rearrangements (i.e., chromosomes 1 and 14) also had the largest number of down-regulated probes. Transcriptional activation was consistently detected on the X chromosome with 73 % of the differential probes being up-regulated and confirmed by real-time PCR for six genes distributed all along the X chromosome and corresponding to up-regulated probes. These data for gene expression concord with our observation that MSUC occurred in meiocytes from this boar and previous observations reported in mice (Homolka et al. 2007). Indeed, the autosome-autosome translocation studied by these latter authors was characterized by transcriptional down-regulation of the genes inside the unsynapsed region of the rearranged mouse autosome and an association between the quadrivalent and XY body, leading to X inactivation failure and incomplete silencing of the X chromosome genes in mid-late pachytene.

Despite the fact that we were working on frozen testis biopsies rather than purified germ cell populations, we were able to observe significant effects on gene expression that seemed to be related to MSUC (X reactivation and silencing of the rearranged chromosomes). This would explain the meiotic arrest of some spermatocytes and the observed oligospermia in this boar.

Impact of the translocation on meiotic recombination

Eight human cases have been analyzed in the past using a comparable methodological approach involving immunolocalization of the MLH1 protein (Ferguson et al. 2008; Jiang et al. 2014; Leng et al. 2009; Oliver-Bonet et al. 2005; Pigozzi et al. 2005b; Sun et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2015). In four of these cases (t(Y;1), t(1;21), t(11;14), and t(5;7;9;13)), an effect of the rearrangement on the overall rate of recombination (increase or decrease) was observed (Leng et al. 2009; Pigozzi et al. 2005b; Sun et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2015). The other four cases (autosome-autosome reciprocal translocations) showed normal rates of recombination (Oliver-Bonet et al. 2005; Ferguson et al. 2008; Jiang et al. 2014) as did the only other reciprocal translocation (t(3;4)) studied in the pig species (Mary et al. 2016). In our study, a significant increase of the (average) overall recombination rate was observed in the t(1;14) boar, as compared with a pool of normal boars (controls). Different factors (genetic background, age, environment, etc.) might explain the observed differences. Furthermore, intraindividual and interindividual variability of the recombination rate has been demonstrated in humans and pigs with normal karyotypes (Hassold et al. 2004; Mary et al. 2014).

The specific analyses of the translocated chromosomes showed an increase in the MLH1 foci number and in the SC relative length for SSC1. This is consistent with a positive correlation between the number of MLH1 foci and the SC length observed in different species including humans (Pan et al. 2012), pigs (Mary et al. 2014), and mice with widely different rates of meiotic recombination (Baier et al. 2014).

Concerning the CO distribution on the paired SSC1 and SSC14 segments of the quadrivalents, significant differences were observed compared to their normal counterparts in control boars. Indeed, the recombination frequency was decreased in the vicinity of the breakpoint but appeared to be offset by an increase along the translocated chromosomes (Fig. 4). Similar results were obtained by Mary et al. 2016 for the t(3;4) translocation in pigs. This might indicate that as proposed by Mary et al. (2016), steric hindrance could occur in the breakpoint regions preventing the access of proteins involved in the recombination process. Abnormal meiotic pairing, not visible by immunolocalization (see Libuda et al. 2013) occurring in these regions, could also prevent the formation of CO around the breakpoint. Moreover, we can suspect that, as reported by Libuda et al. 2013 in C. elegans, partial depletion of the synaptonemal complex central region proteins at the breakpoint attenuates crossover interference, thereby increasing crossovers in the flanking regions. Finally, this decrease might also be offset in other autosomal pairs by an unknown factor.

Genetically unbalanced gametes production

Five different segregation modes can occur in reciprocal translocation heterozygotes: alternate, adjacent I, adjacent II, 3:1, and 4:0 segregations, leading to the production of 18 possible types of gametes (Benet et al. 2005; Sybenga 1975). The relative frequencies of each segregation mode (as well as the relative frequencies of balanced and unbalanced segregation products) may vary from one translocation to the other, depending notably on the chromosomes involved, the location of the breakpoints, and the chiasma frequency (Rickards 1983). Sperm meiotic segregation studies performed in human carriers of balanced reciprocal translocations showed that 18.6–80.7 % of the spermatozoa were chromosomally unbalanced (Benet et al. 2005; Morel et al. 2004). Until now, sperm FISH meiotic segregation analyses for three reciprocal translocations have only been carried out in pigs (Kociucka et al. 2014; Massip et al. 2008; Pinton et al. 2004). One of these translocations (t(3;15)) was characterized by a small derivative chromosome (comparable in size to the der(14) chromosome observed in the present study) and a high proportion of 3:1 meiotic products (Pinton et al. 2004). Similar results, i.e., a high rate of genetically unbalanced gametes (73 %), mostly of the 3:1 type (44 %), were observed in the present case.

Meiotic pairing analysis of 284 spermatocytes revealed that 70 % formed a quadrivalent and 30 % of the cells exhibited a trivalent plus univalent configuration. CO distribution analysis (Fig. 5c) revealed a very low recombination frequency in the interstitial region (i.e., between the centromere and breakpoint) of chromosome 14 (red curve). Furthermore, no MLH1 signal was observed on the der(14) chromosome of 27.5 % of cells exhibiting a quadrivalent configuration. This suggests that der14 could segregate randomly to one of the gametes leading to a 3:1 segregation at the end of meiosis I. This is generally the case for the trivalent plus univalent configuration and would explain the relatively high rate of 3:1-like segregation meiotic products observed in our study.

Four different types of 3:1 segregations were observed (Table 4). Equivalent proportions of reciprocal segregation products would theoretically be expected for each category (e.g., similar proportions of “14” and “114/1/141” gametes). This was clearly not the case in our study (100 % of “14” gametes and 0 % of “114/1/141” gametes). Various authors (Estop et al. 1998; Rives et al. 2003; Van Assche et al. 1999) suggest that spermatocytes with fewer chromosomes would be better able to survive a 3:1 segregation. Such a phenomenon could partly explain our results.

As in earlier studies carried out in humans (Benet et al. 1989; Brandriff et al. 1986; Estop et al. 1992; Martin and Spriggs 1995; Shi and Martin 2001; Templado et al. 1988; Van Hummelen et al. 1997), we observed a deviation from the 1:1 ratio of reciprocal segregation products for the adjacent I and adjacent II segregations. These results might be explained by the presence of unresolved chiasmata at meiosis I (Nicklas 1977; Van Hummelen et al. 1997). Unresolved chiasmata would affect the translocated segments in adjacent I segregation and non-translocated segments in adjacent II segregation, resulting in partial bivalents in meiosis II, which could lead to the segregation of homologous chromosomes, or to meiosis II arrest (Mckim and Hawley 1995; Nicklas 1997). Thus, a higher frequency of products carrying the short translocated segment would be expected in adjacent I segregation and a higher frequency of products carrying the shorter non-translocated segment in adjacent II segregation. This is consistent with our observations (Fig. 7) that a large excess of sperm carried the short translocated segment (1/141) among the adjacent I products and a smaller amount of sperm carried the shorter non-translocated segment (141/14) among the adjacent II products. Moreover, the low frequencies (example 114/14) or absence (example 114/114, 14/14, 14/141) of some meiotic products can be expected to result from meiosis II arrest.
Fig. 7

Illustration of sperm products from adjacent I segregation with unresolved chiasmata between translocated segments and from adjacent II segregation with unresolved chiasmata between non-translocated segments. Partial bivalents in meiosis II may then result in segregation of the homologous chromosomes instead of the chromatids which would produce different fluorescent sperm types or an arrest in meiosis II

Interchromosomal effect

As classically carried out in human studies (Anton et al. 2011; Douet-Guilbert et al. 2005; Machev et al. 2005; Piomboni et al. 2014; Shi and Martin 2001), ICE occurrence was investigated in chromosomes of different size and structure (SSC13 and SSC18, respectively, the largest and smallest acrocentrics, as well as the sex chromosomes). As in the study by Bonnet-Garnier et al. (2009) (investigation of ICE for two reciprocal translocations in the pig species), no ICE could be detected for any of the chromosomes tested. To our knowledge, the only publication reporting the occurrence of an ICE in the pig species is that of Pinton et al. (2004), which involved a boar mosaic for SSC18 trisomy. Unlike the situation in humans, very few cases have been investigated in the pig species until now, and complementary studies are needed to further document this point.

Conclusion

The main goal of this study was to investigate the meiotic disturbances that resulted in the infertility of a young OAT boar carrying an autosome-autosome asymmetrical reciprocal translocation. Our results showed that the translocated autosomes exhibiting pairing defects sometimes associated with the XY body (even if the synapsis of these autosomal regions with sex chromosomal axes has not been proved by our approach) led to a reduction in the expression level of some autosomal genes, as well as to an up-regulation of some X-chromosome genes. We hypothesized that the main cause of the meiotic arrest might be the gene silencing of asynapsed autosomal regions and/or an up-regulation of some X chromosome genes. Further studies will be necessary to see if these phenomena (disturbance of autosomal and X gene expression) are dependent on the nature of the chromosomes involved in the translocation or on the lengths of the translocated chromosomal fragments.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the technical staff of the INRA GenESI experimental unit, and particularly Stéphane Moreau, Franck Guiraud, and Tony Terrasson for breeding the animals as well as Christian Audoux and Sylvain Michel for their technical assistance. We thank our colleague Valérie Fillon for her relevant comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

According to the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, the procedure for testes collection was accepted by the Ethics Committee for Animal Experimentation of the Poitou Charentes region (France) (CE2012-2), under the agreement number A-17-661.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10577_2016_9533_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (6 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Semen parameters of the control group and t(1;14) boar used for gene expression analysis (PDF 6 kb)
10577_2016_9533_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 Primers used for qPCR analysis (PDF 6 kb)
10577_2016_9533_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (42 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1 Histopathological analysis of the testes sample (Hematoxylin and eosin stain) Histological analysis of the testes shows altered spermatogenesis with few spermatozoa in the lumen and diffuse hyperplasia of the interstitial cells. (x40 magnification) Scale bar is equal to 200 μm (JPG 41 kb)
10577_2016_9533_MOESM4_ESM.jpg (63 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2 Real-time PCR quantification of 6 genes located on the X chromosome and described as up-regulated by microarray analysis. A: Localization of the 6 genes on the X chromosome is shown by red dots. B: Fold change of expression in testis from t(1;14) boar compared to control boars. Results are the mean of three independent experiments performed with biological replicates. (t-test, ***p˂0.001; n.s. not significant) (JPG 63 kb)

References

  1. Anton E, Vidal F, Blanco J (2011) Interchromosomal effect analyses by sperm FISH: incidence and distribution among reorganization carriers. Syst Biol Reprod Med 57:268–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baier B, Hunt P, Broman KW, Hassold T (2014) Variation in genome-wide levels of meiotic recombination is established at the onset of prophase in mammalian males. PLoS Genet 10, e1004125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Barasc H, Mary N, Letron R, Calgaro A, Dudez AM, Bonnet N, Lahbib-Mansais Y, Yerle M, Ducos A, Pinton A (2012) Y-autosome translocation interferes with meiotic sex inactivation and expression of autosomal genes: a case study in the pig. Sex Dev Genet Mol Biol Evol Endocrinol Embryol Pathol Sex Determ Differ 6:143–150Google Scholar
  4. Benet J, Fuster C, Genesca A, Navarro J, Miro R, Egozcue J, Templado C (1989) Expression of fragile sites in human sperm and lymphocyte chromosomes. Hum Genet 81:239–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Benet J, Oliver-Bonet M, Cifuentes P, Templado C, Navarro J (2005) Segregation of chromosomes in sperm of reciprocal translocation carriers: a review. Cytogenet Genome Res 111:281–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
  7. Bonnet-Garnier A, Guardia S, Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M (2009) Analysis using sperm-FISH of a putative interchromosomal effect in boars carrying reciprocal translocations. Cytogenet Genome Res 126:194–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandriff BF, Gordon LA, Haendel S, Ashworth LK, Carrano AV (1986) The chromosomal constitution of human sperm selected for motility. Fertil Steril 46:686–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheat S, Gerez JR, Cognié J, Alassane-Kpembi I, Bracarense APFL, Raymond-Letron I, Oswald IP, Kolf-Clauw M (2015) Nivalenol has a greater impact than deoxynivalenol on pig jejunum mucosa in vitro on explants and in vivo on intestinal loops. Toxins 7:1945–1961CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Congras A, Yerle-Bouissou M, Pinton A, Vignoles F, Liaubet L, Ferchaud S, Acloque H (2014) Sperm DNA methylation analysis in swine reveals conserved and species-specific methylation patterns and highlights an altered methylation at the GNAS locus in infertile boars. Biol Reprod 91:137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Congras A, Barasc H, Canale-Tabet K, Plisson-Petit F, Delcros C, Feraud O, Oudrhiri N, Hadadi E, Griscelli F, Bennaceur-Griscelli A et al (2016) Non integrative strategy decreases chromosome instability and improves endogenous pluripotency genes reactivation in porcine induced pluripotent-like stem cells. Sci Rep 6:27059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong Y, Du R-C, Jiang Y-T, Wu J, Li L-L, Liu R-Z (2012) Impact of chromosomal translocations on male infertility, semen quality, testicular volume and reproductive hormone levels. J Int Med Res 40:2274–2283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Douet-Guilbert N, Bris M-JL, Amice V, Marchetti C, Delobel B, Amice J, Braekeleer MD, Morel F (2005) Interchromosomal effect in sperm of males with translocations: report of 6 cases and review of the literature. Int J Androl 28:372–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ducos A, Berland HM, Bonnet N, Calgaro A, Billoux S, Mary N, Garnier-Bonnet A, Darre R, Pinton A (2007) Chromosomal control of pig populations in France: 2002–2006 survey. Genet Sel Evol 39:583–597CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Estop AM, Levinson F, Cieply K, Vankirk V (1992) The segregation of a translocation t(1;4) in two male carriers heterozygous for the translocation. Hum Genet 89:425–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Estop AM, Cieply KM, Wakim A, Feingold E (1998) Meiotic products of two reciprocal translocations studied by multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet Cell Genet 83:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Faraut T, Mermet MA, Demongeot J, Cohen O (2000) Cooperation of selection and meiotic mechanisms in the production of imbalances in reciprocal translocations. Cytogenet Cell Genet 88:15–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson KA, Chow V, Ma S (2008) Silencing of unpaired meiotic chromosomes and altered recombination patterns in an azoospermic carrier of a t(8;13) reciprocal translocation. Hum Reprod 23:988–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabriel-Robez O, Jaafar H, Ratomponirina C, Boscher J, Bonneau J, Popescu CP, Rumpler Y (1988) Heterosynapsis in a heterozygous fertile boar carrier of a 3;7 translocation. Chromosoma 97:26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gribble SM, Ng BL, Prigmore E, Fitzgerald T, Carter NP (2009) Array painting: a protocol for the rapid analysis of aberrant chromosomes using DNA microarrays. Nat Protoc 4:1722--1736Google Scholar
  21. Hassold T, Judis L, Chan ER, Schwartz S, Seftel A, Lynn A (2004) Cytological studies of meiotic recombination in human males. Cytogenet Genome Res 107:249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Homolka D, Ivanek R, Capkova J, Jansa P, Forejt J (2007) Chromosomal rearrangement interferes with meiotic X chromosome inactivation. Genome Res 17:1431–1437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  24. Jaafar H, Bouvet A, Gabriel-Robez O, Bonneau M, Boscher J, Maetz JL, Popescu CP, Rumpler Y (1992) Heterosynapsis in two fertile but hypoprolific boars carriers of reciprocal translocations. Ann Génétique 35:3–7Google Scholar
  25. Jaafar H, Gabriel-Robez O, Rumpler Y (1993) Chromosomal anomalies and disturbance of transcriptional activity at the pachytene stage of meiosis: relationship to male sterility. Cytogenet Cell Genet 64:273–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jiang H, Wang L, Cui Y, Xu Z, Guo T, Cheng D, Xu P, Yu W, Shi Q (2014) Meiotic chromosome behavior in a human male t(8;15) carrier. J Genet Genomics Yi Chuan Xue Bao 41:177–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kent WJ (2002) BLAT--the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res 12:656–664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kociucka B, Szczerbal I, Bugaj S, Orsztynowicz M, Switonski M (2014) A high incidence of adjacent-1 meiotic segregation pattern, revealed by multicolor sperm FISH, in a carrier boar of a new reciprocal translocation t(6;16)(p13;q23). Cytogenet Genome Res 142:21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Koykul W, Baguma-Nibasheka M, King WA, Basrur PK (2000) Meiosis and apoptosis in germ cells of X-autosome translocation carrier boars. Mol Reprod Dev 56:448–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Leng M, Li G, Zhong L, Hou H, Yu D, Shi Q (2009) Abnormal synapses and recombination in an azoospermic male carrier of a reciprocal translocation t(1;21). Fertil Steril 91:1293.e17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Libuda DE, Uzawa S, Meyer BJ, Villeneuve AM (2013) Meiotic chromosome structures constrain and respond to designation of crossover sites. Nature 502:703–706CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lifschytz E, Lindsley DL (1972) The role of X-chromosome inactivation during spermatogenesis (Drosophila-allocycly-chromosome evolution-male sterility-dosage compensation). Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. 69:182--186Google Scholar
  33. Machev N, Gosset P, Warter S, Treger M, Schillinger M, Viville S (2005) Fluorescence in situ hybridization sperm analysis of six translocation carriers provides evidence of an interchromosomal effect. Fertil Steril 84:365–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. MacQueen AJ, Hochwagen A (2011) Checkpoint mechanisms: the puppet masters of meiotic prophase. Trends Cell Biol 21:393–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin RH, Spriggs EL (1995) Sperm chromosome complements in a man heterozygous for a reciprocal translocation 46, XY, t(9;13)(q21.1;q21.2) and a review of the literature. Clin Genet 47:42–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mary N, Barasc H, Ferchaud S, Billon Y, Meslier F, Robelin D, Calgaro A, Loustau-Dudez A-M, Bonnet N, Yerle M et al (2014) Meiotic recombination analyses of individual chromosomes in male domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica). PLoS ONE 9, e99123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Mary N, Barasc H, Ferchaud S, Priet A, Calgaro A, Loustau-Dudez A-M, Bonnet N, Yerle M, Ducos A, Pinton A (2016) Meiotic recombination analyses in pigs carrying different balanced structural chromosomal rearrangements. PLoS One 11, e0154635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Massip K, Berland H, Bonnet N, Calgaro A, Billoux S, Baquie V, Mary N, Bonnet-Garnier A, Ducos A, Yerle M et al (2008) Study of inter- and intra-individual variation of meiotic segregation patterns in t(3;15)(q27;q13) boars. Theriogenology 70:655–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mau-Holzmann UA (2005) Somatic chromosomal abnormalities in infertile men and women. Cytogenet Genome Res 111:317–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mckim KS, Hawley RS (1995) Chromosomal control of meiotic cell division. Science 270:1595–1601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Morel F, Douet-Guilbert N, Le Bris M-J, Herry A, Amice V, Amice J, De Braekeleer M (2004) Meiotic segregation of translocations during male gametogenesis. Int J Androl 27:200–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nicklas RB (1977) Chromosome distribution: experiments on cell hybrids and in vitro. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 277:267–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicklas RB (1997) How cells get the right chromosomes. Science 275:632–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliver-Bonet M, Benet J, Sun F, Navarro J, Abad C, Liehr T, Starke H, Greene C, Ko E, Martin RH (2005) Meiotic studies in two human reciprocal translocations and their association with spermatogenic failure. Hum Reprod 20:683–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pan Z, Yang Q, Ye N, Wang L, Li J, Yu D, Cooke HJ, Shi Q (2012) Complex relationship between meiotic recombination frequency and autosomal synaptonemal complex length per cell in normal human males. Am J Med Genet A 158A:581–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pigozzi MI, Sciurano RB, Solari AJ (2005a) Changes in crossover distribution along a quadrivalent in a man carrier of a reciprocal translocation t(11;14). Biocell 29:195–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pigozzi MI, Sciurano RB, Solari AJ (2005b) Changes in crossover distribution along a quadrivalent in a man carrier of a reciprocal translocation t(11;14). Biocell Off J Soc Latinoam Microsc Electron Al 29:195–203Google Scholar
  48. Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M (2003) Chromosomal rearrangements in cattle and pigs revealed by chromosome microdissection and chromosome painting. Genet Sel Evol GSE 35:685–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M (2004) Estimation of the proportion of genetically unbalanced spermatozoa in the semen of boars carrying chromosomal rearrangements using FISH on sperm nuclei. Genet Sel Evol 36:123–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Pinton A, Raymond Letron I, Berland HM, Bonnet N, Calgaro A, Garnier-Bonnet A, Yerle M, Ducos A (2008) Meiotic studies in an azoospermic boar carrying a Y;14 translocation. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:106–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Piomboni P, Stendardi A, Gambera L (2014) Chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidies of spermatozoa. Adv Exp Med Biol 791:27–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Reeves A (2001) MicroMeasure: a new computer program for the collection and analysis of cytogenetic data. Genome Natl Res Counc Can Génome Cons Natl Rech Can 44:439–443Google Scholar
  53. Rickards GK (1983) Orientation behavior of chromosome multiples of interchange (Reciprocal Translocation) Heterozygotes. Annu Rev Genet 17:443–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Rives N, SaintClair A, Mazurier S, Sibert L, Simeon N, Joly G, Mace B (1999) Relationship between clinical phenotype, semen parameters and aneuploidy frequency in sperm nuclei of 50 infertile males. Hum Genet 105:266–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rives N, Jarnot M, Mousset-Simeon N, Joly G, Mace B (2003) Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analysis of chromosome segregation and interchromosomal effect in spermatozoa of a reciprocal translocation t(9,10)(q11;p11.1) carrier. J Hum Genet 535–540Google Scholar
  56. Roeder GS, Bailis JM (2000) The pachytene checkpoint. Trends Genet TIG 16:395–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rogel-Gaillard C, Bourgeaux N, Billault A, Vaiman M, Chardon P (1999) Construction of a swine BAC library: application to the characterization and mapping of porcine type C endoviral elements. Cytogenet Cell Genet 85:205–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sciurano R, Rahn M, Rey-Valzacchi G, Solari AJ (2007) The asynaptic chromatin in spermatocytes of translocation carriers contains the histone variant gamma-H2AX and associates with the XY body. Hum Reprod 22:142–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sciurano RB, Rahn MI, Rey-Valzacchi G, Coco R, Solari AJ (2012) The role of asynapsis in human spermatocyte failure. Int J Androl 35:541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shi Q, Martin RH (2001) Aneuploidy in human spermatozoa: FISH analysis in men with constitutional chromosomal abnormalities, and in infertile men. Reprod Camb Engl 121:655–666Google Scholar
  61. Sun F, Oliver-Bonet M, Turek PJ, Ko E, Martin RH (2005) Meiotic studies in an azoospermic human translocation (Y;1) carrier. Mol Hum Reprod 11:361–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sybenga J (1975) Meiotic Configurations. (Berlin Springer), HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Templado C, Benet J, Genesca A, Navarro J, Caballin MR, Miro R, Egozcue J (1988) Human sperm chromosomes. Hum Reprod 3:133–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Turner JM (2007) Meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. Development 134:1823–1831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner JMA, Mahadevaiah SK, Fernandez-Capetillo O, Nussenzweig A, Xu X, Deng C-X, Burgoyne PS (2005) Silencing of unsynapsed meiotic chromosomes in the mouse. Nat Genet 37:41–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Assche E, Bonduelle M, Tournaye H, Joris H, Verheyen G, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem, A, Liebaers I (1996) Cytogenetics of infertile men. Hum Reprod 11 Suppl 4, 1-24-26Google Scholar
  67. Van Assche E, Staessen C, Vegetti W, Bonduelle M, Vandervorst M, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I (1999) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and sperm analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridization for the most common reciprocal translocation t(11;22). Mol Hum Reprod 5:682–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Hummelen P, Manchester D, Lowe X, Wyrobek AJ (1997) Meiotic segregation, recombination, and gamete aneuploidy assessed in a t(1;10)(p22.1;q22.3) reciprocal translocation carrier by three- and four-probe multicolor FISH in sperm. Am J Hum Genet 61:651–659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Vegetti W, VanAssche E, Frias A, Verheyen G, Bianchi MM, Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, VanSteirteghem A (2000) Correlation between semen parameters and sperm aneuploidy rates investigated by fluorescence in-situ hybridization in infertile men. Hum Reprod 15:351–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Villagomez DA, Pinton A (2008) Chromosomal abnormalities, meiotic behavior and fertility in domestic animals. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Villagomez DA, Gustavsson I, Alabay B, Ploen L (1993) Meiotic chromosome asynapsis in a boar with a reciprocal translocation and acquired testicular degeneration. Hereditas 118:101–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang L, Iqbal F, Li G, Jiang X, Bukhari I, Jiang H, Yang Q, Zhong L, Zhang Y, Hua J et al (2015) Abnormal meiotic recombination with complex chromosomal rearrangement in an azoospermic man. Reprod Biomed Online 30:651–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harmonie Barasc
    • 1
  • Annabelle Congras
    • 1
  • Nicolas Mary
    • 1
  • Lidwine Trouilh
    • 2
  • Valentine Marquet
    • 1
  • Stéphane Ferchaud
    • 3
  • Isabelle Raymond-Letron
    • 4
  • Anne Calgaro
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie Loustau-Dudez
    • 1
  • Nathalie Mouney-Bonnet
    • 1
  • Hervé Acloque
    • 1
  • Alain Ducos
    • 1
  • Alain Pinton
    • 1
  1. 1.GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVTToulouseFrance
  2. 2.LISBP, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INRA, INSAToulouseFrance
  3. 3.GenESI Génétique, Expérimentation et Système InnovantsSaint-Pierre-d’AmillyFrance
  4. 4.STROMALab, Université de Toulouse, CNRS ERL 5311, EFS, ENVT, Inserm U1031, UPSToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations