title: Cytoplasmic Determination of Meiotic Spindle Size Revealed by a Unique Inter-Species Germinal Vesicle Transfer Model.
abstract: Spindle sizes are different in diverse species and cell types. In frogs, the meiotic spindle size is positively correlated with the egg cell volume. Across species, relatively small mouse oocytes (70-80 μm) have a relatively large spindle while larger pig oocytes (about 120 μm) have a considerably smaller spindle. In this study we investigated whether species-specific oocyte spindle size was determined by cytoplasmic or nuclear factors. By exchanging the germinal vesicle between mouse and pig oocytes, we obtained two kinds of reconstructed oocytes: one with mouse ooplasm and pig GV (mCy-pGV oocyte), and the other with pig ooplasm and mouse GV (pCy-mGV oocyte). We show that the MII spindle size of the mCy-pGV oocyte is similar to that of the mouse meiotic spindle and significantly larger than that of the pig meiotic spindle. The timing of oocyte maturation also followed that of the species from which the oocyte cytoplasm arose, although some impact of the origin of the GV was observed. These data suggest that spindle size and the timing of meiotic progression are governed by cytoplasmic components rather than cytoplasmic volume and GV materials.
authors.affiliation: State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
authors.forename: Zhong-Wei
authors.initials: ZW
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.affiliation: State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
authors.forename: Guang-Li
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.affiliation: Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
authors.forename: Heide
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Schatten
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Campus, 3800, Australia.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Carroll
authors.affiliation: State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
authors.forename: Qing-Yuan
authors.initials: QY
authors.lastname: Sun
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002454:Cell Differentiation; D065150:Cellular Reprogramming; D000067470:Cellular Reprogramming Techniques; D005260:Female; D008540:Meiosis; D051379:Mice; D009865:Oocytes / Q000166:cytology / Q000378:metabolism*; D008941:Spindle Apparatus; D013552:Swine
references.citation: J Cell Biol. 2006 Dec 18;175(6):881-91
references.pmid: 17178907
references.citation: Science. 2013 Nov 15;342(6160):856-60
references.pmid: 24233724
references.citation: Methods Enzymol. 2010;476:171-84
references.pmid: 20691866
references.citation: Science. 2013 Nov 15;342(6160):853-6
references.pmid: 24233723
references.citation: Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2010;26:21-57
references.pmid: 20604709
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 1999 Sep;14(9):2357-61
references.pmid: 10469710
references.citation: Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2010 Nov;67(11):715-28
references.pmid: 20814910
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2010 Jan;93(1):229-38
references.pmid: 18976992
references.citation: Mol Reprod Dev. 2001 Jun;59(2):192-8
references.pmid: 11389554
references.citation: Reprod Nutr Dev. 1993;33(5):411-7
references.pmid: 7511388
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2002 Aug;17(8):2160-4
references.pmid: 12151452
references.citation: Mol Hum Reprod. 1998 Jan;4(1):41-9
references.pmid: 9510010
references.citation: J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12;176(6):765-70
references.pmid: 17339377
references.citation: Biol Reprod. 2002 Sep;67(3):928-34
references.pmid: 12193404
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2004 Apr;19(4):975-81
references.pmid: 15016785
references.citation: Mol Reprod Dev. 2001 Feb;58(2):180-5
references.pmid: 11139230
references.citation: Science. 1984 Dec 14;226(4680):1317-9
references.pmid: 6542249
references.citation: Dev Biol. 2012 Aug 15;368(2):242-54
references.pmid: 22613359
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 1999 May;14(5):1312-7
references.pmid: 10325284
references.citation: Science. 2013 Aug 30;341(6149):1002-5
references.pmid: 23990560
references.citation: J Cell Sci. 2013 May 1;126(Pt 9):2102-13
references.pmid: 23532825
references.citation: Science. 2008 Feb 1;319(5863):613-6
references.pmid: 18239124
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38807
references.pmid: 22685609
references.citation: Nature. 2014 May 1;509(7498):101-4
references.pmid: 24670652
references.citation: Biol Open. 2014 Jun 06;3(7):561-70
references.pmid: 24907370
references.citation: J Reprod Dev. 2011 Jun;57(3):335-41
references.pmid: 21289465
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2015 Jul 10;290(28):17154-62
references.pmid: 25957410
references.citation: J Cell Sci. 2002 Mar 1;115(Pt 5):1083-92
references.pmid: 11870226
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2000 Feb;24(2):108-9
references.pmid: 10655051
references.citation: J Exp Zool. 1985 Aug;235(2):255-9
references.pmid: 4056691
references.citation: J Cell Biol. 2009 Mar 9;184(5):691-706
references.pmid: 19255245
references.citation: Zygote. 1997 Aug;5(3):219-27
references.pmid: 9460906
references.citation: Exp Cell Res. 1983 Jun;146(1):212-8
references.pmid: 6861907