FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Chromosoma2009; 118(3); 335-347; doi: 10.1007/s00412-008-0200-6

Parental genomes mix in mule and human cell nuclei.

Abstract: Whether chromosome sets inherited from father and mother occupy separate spaces in the cell nucleus is a question first asked over 110 years ago. Recently, the nuclear organization of the genome has come increasingly into focus as an important level of epigenetic regulation. In this context, it is indispensable to know whether or not parental genomes are spatially separated. Genome separation had been demonstrated for plant hybrids and for the early mammalian embryo. Conclusive studies for somatic mammalian cell nuclei are lacking because homologous chromosomes from the two parents cannot be distinguished within a species. We circumvented this problem by investigating the three-dimensional distribution of chromosomes in mule lymphocytes and fibroblasts. Genomic DNA of horse and donkey was used as probes in fluorescence in situ hybridization under conditions where only tandem repetitive sequences were detected. We thus could determine the distribution of maternal and paternal chromosome sets in structurally preserved interphase nuclei for the first time. In addition, we investigated the distribution of several pairs of chromosomes in human bilobed granulocytes. Qualitative and quantitative image evaluation did not reveal any evidence for the separation of parental genomes. On the contrary, we observed mixing of maternal and paternal chromosome sets.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2009-02-07 PubMed ID: 19198867DOI: 10.1007/s00412-008-0200-6Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article is about a study on the spatial organisation of genomes inherited from the mother and father in the cell nucleus. The researchers used mule lymphocytes and fibroblasts, along with human bilobed granulocytes, to observe and conclude that the parental genomes are not separated and, instead, they mix.

Objective and Background

  • The study aims to address a long-standing question in biology about whether the genetic material inherited from each parent occupies separate spaces within a cell nucleus.
  • This study was undertaken due to a rediscovered interest in the organization of the genome within the nucleu. This structure is now thought to play a crucial role in epigenetic regulation, the process where gene expression is controlled without changes to the DNA sequence.
  • Previously, somatic cells in mammals could not be conclusively studied due to the inability to distinguish homologous chromosomes from each parent within a species.

Methodology

  • To get around the difficulty in distinguishing between chromosomes from each parent, the research team used mule lymphocytes and fibroblasts that contained genetic material from a horse and a donkey—two different species.
  • The researchers used fluorescent in situ hybridization with the genomic DNA of a horse and a donkey to study the three-dimensional distribution of chromosomes. Special conditions were set up to ensure that only tandem repetitive sequences were detected.
  • Additionally, the researchers studied the distribution of several pairs of chromosomes in human bilobed granulocytes.

Findings

  • The image evaluation did not uncover any evidence to support the notion of genome separation from each parent.
  • Instead, the evaluation revealed that the chromosomes inherited from the mother and the father do not occupy separate regions within the cell nucleus, but mix.
  • This was the first time the distribution of maternal and paternal chromosome sets in structurally preserved interphase nuclei was observed and documented.

Implications

  • These findings contradict previous beliefs about genome separation and have significant implications for understanding genetic inheritance and regulation.
  • The study’s methodology could be adopted in future research on genetic material organisation and its role in epigenetic regulation.

Cite This Article

APA
Hepperger C, Mayer A, Merz J, Vanderwall DK, Dietzel S. (2009). Parental genomes mix in mule and human cell nuclei. Chromosoma, 118(3), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-008-0200-6

Publication

Chromosoma
ISSN: 1432-0886
NlmUniqueID: 2985138R
Country: Austria
Language: English
Volume: 118
Issue: 3
Pages: 335-347

Researcher Affiliations

Hepperger, Claudia
  • Department Biologie II, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Grosshaderner Str. 2, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany.
Mayer, Andreas
    Merz, Julia
      Vanderwall, Dirk K
        Dietzel, Steffen

          MeSH Terms

          • Animals
          • Cell Nucleus / genetics
          • Centromere / genetics
          • Chimera / genetics
          • Chromosomes, Mammalian / genetics
          • Equidae / genetics
          • Fibroblasts / ultrastructure
          • Genome
          • Granulocytes
          • Horses / genetics
          • Humans
          • Lymphocytes / ultrastructure

          References

          This article includes 47 references
          1. Mayer W, Smith A, Fundele R, Haaf T. Spatial separation of parental genomes in preimplantation mouse embryos.. J Cell Biol 2000 Feb 21;148(4):629-34.
            pubmed: 10684246doi: 10.1083/jcb.148.4.629google scholar: lookup
          2. Mayer R, Brero A, von Hase J, Schroeder T, Cremer T, Dietzel S. Common themes and cell type specific variations of higher order chromatin arrangements in the mouse.. BMC Cell Biol 2005 Dec 7;6:44.
            pubmed: 16336643doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-6-44google scholar: lookup
          3. Gadi IK, Ryder OA. Molecular cytogenetics of the equidae. II. purification and cytological localization of a (G + C)-rich satellite DNA from Equus hemionus onager and cross-species hybridization to E. asinus chromosomes.. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1983;35(2):124-30.
            pubmed: 6851669doi: 10.1159/000131853google scholar: lookup
          4. Allison DC, Nestor AL. Evidence for a relatively random array of human chromosomes on the mitotic ring.. J Cell Biol 1999 Apr 5;145(1):1-14.
            pubmed: 10189364doi: 10.1083/jcb.145.1.1google scholar: lookup
          5. Foster HA, Bridger JM. The genome and the nucleus: a marriage made by evolution. Genome organisation and nuclear architecture.. Chromosoma 2005 Sep;114(4):212-29.
            pubmed: 16133352doi: 10.1007/s00412-005-0016-6google scholar: lookup
          6. Stöck M, Lamatsch DK, Steinlein C, Epplen JT, Grosse WR, Hock R, Klapperstück T, Lampert KP, Scheer U, Schmid M, Schartl M. A bisexually reproducing all-triploid vertebrate.. Nat Genet 2002 Mar;30(3):325-8.
            pubmed: 11836500doi: 10.1038/ng839google scholar: lookup
          7. GLASS E. [Identification of chromosomes in karyotype of rat liver].. Chromosoma 1956;7(8):655-69.
            pubmed: 13330172
          8. Woods GL, White KL, Vanderwall DK, Li GP, Aston KI, Bunch TD, Meerdo LN, Pate BJ. A mule cloned from fetal cells by nuclear transfer.. Science 2003 Aug 22;301(5636):1063.
            pubmed: 12775846doi: 10.1126/science.1086743google scholar: lookup
          9. Lanctôt C, Cheutin T, Cremer M, Cavalli G, Cremer T. Dynamic genome architecture in the nuclear space: regulation of gene expression in three dimensions.. Nat Rev Genet 2007 Feb;8(2):104-15.
            pubmed: 17230197doi: 10.1038/nrg2041google scholar: lookup
          10. Misteli T. Beyond the sequence: cellular organization of genome function.. Cell 2007 Feb 23;128(4):787-800.
            pubmed: 17320514doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.028google scholar: lookup
          11. Bolzer A, Kreth G, Solovei I, Koehler D, Saracoglu K, Fauth C, Müller S, Eils R, Cremer C, Speicher MR, Cremer T. Three-dimensional maps of all chromosomes in human male fibroblast nuclei and prometaphase rosettes.. PLoS Biol 2005 May;3(5):e157.
            pubmed: 15839726doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030157google scholar: lookup
          12. Albiez H, Cremer M, Tiberi C, Vecchio L, Schermelleh L, Dittrich S, Küpper K, Joffe B, Thormeyer T, von Hase J, Yang S, Rohr K, Leonhardt H, Solovei I, Cremer C, Fakan S, Cremer T. Chromatin domains and the interchromatin compartment form structurally defined and functionally interacting nuclear networks.. Chromosome Res 2006;14(7):707-33.
            pubmed: 17115328doi: 10.1007/s10577-006-1086-xgoogle scholar: lookup
          13. Cremer T, Cremer M, Dietzel S, Müller S, Solovei I, Fakan S. Chromosome territories--a functional nuclear landscape.. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2006 Jun;18(3):307-16.
            pubmed: 16687245doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2006.04.007google scholar: lookup
          14. Spolsky C, Uzzell T. Natural interspecies transfer of mitochondrial DNA in amphibians.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1984 Sep;81(18):5802-5.
            pubmed: 6091109doi: 10.1073/pnas.81.18.5802google scholar: lookup
          15. Wienberg J. Fluorescence in situ hybridization to chromosomes as a tool to understand human and primate genome evolution.. Cytogenet Genome Res 2005;108(1-3):139-60.
            pubmed: 15545725doi: 10.1159/000080811google scholar: lookup
          16. Tanious FA, Veal JM, Buczak H, Ratmeyer LS, Wilson WD. DAPI (4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) binds differently to DNA and RNA: minor-groove binding at AT sites and intercalation at AU sites.. Biochemistry 1992 Mar 31;31(12):3103-12.
            pubmed: 1372825doi: 10.1021/bi00127a010google scholar: lookup
          17. Guerrini F, Bucci S, Ragghianti M, Mancino G, Hotz H, Uzzell T, Berger L. Genomes of two water frog species resist germ line exclusion in interspecies hybrids.. J Exp Zool 1997 Oct 1;279(2):163-76.
            pubmed: 9293641doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-010x(19971001)279:2<163::aid-jez7>3.0.co;2-mgoogle scholar: lookup
          18. Brandriff BF, Gordon LA, Segraves R, Pinkel D. The male-derived genome after sperm-egg fusion: spatial distribution of chromosomal DNA and paternal-maternal genomic association.. Chromosoma 1991 May;100(4):262-6.
            pubmed: 2055136doi: 10.1007/BF00344160google scholar: lookup
          19. Habermann FA, Cremer M, Walter J, Kreth G, von Hase J, Bauer K, Wienberg J, Cremer C, Cremer T, Solovei I. Arrangements of macro- and microchromosomes in chicken cells.. Chromosome Res 2001;9(7):569-84.
            pubmed: 11721954doi: 10.1023/a:1012447318535google scholar: lookup
          20. Kikuchi S, Tanaka H, Wako T, Tsujimoto H. Centromere separation and association in the nuclei of an interspecific hybrid between Torenia fournieri and T. baillonii (Scrophulariaceae) during mitosis and meiosis.. Genes Genet Syst 2007 Oct;82(5):369-75.
            pubmed: 17991992doi: 10.1266/ggs.82.369google scholar: lookup
          21. Young IT. Proof without prejudice: use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources.. J Histochem Cytochem 1977 Jul;25(7):935-41.
            pubmed: 894009doi: 10.1177/25.7.894009google scholar: lookup
          22. Ryder OA, Hansen SK. Molecular cytogenetics of the Equidae. I. Purification and cytological localization of a (G + C)-rich satellite DNA from Equus przewalskii.. Chromosoma 1979 Apr 30;72(2):115-29.
            pubmed: 456203doi: 10.1007/BF00293229google scholar: lookup
          23. Nagele RG, Freeman T, Fazekas J, Lee KM, Thomson Z, Lee HY. Chromosome spatial order in human cells: evidence for early origin and faithful propagation.. Chromosoma 1998 Nov;107(5):330-8.
            pubmed: 9880766doi: 10.1007/s004120050315google scholar: lookup
          24. Pera F, Rainer B. Studies of multipolar mitoses in euploid tissue cultures. I. Somatic reduction to exactly haploid and triploid chromosome sets.. Chromosoma 1973 May 14;42(1):71-86.
            pubmed: 4123256doi: 10.1007/BF00326331google scholar: lookup
          25. Hepperger C, Otten S, von Hase J, Dietzel S. Preservation of large-scale chromatin structure in FISH experiments.. Chromosoma 2007 Apr;116(2):117-33.
            pubmed: 17119992doi: 10.1007/s00412-006-0084-2google scholar: lookup
          26. Fung JC, Marshall WF, Dernburg A, Agard DA, Sedat JW. Homologous chromosome pairing in Drosophila melanogaster proceeds through multiple independent initiations.. J Cell Biol 1998 Apr 6;141(1):5-20.
            pubmed: 9531544doi: 10.1083/jcb.141.1.5google scholar: lookup
          27. Kosak ST, Groudine M. Gene order and dynamic domains.. Science 2004 Oct 22;306(5696):644-7.
            pubmed: 15499009doi: 10.1126/science.1103864google scholar: lookup
          28. Lasken RS, Egholm M. Whole genome amplification: abundant supplies of DNA from precious samples or clinical specimens.. Trends Biotechnol 2003 Dec;21(12):531-5.
            pubmed: 14624861doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.09.010google scholar: lookup
          29. Bártová E, Kozubek S, Jirsová P, Kozubek M, Lukásová E, Skalníková M, Cafourková A, Koutná I, Paseková R. Higher-order chromatin structure of human granulocytes.. Chromosoma 2001 Sep;110(5):360-70.
            pubmed: 11685536doi: 10.1007/s004120100141google scholar: lookup
          30. Quattro JM, Avise JC, Vrijenhoek RC. Molecular evidence for multiple origins of hybridogenetic fish clones (Poeciliidae:Poeciliopsis).. Genetics 1991 Feb;127(2):391-8.
            pubmed: 2004710doi: 10.1093/genetics/127.2.391google scholar: lookup
          31. Bridge JA, Nelson M, McComb E, McGuire MH, Rosenthal H, Vergara G, Maale GE, Spanier S, Neff JR. Cytogenetic findings in 73 osteosarcoma specimens and a review of the literature.. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1997 May;95(1):74-87.
            pubmed: 9140456doi: 10.1016/s0165-4608(96)00306-8google scholar: lookup
          32. Chaudhuri JP, Walther JU. Separation of parental genomes in human blood and bone marrow cells and its implications.. Int J Oncol 2003 Nov;23(5):1257-62.
            pubmed: 14532963
          33. Hsu TC, Cooper JE, Mace ML Jr, Brinkley BR. Arrangement of centromeres in mouse cells.. Chromosoma 1971;34(1):73-87.
            pubmed: 4105528doi: 10.1007/BF00285517google scholar: lookup
          34. Tanabe H, Müller S, Neusser M, von Hase J, Calcagno E, Cremer M, Solovei I, Cremer C, Cremer T. Evolutionary conservation of chromosome territory arrangements in cell nuclei from higher primates.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Apr 2;99(7):4424-9.
            pubmed: 11930003doi: 10.1073/pnas.072618599google scholar: lookup
          35. Haaf T. The battle of the sexes after fertilization: behaviour of paternal and maternal chromosomes in the early mammalian embryo.. Chromosome Res 2001;9(4):263-71.
            pubmed: 11419791doi: 10.1023/a:1016686312142google scholar: lookup
          36. Nagele RG, Freeman T, McMorrow L, Thomson Z, Kitson-Wind K, Lee Hy. Chromosomes exhibit preferential positioning in nuclei of quiescent human cells.. J Cell Sci 1999 Feb;112 ( Pt 4):525-35.
            pubmed: 9914164doi: 10.1242/jcs.112.4.525google scholar: lookup
          37. Yang F, Fu B, O'Brien PC, Nie W, Ryder OA, Ferguson-Smith MA. Refined genome-wide comparative map of the domestic horse, donkey and human based on cross-species chromosome painting: insight into the occasional fertility of mules.. Chromosome Res 2004;12(1):65-76.
            pubmed: 14984103doi: 10.1023/b:chro.0000009298.02689.8agoogle scholar: lookup
          38. Cornforth MN, Greulich-Bode KM, Loucas BD, Arsuaga J, Vázquez M, Sachs RK, Brückner M, Molls M, Hahnfeldt P, Hlatky L, Brenner DJ. Chromosomes are predominantly located randomly with respect to each other in interphase human cells.. J Cell Biol 2002 Oct 28;159(2):237-44.
            pubmed: 12403811doi: 10.1083/jcb.200206009google scholar: lookup
          39. GLASS E. [The problem of genome separation in mitosis of untreated rat liver].. Chromosoma 1957;8(5):468-92.
            pubmed: 13437398
          40. Mayer W, Fundele R, Haaf T. Spatial separation of parental genomes during mouse interspecific (Mus musculus x M. spretus) spermiogenesis.. Chromosome Res 2000;8(6):555-8.
            pubmed: 11032324doi: 10.1023/a:1009227924235google scholar: lookup
          41. Raudsepp T, Chowdhary BP. Construction of chromosome-specific paints for meta- and submetacentric autosomes and the sex chromosomes in the horse and their use to detect homologous chromosomal segments in the donkey.. Chromosome Res 1999;7(2):103-14.
            pubmed: 10328622doi: 10.1023/a:1009234814635google scholar: lookup
          42. Wijers ER, Zijlstra C, Lenstra JA. Rapid evolution of horse satellite DNA.. Genomics 1993 Oct;18(1):113-7.
            pubmed: 8276394doi: 10.1006/geno.1993.1433google scholar: lookup
          43. Deng W, Tsao SW, Lucas JN, Leung CS, Cheung AL. A new method for improving metaphase chromosome spreading.. Cytometry A 2003 Jan;51(1):46-51.
            pubmed: 12500304doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.10004google scholar: lookup
          44. Nagele R, Freeman T, McMorrow L, Lee HY. Precise spatial positioning of chromosomes during prometaphase: evidence for chromosomal order.. Science 1995 Dec 15;270(5243):1831-5.
            pubmed: 8525379doi: 10.1126/science.270.5243.1831google scholar: lookup
          45. Croft JA, Bridger JM, Boyle S, Perry P, Teague P, Bickmore WA. Differences in the localization and morphology of chromosomes in the human nucleus.. J Cell Biol 1999 Jun 14;145(6):1119-31.
            pubmed: 10366586doi: 10.1083/jcb.145.6.1119google scholar: lookup
          46. Chaudhuri JP, Kasprzycki E, Battaglia M, McGill JR, Brøgger A, Walther JU, Reith A. Biphasic chromatin structure and FISH signals in reflect intranuclear order.. Cell Oncol 2005;27(5-6):327-34.
            pubmed: 16373965doi: 10.1155/2005/673949google scholar: lookup
          47. Odartchenko N, Keneklis T. Localization of paternal DNA in interphase nuclei of mouse eggs during early cleavage.. Nature 1973 Feb 23;241(5391):528-9.
            pubmed: 4693953doi: 10.1038/241528a0google scholar: lookup

          Citations

          This article has been cited 4 times.
          1. Hua LL, Casas CJ, Mikawa T. Mitotic Antipairing of Homologous Chromosomes. Results Probl Cell Differ 2022;70:191-220.
            doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-06573-6_6pubmed: 36348108google scholar: lookup
          2. Keenan CR, Mlodzianoski MJ, Coughlan HD, Bediaga NG, Naselli G, Lucas EC, Wang Q, de Graaf CA, Hilton DJ, Harrison LC, Smyth GK, Rogers KL, Boudier T, Allan RS, Johanson TM. Chromosomes distribute randomly to, but not within, human neutrophil nuclear lobes. iScience 2021 Mar 19;24(3):102161.
            doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102161pubmed: 33665577google scholar: lookup
          3. Solinhac R, Mompart F, Martin P, Robelin D, Pinton P, Iannuccelli E, Lahbib-Mansais Y, Oswald IP, Yerle-Bouissou M. Transcriptomic and nuclear architecture of immune cells after LPS activation. Chromosoma 2011 Oct;120(5):501-20.
            doi: 10.1007/s00412-011-0328-7pubmed: 21695480google scholar: lookup
          4. Yerle-Bouissou M, Mompart F, Iannuccelli E, Robelin D, Jauneau A, Lahbib-Mansais Y, Delcros C, Oswald IP, Gellin J. Nuclear architecture of resting and LPS-stimulated porcine neutrophils by 3D FISH. Chromosome Res 2009;17(7):847-62.
            doi: 10.1007/s10577-009-9074-6pubmed: 19763853google scholar: lookup
          Subscribe to our newsletter
          Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.