» Articles » PMID: 6197255

A Light- and Electron Microscopic Analysis of Meiotic Prophase in Female Mice

Overview
Journal Chromosoma
Specialty Molecular Biology
Date 1983 Jan 1
PMID 6197255
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the paper we describe meiotic prophase of female mice on successive days of embryonic and early postnatal development. For this purpose we used three different techniques on ovarian material, i.e., Giemsa staining for the light microscopic study of chromatin, silver staining for the light microscopic study of the synaptonemal complex (SC), and agar filtration followed by uranyl acetate staining for the electron microscopic study of the SC. In all types of preparation it was impossible to distinguish leptotene stages, and we conclude that if leptotene really exists, it is of very short duration.--Two types of zygotene stages were found: the "normal" one, resembling zygotene stages in male mice, and a second type that has never been described in males and is characterized by, probably stable, unpaired regions together with totally unpaired axial elements of the SC.--The duration of pachytene was found to be 3-4 days, which is considerably shorter than in males. During early diplotene despiralization of the chromatin and disintegration of the axes of the SC were usually found together with desynapsis.--A considerable variation in distribution of meiotic stages was found between different litters in the same day of gestation. Fetuses in the same litter showed no significant variation. However, the oocytes in an ovary did not pass through meiosis synchronously, with differences up several days. The appearance of chromosomes in a highly contracted state could not be interpreted as a preleptotene condensation stage but probably is a mitotic phenomenon.

Citing Articles

Live cell analyses of synaptonemal complex dynamics and chromosome movements in cultured mouse testis tubules and embryonic ovaries.

Enguita-Marruedo A, van Cappellen W, Hoogerbrugge J, Carofiglio F, Wassenaar E, Slotman J Chromosoma. 2018; 127(3):341-359.

PMID: 29582139 PMC: 6096571. DOI: 10.1007/s00412-018-0668-7.


Local and sex-specific biases in crossover vs. noncrossover outcomes at meiotic recombination hot spots in mice.

de Boer E, Jasin M, Keeney S Genes Dev. 2015; 29(16):1721-33.

PMID: 26251527 PMC: 4561481. DOI: 10.1101/gad.265561.115.


Caspase 9 is constitutively activated in mouse oocytes and plays a key role in oocyte elimination during meiotic prophase progression.

Ene A, Park S, Edelmann W, Taketo T Dev Biol. 2013; 377(1):213-23.

PMID: 23384561 PMC: 3664362. DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.01.027.


Rhox13 is translated in premeiotic germ cells in male and female mice and is regulated by NANOS2 in the male.

Geyer C, Saba R, Kato Y, Anderson A, Chappell V, Saga Y Biol Reprod. 2011; 86(4):127.

PMID: 22190708 PMC: 3338663. DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.111.094938.


Meiosis in mice without a synaptonemal complex.

Kouznetsova A, Benavente R, Pastink A, Hoog C PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e28255.

PMID: 22164254 PMC: 3229524. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028255.


References
1.
Kurilo L . Oogenesis in antenatal development in man. Hum Genet. 1981; 57(1):86-92. DOI: 10.1007/BF00271175. View

2.
MOSES M . Synaptonemal complex karyotyping in spermatocytes of the Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus). II. Morphology of the XY pair in spread preparations. Chromosoma. 1977; 60(2):127-37. DOI: 10.1007/BF00288460. View

3.
BORUM K . Oogenesis in the mouse. A study of the meiotic prophase. Exp Cell Res. 1961; 24:495-507. DOI: 10.1016/0014-4827(61)90449-9. View

4.
Peters H, Levy E, Crone M . OOGENESIS IN RABBITS. J Exp Zool. 1965; 158:169-79. DOI: 10.1002/jez.1401580205. View

5.
Woldringh C, de Jong M, van den Berg W, Koppes L . Morphological analysis of the division cycle of two Escherichia coli substrains during slow growth. J Bacteriol. 1977; 131(1):270-9. PMC: 235419. DOI: 10.1128/jb.131.1.270-279.1977. View