Cytogenetic analysis of human oocytes parthenogenetically activated by puromycin

• Published in: Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 1994-09, Vol.11 (8), p.382-388
• Main Authors: DE SUTTER, P, DOZORTSEV, D, VRIJENS, P, DESMET, R, DHONT, M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Cell Nucleus - drug effects; Cell Nucleus - genetics; Cell Nucleus - metabolism; Chromatin - genetics; Chromosomes, Human - drug effects; Chromosomes, Human - genetics; Cytogenetics; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution; Haploidy; Human; Humans; Meiosis - drug effects; Meiosis - genetics; Mitosis - drug effects; Mitosis - genetics; Oocytes - drug effects; Oocytes - physiology; Parthenogenesis - drug effects; Parthenogenesis - physiology; Puromycin - pharmacology
• ISSN: 1058-0468; 1573-7330
• DOI: 10.1007/bf02211723

Treatment of aged human oocytes by puromycin allows a high rate of parthenogenetic activation and development until the first cleavage division. This technique was used for the study of the chromosome complement of oocytes which remained unfertilized after in vitro fertilization. Three hundred four unfertilized oocytes were treated with 10 micrograms/ml puromycin for 6-8 hr and further cultured for 12-15 hr. Activation occurred in 90.5% of the oocytes. Heterozygous diploids with two pronuclei predominated (61%), which is in contrast to the mouse, where the majority of oocytes activated by puromycin are uniform haploids (89%). Therefore we conclude that puromycin treatment induces retention of the second polar body in human oocytes, unlike in mouse oocytes treated in the same way. Chromosome analysis performed on 182 oocytes suggested a nondisjunction (ND) rate for the second meiotic division of 12.7%. This is a low figure considering the fact that puromycin itself has been reported to induce nondisjunction. For the first meiotic division a ND rate of only 5.6% was found. This rate is lower than the one found in metaphase II arrested oocytes and we believe that this difference is due to the technical differences between the study of meiotic and that of mitotic chromosomes.