Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 29;20(7):e0327930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327930

In vitro organ culture protocol for intact urogenital systems supporting gonadal differentiation

Sarah L Whiteley 1,*, Clare E Holleley 2, Arthur Georges 1
Editor: Rajakumar Anbazhagan3
PMCID: PMC12306756  PMID: 40729347

Abstract

Developing in vitro protocols for non-model species poses challenges, and yet are essential for advancing molecular biology studies. This is particularly true for sex determination research that relies on being able to functionally demonstrate the role of genes in determining sex and guiding the process of sex differentiation. Reptile species are attractive models for sex determination research as many species display thermolabile sex systems, allowing for exploration of gene-environment interactions. The first in vitro gonad culture technique for a turtle was published almost 35 years ago in 1990, but these techniques have seen limited use. This is likely because of challenges inherent to the system, where cultures need to be maintained for prolonged periods for gonadal differentiation to occur. All published techniques for long-term cultures involve removing the gonad from the surrounding mesonephros, which causes issues for proper testes development. Here we present the first protocol developed in the reptile model, Pogona vitticeps, that allows the long-term culture of the whole urogenital system supporting differentiation from biopotential gonads to ovaries or testes. Gross morphology is well maintained, and the gonad can be dissected from the mesonephros even after a culture period of up to 19 days. The cultured gonads display sex specific gene expression and morphology. This protocol will facilitate research in sex determination by providing an effective and low-cost alternative to existing protocols and expand capacity for functional manipulation studies in non-model species.

Introduction

The ability to conduct experiments in vitro has many benefits, particularly for molecular biology research. Such systems are well established for mammalian models, however these techniques pose challenges in other systems. Sex determination is an active area of research, and a suite of non-model reptile species with thermolabile sex determination are of particular interest [1]. The ultimate goal in this field is to demonstrate functional roles for genes in sex determination cascades and their regulation of gonadal differentiation. Despite significant activity in the field for decades, fundamental questions remain unanswered, largely because of difficulties in establishing key molecular biology resources in reptiles.

Despite the challenges, progress has been made in recent years in establishing protocols for functional gene manipulation techniques in whole animals, for example CRISPR editing in Anolis sageri [2], and gene manipulation studies using lentivirus in Trachemys scripta [3]. However, such techniques pose significant technical challenges, and their routine use has not been established. This necessitates the development of robust in vitro culture systems to circumvent the technical and ethical challenges associated with manipulations in whole embryos.

Sex determination research rests on being able to examine the complex genetic and morphological processes governing the differentiation of the biopotential gonads to either ovaries or testes. This poses challenges for in vitro culture systems as this process may take weeks (depending on temperature), and differentiation must be sufficiently supported in culture so that the gonad can be clearly identified as an ovary or testis either morphologically, or by gene expression profiles. While no in vitro culture system can ever completely recapitulate the environment experienced in vivo, the goal is to develop techniques able to sufficiently capture the biological complexity and overcome obstacles present in the in vivo system.

These difficulties may explain why, since the publication of the first gonad culture protocol for a reptile in 1990 [4], only seven other studies have since used in vitro culture methods (Table 1), all involving just two turtle species (Lepidochelys olivacea and Trachemys scripta). Egg injection experiments have seen broader use, though they present significant challenges as well, in particular high mortality. For examples, see Ge et al., 2018 where mortality following injection of a lentiviral construct at stage 13 was approximately 50–80% by stage 21. In P. vitticeps, injection of antioxidants into eggs caused 41–45% mortality [5]. High mortality creates additional logistical, statistical, and ethical challenges, and certain interventions are embryonic lethal, so can only be successfully executed within a culture system, or may have low efficacy [6]. Injection also raises uncertainty as to the dose received by the embryo in eggs with substantial yolk. Although there are limitations inherent to in vitro culture systems, in such instances they present the only viable alternative.

Table 1. Summary of published organ culture techniques for reptiles.

Species Culture substrate Pore size Culture medium Culture period Validation techniques Year Reference Notes
Lepidochelys olivacea Biopore membrane (Nucleopore Corporation) 1µM L15 medium without serum, supplemented with 0.06M of NaCl 10 days Light microscopy (Karnovsky solution) 1990 [4] Adapted from protocol developed for mouse by [7] in 1981
Lepidochelys olivacea Low-protein binding Biopore membrane (Millipore) 0.4 µM L15 medium, 0.16% NaCl. 10% serum from male or female hatchlings Up to 13 days IHC for Sox9 2001 [8] Hatchling derived serum was not treated to remove steroid hormone. Noted that morphology was improved by use of this type of membrane
Trachemys scripta Biopore Millicell membrane (Millipore) 0.4 µM L15 medium (with L-Glutamine and phenol red), 10% FBS (unstripped), 0.2% Anti-Anti.
The authors noted that phenol red is a weak estrogen mimic and hormones in FBS influenced male development. Subsequently phenol red free L15 and charcoal-stripped FBS was used
Up to 20 days Histology (H&E), qPCR (Foxl2, Dmrt1, Sox9, Mis), Whole-Mount ISH 2010 [9] The authors noted that development was slower in culture, and sex cord formation in testes was poor. First to describe electroporation of plasmid construct in culture to generate mosaic misexpression of Sox9
Lepidochelys olivacea Biopore membrane L15 medium, followed methods by [8] 72 hours IHC (Sox9), qPCR (Sox9, Amh, CYP19A1) 2013 [10] First study to apply RNAi for Sox9 in culture
Trachemys scripta Agar (1.5% agar in L15) NA L15, 10% FBS (charcoal stripped), 50 µg/ml Ampicillin, 1.25 µg/ml Fungizone Up to 10 days qPCR (Wnt4), IHC (Aromatase, Sox9, Beta- catenin) 2013 [11] Adapted from Martineau et al. 1997 mouse protocol [12]
Trachemys scripta Agar (1.5% agar in L15) NA L15, 10% FBS (charcoal stripped), 50 µg/ml Ampicillin, 1.25 µg/ml Fungizone 8 days IHC (Sox9, Beta Catenin) 2014 [13] Adapted from Mork and Capel 2013, Martineau et al. 1997
Trachemys scripta Low protein binding biopore membrane (Millipore) 0.4 µM L15, charcoal stripped FBS, 0.2% pen-strep Up to 30 days Histology, IHC (Sox9), qPCR (Dmrt1, Sox9, CYP19A1, Foxl2) 2017 [14] Included lentiviral electroporation for DMRT1 knockdown
Trachemys scripta Millicell membrane inserts (Millipore) Not specified L-15 (no phenol red), 10% FBS (not specified if charcoal stripped), 1 x Anti-Anti, 50 µg/ml Ampicillin 24 hours IHC (Gata4), qPCR (Dmrt1) 2020 [15] Only study to culture whole UGS, but only for a short period

As outlined in Table 1, the published methods for in vitro reptile organ culture are broadly similar, at least in part to having been frequently adapted from each other from two original culture methods for mouse. They can be divided into two groups; those that use Biopore membranes (the majority, originally adapted from a mouse protocol by Taketo and Koide, 1981), and agar slab approaches (only used in two publications, originally adapted from a mouse protocol by Martineau et al., 1997).

An important detail to note is that all previously published protocols culture gonads that have been isolated from the surrounding mesonephros. This prevailing preference of researchers to isolate the gonads likely originates from Shoemaker-Daly et al., (2010), who referenced a personal communication that whole urogenital systems do not survive in culture. However, Weber et al., (2020) successfully cultured the whole urogenital system in vitro, to assess the effect of a pSTAT3 inhibitor on Kdm6b regulation, but only maintained live cultures for 24 hours.

While the isolated gonads tend to perform well in culture, typically displaying expected patterns of sex gene and protein expression, removing them from the supporting mesonephros can impact morphology and growth rate. It also removes the gonads from the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which may influence gonad growth and development. As noted by Shoemaker-Daly et al., (2010), gonads developing in ovo develop a round shape, whereas in the course of the culture period, the in vitro cultured tissues became flattened giving the tissue a more oval shape. In vitro gonads developed a less defined medulla and cortex region, and seminiferous tubules were not distinguishable in males. They also noted that morphological development was slower in cultured gonads, contributing to a lengthy culture period (20 days). This is attributed to the removal of the gonads from the surrounding mesonephric tissues. Moreno-Mendoza, Harley and Merchant-Larios, (2001) also noted altered morphology between in ovo and in vitro gonads, suggesting this is caused by culturing on a Biopore membrane. The mesonephros may provide structural support to gonads in culture, which may improve overall morphology. The mesonephros also supports sex cord formation in the testes, so keeping the urogenital system intact for culture would likely improve testes morphology [9,16]. While culture of the whole HPA axis is impossible, the culture of the intact urogenital system at least includes the adrenal, which may enhance gonad growth and development.

Currently, no organ culture protocols exist for squamates, nor are there protocols for any species allowing the culture of the intact urogenital system for a prolonged period (>24 hours) allowing gonadal differentiation to occur. To address this gap, here we present a protocol developed in the model species, Pogona vitticeps, that can maintain the whole urogenital system for up to 19 days. Importantly, the cultured gonads undergo differentiation, and display sex specific characteristics at the morphological and gene expression level. Gross morphology is well maintained such that the gonads can be removed from the mesonephros at the end of the culture period, improving utility for downstream applications such as gene expression analysis.

Materials and methods

The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io (https://www.protocols.io/view/in-vitro-organ-culture-of-intact-urogenital-system-kqdg3qxj1v25/v1) and is included for printing as supporting information file 1 with this article.

Expected results

Sample collection and staging.

All embryonic materials were obtained from eggs laid in the captive breeding colony of Pogona vitticeps held at the University of Canberra. All procedures were conducted with approval from the University of Canberra’s Animal Ethics Committee.

P. vitticeps displays temperature induced sex reversal, where genetic ZZ males develop as females at high temperatures (>32°C). At lower temperatures (typically 28°C) development proceeds in accordance with genotype, where ZZ individuals develop as males and ZW individuals develop as females. After lay, eggs were collected and incubated until developmental stage 6 when they were explanted [17]. ZZ eggs incubated 28°C produce males, while incubation at 36°C which typically produces 96% sex reversal of the ZZ genotype to female [18,19]. We used these conditions to validate that both male and females (including sex reversal) sex differentiation occurs in accordance with these patterns in organ culture.

Previous work has characterised the developmental stages [17] and timing of gonad differentiation in P. vitticeps [20]. This staging information is required before starting organ culture experiments in a new species. A balance must be struck between capturing the relevant periods of gonad development and minimising the culture period to avoid aberrant cell behaviour. This must be optimised for each new species depending on their characteristics.

Method benchmarking

We initially tested culturing on Biopore membranes following previous protocols, choosing 0.4µM pore size as that was the most used (Table 1) Nunc polycarbonate cell culture inserts were used in 6-well plates (0.4µM pore, Thermo Scientific, Cat: 140640). Whole urogenital systems were explanted at stage 4 or stage 6 (bipotential gonads) and cultured until they would be the equivalent of stage 12 (differentiated) depending on incubation temperature. Both 28°C and 36°C incubations were trialled to determine that sex differentiation can proceed as normal, and to establish that temperature induced sex reversal can occur in culture.

As had been noted in previous studies, we found that gross morphology was poorly maintained in all cultures grown on Biopore membranes (Fig 1B,C). Additionally, the organs adhered to the membrane making them difficult to remove for downstream applications without damaging the tissue. Histological examination also found that gonad morphology was poor in females (Fig 1D), and the sex cords in testes were not clearly differentiated (Fig 1E, F). This technique also posed technical challenges for any gene expression sequencing applications as the whole urogenital system must be analysed because insufficient organ integrity means that it is impossible to dissect the gonads from the mesonephros.

Fig 1. Comparison of gross morphology (A-C) and histology (D-I) between agar slab (A, D, G) and Biopore membrane (B, C, E, F, H, I) organ culture techniques in Pogona vitticeps.

Fig 1

A) Gross morphology of whole urogenital system cultured for 19 days at 28°C showing gonads (black arrows) clearly distinguishable from the surrounding mesonephros tissue. B and C) Gross morphology of organs cultured on a Biopore membrane showing the gonads are not distinguishable from the surrounding mesonephros tissue. D) Histology (H & E stained) section of ZZf sex reversed female incubated at 36°C on a Biopore membrane. The gonads are not clearly separated from the mesonephros and although primordial germ cells have proliferated, the typical ovarian characteristics of a well-defined and proliferating medulla and degrading cortex are not clear. E and F) Histology (H & E stained) sections of ZZm males incubated at 28°C on a Biopore membrane. Similarly to the gonad in D, germ cells have proliferated but typical testes characteristics of a degenerate cortex and medulla with well-defined seminiferous tubules are not obvious. All sections shown in D, E and F, it is not possible to confidently assign a testes or ovary phenotype as the morphology is too ambiguous. G) Histology (H & E stained) section of ZZf sex reversed female incubated at 36°C on an agar slab. The gonads are well defined from the surrounding mesonephros. While the ovarian characteristics are not as clear as for an ovary developing in ovo, the cortex layer is well-defined and the cells in the medulla are disordered. H and I) Histology (H & E stained) sections of ZZm males incubated at 28°C on an agar slab. Seminiferous tubules are difficult to achieve in culture, however as shown in H it is possible for them to clearly develop as is typical for testes developing in ovo. I shows testes with less well-developed seminiferous tubules, but that are still obvious enough that it could be distinguished from an ovary.

To overcome these challenges, we then trialled the culture of whole urogenital systems using agar slabs, adapting the methods outlined by Mork and Capel, (2013). We explanted at stage 6 to keep the culture duration to a minimum, and tested both 28°C and 36°C incubation temperatures (n = 32). We found that the agar slab method produced far superior results. Gross organ morphology was well maintained, such that the gonads were clearly distinguishable from the surrounding kidney tissue, even after the longest culture period of 19 days at 28°C (Fig 1A). This allows the gonads to be dissected out for use in downstream sequencing applications, greatly improving the quality of the results. Importantly, we observed that temperature sex reversal occurs in culture (Fig 1G) and the agar method produces differentiated testes with clear seminiferous tubules (Fig 1H, I), which has previously been difficult to achieve [9].

Gene expression validation

We verified that the cultured organs recapitulated expected expression patterns in both sex specific and temperature responsive genes previously established for P. vitticeps [21,22]. Organs were explanted from stage 6 embryos (laid by ZZf sex reversed mothers, a ZZ x ZZ cross) and cultured for 9 days at 36°C to generate sex reversed females, and 19 days at 28°C to generate concordant ZZm males. Gonads were dissected from the surrounding mesonephros and prepared for RNA sequencing in accordance with procedures described in [21]. Raw count and expression files used for analysis are provided in S2 and S3 Files respectively.

We assessed differential gene expression between 36 ZZf and 28 ZZm in vitro organ cultures (S4 File). To assess the similarities or differences in the differential gene expression patterns between 36 ZZf (n = 3) and 28 ZZm groups (n = 3), we performed the same analysis for whole gonads (previously published data in [21,22; S5 File]. We expect the in vitro cultures will not completely recapitulate the expression patterns of gonads developing in situ, as no culture system can ever capture the biological complexities present in an intact and normally developing embryo. However, we do expect there should be sex specific differences in gene expression patterns, especially given that we know ovaries and testes are distinguishable morphologically (Fig 1). We also expect that specific hallmarks of sex reversal that have been identified in in situ gonads will be present in the 36 ZZf in vitro cultures.

Differential gene expression analysis between 28 ZZm and 36 ZZf in vitro organ cultures showed that well characterised male specific genes DMRTB1, DMRT1, NR5A1, AMH, GADD45G were upregulated in 28 ZZm samples (Fig 2, S4 File). AMH and DMRT1 are also differentially expressed between 28 ZZm and 36 ZZf in in situ stage 12 gonads, but NR5A1 is not (Fig 2, S4 File). Bone morphogenic family genes BMP3, which is linked to testis development in chicken [23], and BMP4, a Sertoli cell marker [24], were also upregulated in in vitro 28 ZZm gonads. Hormone synthesis genes HSD17B7, HSD3B7, and HSD17B3 required for testosterone synthesis [25] were upregulated alongside STAR. DLL1, LHX9, PTGER1. GATA3 and BMP7 were upregulated, two genes that have been associated with both sexes. One gene typically associated with female development was upregulated, however the log-fold change was low (RSPO2; log-fold change = 3, p = 0.02; S4 File). In the 28 ZZm in situ gonads, HSD17B3 was upregulated but none of the other HSD family genes were, and STAR was upregulated in 36 ZZf in situ gonads. Despite some differences in the gene expression patterns between in situ and in vitro gonads, overall the cultured organs displayed clear gene expression patterns expected for males.

Fig 2. Gene expression (TPM, transcripts per million) of male associated genes.

Fig 2

Expression of DMRT1, AMH, and NR5A1 from whole embryonic gonads at stage 12 that developed in situ (data from [21,22].Panels A-C), and gonads isolated from organ cultures (panels D-F).

In the 36 ZZf in vitro cultured gonads (expected to be all sex reversed females), sex specific gene expression trends were not as pronounced as those observed in the 28ZZ males. This may be because high temperatures mask some of the sex-specific gene expression patterns, and there appears to be differences in the timing of gene expression compared to gonads developing in situ. In the 36 ZZf in situ gonads, there were some unusual trends. CYP19A1 and FOXL2 were significantly upregulated, as expected for females, however strongly male associated genes were also upregulated, including SRD5A2, which converts testosterone to the more potent dihydrotestosterone, and AMHR2 (Fig 3, S4 File).

Fig 3. Gene expression (TPM, transcripts per million) of female associated genes.

Fig 3

Expression of CYP19A1, FOXL2, RSPO1, CTNNB1, ESRRF, and WISP1 from whole embryonic gonads at stage 12 that developed in situ (data from [21,22].Panels G-L), and gonads isolated from organ cultures (panels D-F).

However, the strong down-regulation of male related genes (as outlined above), and upregulation of some female related genes does support that sex reversal can occur in the organ culture system. Vitellogenin-2-like was one of the most highly expressed genes, alongside hormone synthesis genes HSD17B2 and ESRRG. Other female development associated genes WNT10B, LHX8, PAX8, WISP1 were also upregulated [21,23]; Fig 3). Female genes CYP19A1, RPOS1, FOXL2, and CTNNB1 were lowly expressed in culture (Fig 3). Given that the cultures do differentiate clear ovarian characteristics (Fig 1G), these expression trends suggest that these genes must be expressed at higher levels prior to when the gonads were sampled in order to support ovarian development. Notably, RSPO1 and CTNNB1 are not differentially expressed in in situ gonads.

Chromatin modifiers JARID2 and KDM6B, and thermosensitive gene CIRBP, were highly upregulated, and based on our previous work, this is a strong signal of sex reversal [21] Fig 4). These patterns were recapitulated in gonads developing in situ where they were upregulated in 36 ZZf (S5 File). Sex reversal in organ culture is also supported by gonadal morphology (Fig 1G).

Fig 4. Gene expression (TPM, transcripts per million) of sex reversal associated genes.

Fig 4

Expression of JARID2, KDM6B, and CIRBP from whole embryonic gonads at stage 12 that developed in situ (data from [21,22].Panels A-F), and gonads isolated from organ cultures (panels D-F).

Even for in situ gonads, expression patterns can be complicated, and with the addition of the temperature influences, and be complicated even further. Because of this, care should be taken if using gene expression profiling in general, but particularly for in vitro organ cultures. This is especially important for species with thermosensitive sex determination systems where the influence of temperature on sex differentiation is fundamentally linked. Whole transcriptome sequencing provides capacity to better understand this variation, or uncover unexpected patterns in expression profiles. Many other sequencing techniques are available for validating expression profiles, for example single cell sequencing, but are often cost prohibitive. Other cost effective alternatives, such a qPCR, should be carefully implemented as the expression profiles of a smaller number of genes may be more difficult to interpret. Combining any sequencing techniques with other morphology techniques, such and histology and immunohistochemistry, represents a balanced strategy to give a more complete overview of cellular characteristics and gene expression patterns in culture. Other assays assessing hormonal function could also be considered depending on research requirements.

Supporting information

S1 File. Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.

(PDF)

pone.0327930.s001.pdf (440.9KB, pdf)
S2 File. Raw count files for sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

Analysis was conducted using methods described in (21). The sample IDs correspond to incubation temperature (28 or 36), genotype (ZZ), replicate (1, 2 or 3).

(CSV)

pone.0327930.s002.csv (680.2KB, csv)
S3 File. Raw expression files (TPM, transcripts per million) for sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

Analysis was conducted using methods described in (21). The sample IDs correspond to incubation temperature (28 or 36), genotype (ZZ), replicate (1, 2 or 3).

(CSV)

pone.0327930.s003.csv (1.4MB, csv)
S4 File. Results from differential gene expression analysis between sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

Analysis was conducted using methods described in [21]. Log-fold change threshold of −1, 1 and p value cut-off of 0.05 have been applied.

(XLSX)

pone.0327930.s004.xlsx (149.7KB, xlsx)
S5 File. Results from differential gene expression analysis between sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) from gonads developed in situ.

Analysis was conducted using methods described in [21] using data from [21,22]. Log-fold change threshold of −1, 1 and p value cut-off of 0.05 have been applied.

(XLSX)

pone.0327930.s005.xlsx (58.6KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The testing and now frequent use of this organ culture method came about because of the COVID-19 pandemic restricting the availability of the Biopore membranes. We are grateful for this unintended, yet ultimately positive outcome. We thank Chelsea Steele and her animal husbandry team at the University of Canberra for their care of the P. vitticeps animal colony that supports our research. We acknowledge the contributions of Blanche Capel and her team in being the first to adopt this agar slab method in reptiles, and for providing the methodological foundation which we based this protocol on. We also thank members of Team Pogona, past and present, for their support throughout the development of this protocol. Associated content: https://www.protocols.io/view/in-vitro-organ-culture-of-intact-urogenital-system-kqdg3qxj1v25/v1.

Data Availability

All raw sequencing files used for the organ culture gene expression analysis are available on NCBI under Bioproject PRJNA1287302. The whole gonad transcriptomes used for comparison are available on NCBI under Bioproject PRJNA699086.

Funding Statement

Funding for this project was provided by two Discovery Grants led by AG by the Australian Research Council (DP170101147 and DP220101429). Additional funding was provided to SLW by a CSIRO Research Plus Postgraduate Award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Van Dyke JU, Thompson MB, Burridge CP, Castelli MA, Clulow S, Dissanayake DSB, et al. Australian lizards are outstanding models for reproductive biology research. Aust J Zool. 2021;68(4):168–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rasys AM, Park S, Ball RE, Alcala AJ, Lauderdale JD, Menke DB. CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in lizards through microinjection of unfertilized oocytes. Cell Rep. 2019;28(9):2288–92.e3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ge C, Ye J, Weber C, Sun W, Zhang H, Zhou Y, et al. The histone demethylase KDM6B regulates temperature-dependent sex determination in a turtle species. Science (1979). 2018;360(6389):645–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Merchant‐Larios H, Villalpando I. Effect of temperature on gonadal sex differentiation in the sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea: an organ culture study. J Exp Zool. 1990;254(3):327–31. doi: 10.1002/jez.1402540312 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Castelli M, Georges A, Holleley CE. Corticosterone does not have a role in temperature sex reversal in the central bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps). J Experiment Zool. 2021;335(November 2020):301–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Smith CA, Roeszler KN, Ohnesorg T, Cummins DM, Farlie PG, Doran TJ, et al. The avian Z-linked gene DMRT1 is required for male sex determination in the chicken. Nature. 2009;461(7261):267–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Taketo T, Koide SS. In vitro development of testis and ovary from indifferent fetal mouse gonads. Dev Biol. 1981;84(1):61–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Moreno-Mendoza N, Harley VR, Merchant-Larios H. Temperature regulates SOX9 expression in cultured gonads of Lepidochelys olivacea, a species with temperature sex determination. Dev Biol. 2001;229(2):319–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shoemaker-Daly CM, Jackson K, Yatsu R, Matsumoto Y, Crews D. Genetic network underlying temperature-dependent sex determination is endogenously regulated by temperature in isolated cultured Trachemys scripta gonads. Dev Dynamics. 2010. Mar 16;239(4):1061–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sifuentes-Romero I, Merchant-Larios H, Milton SL, Moreno-Mendoza N, Díaz-Hernández V, García-Gasca A. RNAi-Mediated gene silencing in a gonad organ culture to study sex determination mechanisms in sea turtle. Genes (Basel). 2013;4(2):293–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mork L, Capel B. Conserved action of β-catenin during female fate determination in the red-eared slider turtle. Evol Dev. 2013;15(2):96–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Martineau J, Nordqvist K, Tilmann C, Lovell-Badge R, Capel B. Male-specific cell migration into the developing gonad. Curr Biol. 1997;7(12):958–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mork L, Czerwinski M, Capel B. Predetermination of sexual fate in a turtle with temperature-dependent sex determination. Dev Biol. 2014;386(1):264–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ge C, Ye J, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Sun W, Sang Y, et al. Dmrt1 induces the male pathway in a turtle species with temperature-dependent sex determination. Development. 2017;144(12):2222–33. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 15.Weber C, Zhou Y, Lee J, Looger L, Qian G, Ge C, et al. Temperature-dependent sex determination is mediated by pSTAT3 repression of Kdm6b. Science (1979). 2020;3(6488):303–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yao HHC, DiNapoli L, Capel B. Cellular mechanisms of sex determination in the red-eared slider turtle, Trachemys scripta. Mech Dev. 2004;121(11):1393–401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Whiteley SL, Holleley CECECE, Ruscoe WAWA, Castelli M, Whitehead DLDL, Lei J, et al. Sex determination mode does not affect body or genital development of the central bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps). Evodevo. 2017. Dec;8(25):25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Quinn AE, Ezaz T, Sarre SD, Ja Marshall G, Georges A. Extension, single-locus conversion and physical mapping of sex chromosome sequences identify the Z microchromosome and pseudo-autosomal region in a dragon lizard, Pogona vitticeps. Heredity (Edinb). 2010;104(4):410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Holleley CE, O’Meally D, Sarre SD, Marshall Graves JA, Ezaz T, Matsubara K, et al. Sex reversal triggers the rapid transition from genetic to temperature-dependent sex. Nature. 2015;523(7558):79–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Whiteley SL, Weisbecker V, Georges A, Gauthier ARG, Whitehead DL, Holleley CE. Developmental asynchrony and antagonism of sex determination pathways in a lizard with temperature-induced sex reversal. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Whiteley SL, Holleley Clare E, Blackburn J, Deveson IW, Wagner S, Marshall Graves JA, et al. Two transcriptionally distinct pathways drive female development in a reptile with temperature induced sex reversal. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 22.Wagner S, Whiteley SL, Castelli M, Patel HR, Deveson IW, Blackburn J, et al. Gene expression of male pathway genes sox9 and amh during early sex differentiation in a reptile departs from the classical amniote model. BMC Genomics [Internet]. 2023;24(1):1–18. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09334-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carré GA, Couty I, Hennequet-Antier C, Govoroun MS. Gene expression profiling reveals new potential players of gonad differentiation in the chicken embryo. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Padua MB, Jiang T, Morse DA, Fox SC, Hatch HM, Tevosian SG. Combined loss of the GATA4 and GATA6 transcription factors in male mice disrupts testicular development and confers adrenal-like function in the testes. Endocrinology. 2015;156(5):1873–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Parivesh A, Délot E, Reyes A, Ryan J, Harley V, Vilain E. Reprograming human fibroblasts into Sertoli cells: 1 a tool for personalized medicine. 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Decision Letter 0

Rajakumar Anbazhagan

PONE-D-24-57396In vitro organ culture protocol for intact urogenital systems supporting gonadal differentiationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Whiteley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajakumar Anbazhagan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Funding for this project was provided by two Discovery Grants led by AG by the Australian Research Council (DP170101147 and DP220101429). Additional funding was provided to SLW by a CSIRO Research Plus Postgraduate Award.  Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that All sequencing data has been deposited with NCBI and accession numbers are available on request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

To answer this question, please click the link to protocols.io in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript (if a link has been provided) or consult the step-by-step protocol in the Supporting Information files.

The step-by-step protocol should contain sufficient detail for another researcher to be able to reproduce all experiments and analyses.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:  The current article describes an in vitro organ culture protocol involving agar slab for intact urogenital systems in the reptile model, Pogona vitticeps supporting differentiation of biopotential gonads into either ovaries or testes. The protocol delivered superior results over the existing protocols with respect to integrity of gross organ morphology, showed sex specific gene expression and temperature induction of sex reversal during culture. Overall it is providing a reliable method for studying gonadal differentiation in non-model species.

Reviewer #2:  This In-vitro organ culture protocol for intact urogenital systems is significant. Unlike traditional genetic studies, which rely on whole-animal experiments, this method allows direct functional analysis of gene-environment interactions. It is substantial for reptiles, where temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) is a key factor, enabling controlled studies.

A step forward, but not without its challenges. These include species-specific adaptations, the need for external supplementation of systemic factors, and potential developmental deviations in vitro. However, the future is promising, with potential improvements such as integrating hormonal signaling, optimizing culture conditions for broader species applicability, and exploring co-culture systems to better mimic in vivo environments. The journey towards a more comprehensive understanding continues.

The authors need to discuss the points below to mark.

1. In vivo, gonadal development is influenced by systemic factors such as hormones from the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. This in vitro system, while valuable, lacks these interactions, which may lead to incomplete or altered differentiation patterns. It's important to acknowledge these limitations and consider external supplementation with hormones or signaling molecules to mimic in vivo conditions fully.

2. Even though the gross morphology of the gonads is preserved, subtle changes in differentiation could still occur due to the artificial culture environment. The absence of vascularization and mechanical forces in vivo may affect the development of specific cell types or tissue organization. The impact of in vitro conditions on long-term gonadal function and reproductive potential remains unclear.

3. The study acknowledges that no in vitro system can fully replicate the biological complexity of in situ development. However, it does not sufficiently discuss the potential impact of missing systemic factors, such as endocrine signals or maternal influences, on gonadal differentiation and gene expression. The absence of these factors in the in vitro system may lead to incomplete or altered differentiation patterns, which could affect the expression of sex-specific genes and the overall reproductive potential of the cultured gonads.

4. The study highlights that Biopore membranes fail to maintain gonad morphology, but the agar slab method does not fully replicate in vivo development. The extent to which these morphological differences affect downstream analyses (e.g., gene expression) is not deeply explored. The expression of sex-specific genes in cultured gonads does not fully match that observed in in situ development, particularly in 36°C-induced sex-reversed females. The study suggests that high temperatures may mask sex-specific gene expression, but alternative explanations should be considered, such as differences in developmental timing or stress responses in vitro. These factors could potentially influence gene expression and should be further investigated.

5. While the study presents morphological and gene expression evidence of sex reversal, inconsistencies in gene expression trends (e.g., up regulation of some male genes in sex-reversed females) raise questions. Additional functional validation (e.g., hormonal assays or long-term differentiation studies) would strengthen the conclusions.

6. The inability to cleanly separate gonads from the mesonephros in Biopore cultures limits the specificity of gene expression data. Even in agar slab cultures, residual mesonephric tissue could influence RNA sequencing results. To address this, the study could further evaluate the influence of residual mesonephric tissue on RNA sequencing results by comparing single-cell RNA sequencing data, which would provide a more detailed and accurate picture of gene expression in cultured gonads.

7. The study does not clearly state the number of biological replicates used for gene expression analysis. Given the complexity of temperature-induced sex reversal, a larger sample size would help determine whether observed trends are biologically meaningful or due to individual variability.

8. While agar slabs performed better than Biopore membranes, other 3D culture techniques, such as extracellular matrix-based hydrogels, might provide better structural support and improve morphological and molecular outcomes. The study does not explore these possibilities.

9. The study optimizes culture conditions based on previous P. vitticeps staging but does not test whether earlier or later developmental stages might yield better results. A more detailed assessment of optimal culture windows could improve the model.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jul 29;20(7):e0327930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327930.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 May 2025

Manuscript PONE-D-24-57396: In vitro organ culture protocol for intact urogenital systems supporting gonadal differentiation

Response to reviewers

We thank the Editor and the two Reviewers for taking the time to consider our manuscript for publication in PLOS One. The manuscript was well received by Reviewer 1 who didn’t provide any suggestions for the manuscript, stating that the protocol provides “a reliable method for studying gonadal differentiation in non-model species.”

We have responded in detail to the comments from Reviewer 2 in BLUE, and actions we have taken to address these comments are in RED. In the amended manuscript the amendments have been made using tracked changes as requested by the editorial team, along with a clean revised version. All referenced line numbers correspond to the tracked changes version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Response

We appreciate the thoroughness of the response from Reviewer 2. We note that the majority of the comments share a theme in that there are limitations of our present method that are inherent to ex ovo culture systems. It is not possible to ever perfectly replicate the in vivo environment in culture.

We acknowledged this in the original submission on lines 187-189, where we stated that “we expect the in vitro cultures will not completely recapitulate the expression patterns of gonads developing in situ, as no culture system can ever capture the biological complexities present in an intact and normally developing embryo.”

This includes the absence of any signals that may originate from the hypothalamus (comment 1) and other endocrine signalling factors (comment 3) that may mean that there are “subtle changes” in the organ culture (comment 2).

ACTION: In order to address the overarching concerns central to these comments, we have added the following lines to the revised manuscript:

“While no in vitro culture system can ever completely recapitulate the environment experienced in vivo, the goal is to develop techniques able to sufficiently capture the biological complexity and overcome obstacles present in the in vivo system.” (lines 57-60).

“Although there are limitations inherent to in vitro culture systems, in such instances they present the only viable alternative for experimentation.” (lines 71-72).

The other concern raised by Reviewer 2 consistent across three comments was that additional validation may shed more light onto the efficacy of the culture method. This includes hormonal assays (comment 5), single cell RNA-sequencing (comment 6), and matrix-based hydrogels (comment 8).

We agree that there are many options available for validating and optimising in vitro culture protocols, as described in lines 241-249 of the original submission. We suggest the utility of whole transcriptome sequencing but also acknowledge other more cost-effective approaches like qPCR, and other morphology based techniques alongside histology, such as immunohistochemistry.

One of the major advantages of our method is its simplicity and low cost (mentioned in lines 35-36), making it accessible to all researchers compared to techniques that rely on expensive consumables like biopore membranes and hydrogel matrixes.

ACTION: To highlight the current limitations of our presented method, we have added the following lines and suggest additional avenues for optimisation of the technique, we have added the following lines:

“Many other sequencing techniques are available for validating expression profiles, for example single cell sequencing, but are often cost prohibitive.” (lines 248-249).

“Other assays assessing hormonal function could also be considered depending on research requirements.” (lines 254-255).

Other comments from Reviewer 2

1. In vivo, gonadal development is influenced by systemic factors such as hormones from the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. This in vitro system, while valuable, lacks these interactions, which may lead to incomplete or altered differentiation patterns. It's important to acknowledge these limitations and consider external supplementation with hormones or signaling molecules to mimic in vivo conditions fully.

We thank Reviewer 2 for their comment and agree that any in vitro system has inherent limitations and will never be able to fully recapitulate the in vivo environment, as addressed in response to comments above.

We also note that the organ culture is not fully separated from the entire HPA (hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal) axis because the intact UGS is explanted such that the adrenal is still present. This is an advantage to previous methods where the gonad was cultured in isolation, so was completely removed from the whole axis. We also note that there is limited evidence for the role of the HPA axis in reptile sex determination (reviewed in Castelli et al, Biological Reviews, 2020).

Any signalling molecules potentially originating from the HPA axis are poorly characterised in reptiles, so it would be difficult to determine any necessary supplementation to the culture medium. Additionally, as outlined in this paper, the gonads of multiple reptile species can differentiate in vitro suggesting that any influence from the HPA axis is not critical to this process.

ACTION: To address this suggestion from Reviewer 2, we have added the following statement to lines 90-91: “It also removes the gonads from the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which may influence gonad growth and development”.

We also added the following on lines 102-103: “While culture of the whole HPA axis is impossible, the culture of the intact urogenital system at least includes the adrenal, which may enhance gonad growth and development in culture.”

4. The study highlights that Biopore membranes fail to maintain gonad morphology, but the agar slab method does not fully replicate in vivo development. The extent to which these morphological differences affect downstream analyses (e.g., gene expression) is not deeply explored. The expression of sex-specific genes in cultured gonads does not fully match that observed in in situ development, particularly in 36°C-induced sex-reversed females. The study suggests that high temperatures may mask sex-specific gene expression, but alternative explanations should be considered, such as differences in developmental timing or stress responses in vitro. These factors could potentially influence gene expression and should be further investigated.

Throughout the manuscript we have been careful to never claim that our agar slab method fully replicates the in vivo environment. Indeed, we have drawn attention to the fact this is not possible in several parts of the manuscript, and have made further additions to the revised paper in response to other comments from Reviewer 2 in relation to this.

We do agree with Reviewer 2 that temperature complicates the gene expression patterns observed in the 36°C sex reversed females, as stated in the original submission: “This may be because high temperatures mask some of the sex-specific gene expression patterns, and there appears to be differences in the timing of gene expression compared to gonads developing in situ.” (lines 214-216).

On lines 241-243 we also stated that: “Even for in situ gonads, expression patterns can be complicated, and with the addition of the temperature influences, and be complicated even further. Because of this, care should be taken if using gene expression profiling in general, but particularly for in vitro organ cultures.”

ACTION: To further highlight the complicating effects of temperature, we have added the following: “This is especially important for species with thermosensitive sex determination systems where the influence of temperature on sex differentiation is fundamentally linked.” (lines 244-246).

7. The study does not clearly state the number of biological replicates used for gene expression analysis. Given the complexity of temperature-induced sex reversal, a larger sample size would help determine whether observed trends are biologically meaningful or due to individual variability.

ACTION: We have included sample sizes for the different groups on lines 172, 189, 262, 266. The sample sizes are comparable to previous studies, particularly for transcriptomics (see Whiteley et al., 2021, 2022 for examples).

9. The study optimizes culture conditions based on previous P. vitticeps staging but does not test whether earlier or later developmental stages might yield better results. A more detailed assessment of optimal culture windows could improve the model.

As stated on lines 133-135 of the original submission, we did test the influence of explanting tissue earlier in development (stage 4). We noted on lines 16-169 that we chose stage 6 to “keep the culture duration to a minimum”. Similarly, we did not explant later in development as previous work on the species showed that differentiation can occur as early as stage 8, and we did not want to risk explantation when the gonad was committed to a sexual fate (Whiteley et al., Scientific Reports, 2018).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0327930.s007.docx (22.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Rajakumar Anbazhagan

In vitro organ culture protocol for intact urogenital systems supporting gonadal differentiation

PONE-D-24-57396R1

Dear Dr. Whiteley,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

To answer this question, please click the link to protocols.io in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript (if a link has been provided) or consult the step-by-step protocol in the Supporting Information files.

The step-by-step protocol should contain sufficient detail for another researcher to be able to reproduce all experiments and analyses.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have well addressed the comments made by reviewers. The authors added sections to acknowledge the limitations of in vitro culture system including their proposed model that those cannot fully recapitulate the environment experienced in vivo. However, the proposed model is an improvement on in vitro culture models in that it cultures the intact urinogenital system and can be an experimental choice for in vitro culture model.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the major concerns thoughtfully, particularly regarding the limitations of in vitro systems and the absence of systemic endocrine inputs. The inclusion of adrenal tissue is noted, though it does not fully replicate HPG/HPA axis signaling. The clarifications added to the manuscript are appreciated. Functional validation (e.g., hormonal assays) and advanced culture platforms (e.g., hydrogels) could further enhance the model’s utility. Additionally, assessing a broader developmental window may optimize outcomes. This study represents a promising and accessible approach to investigating reptilian sex determination. With further refinement, the model could offer significant and hopeful insights into the environmental and molecular mechanisms of gonadal development.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Rajakumar Anbazhagan

PONE-D-24-57396R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Whiteley,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rajakumar Anbazhagan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Step-by-step protocol, also available on protocols.io.

    (PDF)

    pone.0327930.s001.pdf (440.9KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Raw count files for sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

    Analysis was conducted using methods described in (21). The sample IDs correspond to incubation temperature (28 or 36), genotype (ZZ), replicate (1, 2 or 3).

    (CSV)

    pone.0327930.s002.csv (680.2KB, csv)
    S3 File. Raw expression files (TPM, transcripts per million) for sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

    Analysis was conducted using methods described in (21). The sample IDs correspond to incubation temperature (28 or 36), genotype (ZZ), replicate (1, 2 or 3).

    (CSV)

    pone.0327930.s003.csv (1.4MB, csv)
    S4 File. Results from differential gene expression analysis between sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) cultured in vitro.

    Analysis was conducted using methods described in [21]. Log-fold change threshold of −1, 1 and p value cut-off of 0.05 have been applied.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0327930.s004.xlsx (149.7KB, xlsx)
    S5 File. Results from differential gene expression analysis between sex reversed ZZf females incubated at 36°C (n = 3) and ZZm males incubated at 28°C (n = 3) from gonads developed in situ.

    Analysis was conducted using methods described in [21] using data from [21,22]. Log-fold change threshold of −1, 1 and p value cut-off of 0.05 have been applied.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0327930.s005.xlsx (58.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0327930.s007.docx (22.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw sequencing files used for the organ culture gene expression analysis are available on NCBI under Bioproject PRJNA1287302. The whole gonad transcriptomes used for comparison are available on NCBI under Bioproject PRJNA699086.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES