Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 10;15(9):e0233072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233072

Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells

Eishi Aizawa 1, Charles-Etienne Dumeau 1, Remo Freimann 1, Giulio Di Minin 1, Anton Wutz 1,*
Editor: Jon Schoorlemmer2
PMCID: PMC7482839  PMID: 32911495

Abstract

In mammals, the fusion of two gametes, an oocyte and a spermatozoon, during fertilization forms a totipotent zygote. There has been no reported case of adult mammal development by natural parthenogenesis, in which embryos develop from unfertilized oocytes. The genome and epigenetic information of haploid gametes are crucial for mammalian development. Haploid embryonic stem cells (haESCs) can be established from uniparental blastocysts and possess only one set of chromosomes. Previous studies have shown that sperm or oocyte genome can be replaced by haESCs with or without manipulation of genomic imprinting for generation of mice. Recently, these remarkable semi-cloning methods have been applied for screening of key factors of mouse embryonic development. While haESCs have been applied as substitutes of gametic genomes, the fundamental mechanism how haESCs contribute to the genome of totipotent embryos is unclear. Here, we show the generation of fertile semi-cloned mice by injection of parthenogenetic haESCs (phaESCs) into oocytes after deletion of two differentially methylated regions (DMRs), the IG-DMR and H19-DMR. For characterizing the genome of semi-cloned embryos further, we establish ESC lines from semi-cloned blastocysts. We report that polyploid karyotypes are observed in semi-cloned ESCs (scESCs). Our results confirm that mitotically arrested phaESCs yield semi-cloned embryos and mice when the IG-DMR and H19-DMR are deleted. In addition, we highlight the occurrence of polyploidy that needs to be considered for further improving the development of semi-cloned embryos derived by haESC injection.

Introduction

The genetic information of an oocyte and a spermatozoon is passed onto the offspring. Both maternal and paternal genomes are required for normal development of mammalian embryos. Conversely, uniparental embryos suffer developmental defects due to the imbalance of genomic imprinting [1]. Despite the importance of the gametic genome, the prerequisites for forming a totipotent zygote remain incompletely understood. In mice, previous studies have shown that two differentially methylated regions within the H19-Igf2 and Gtl2-Dlk1 imprinted gene clusters had critical contributions to the genome of embryos [2, 3]. Both regions are normally methylated and unmethylated on the paternally and maternally inherited chromosomes, respectively. Deletion of the H19-DMR and the Gtl2-Dlk1 intergenic germline-derived DMR (IG-DMR) resulted in loss of expression of H19 and Gtl2 from the maternal allele, respectively [4, 5]. Deletion of the H19-DMR or combined deletions of the H19- and IG-DMRs from the genome of non-growing oocytes facilitated the generation of bimaternal mice after injection into mature oocytes [2, 3]. These studies defined a strategy for substituting sperm with a maternally derived genome. Recent studies have also explored the possibility to substitute the gametic genome by mouse haploid embryonic stem cells (haESCs). Haploid ESCs are unique stem cell lines established from either parthenogenetic [6, 7] or androgenetic haploid blastocysts [8, 9]. Haploid ESCs possess a single set of chromosomes, which contains 20 chromosomes in mice, similar to gametes. Due to their unique haploidy, haESCs have been applied in recent studies in original ways. One application is in genetic screening. While heterozygous mutations in diploid cells are often masked phenotypically, hemizygous mutations in haploid cells directly express phenotypes. For example, gene trap vectors have been used to screen genes required for chemical toxicity, self-renewal of ESCs, and X-chromosome inactivation [6, 1012]. Another considerable application of haESCs is based on the similarity of their haploid genome to a gametic genome. Several reports have demonstrated the possibility for substituting the paternally derived sperm genome by either androgenetic haESC (ahaESC) or parthenogenetic haESC (phaESC) to generate semi-cloned mice [8, 9, 13, 14]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the oocyte genome can be replaced by the genome of phaESCs for generation of semi-cloned mice, albeit at low frequency [15]. In contrast to oocytes and spermatozoa, genetic mutations can be readily introduced in haESCs owing to their self-renewal capacity in culture. Methods for introducing genetic modifications into the germline with haESCs is a considerable approach for studying embryonic development and for generating transgenic animals. Recent studies have also combined CRISPR-Cas9-based genome editing with haESCs for genetic screening [16], characterization of imprinting regions for embryonic development [17], and identification of important amino acids within the DND1 protein for primordial germ cell development [18].

While these remarkable studies have successfully applied haESCs as substitutes for gametic genomes, the mechanism how haESCs contribute to the genome of totipotent embryos remains to be clarified. For example, sperm and haESCs genomes are fundamentally different as most of the sperm genome is packaged with protamines, but the chromosomes of haESCs have a conventional nucleosomal structure. Proper segregation of both maternal and paternal haploid chromosome sets into each blastomere is required at the first division of the zygote to form a developmentally competent 2-cell embryo. Otherwise, developmental defects arise in embryos due to aneuploidy or polyploidy [19]. Polyploidy describes genomes with more than two complete sets of chromosomes, and is observed in several species including plants and yeasts [20]. In mammals, polyploid embryos can occur by polyspermy or abnormal chromosome segregation, but show developmental defects and arrest [2024].

In this study, we report the generation of healthy mice by injection of mitotically arrested phaESCs that carry deletions of the H19- and IG-DMRs into metaphase II (MII) oocytes. We established semi-cloned ESCs (scESCs) from semi-cloned blastocysts to further characterize their genome. We find that several scESCs exhibited polyploidy, indicating that cautious analysis is required for the study of semi-cloned embryos generated by injection of haESCs.

Results

Deletion of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR in haESC lines

A previous study has reported that bimaternal embryos generated by substituting the paternal genome of sperm by the haploid genome of non-growing oocytes show developmental defects and arrest in embryogenesis [25]. These defects were largely overcome by manipulation of genomic imprinting. Deletion of the IG- and H19-DMRs from the genome of non-growing oocytes resulted in the development of bimaternal mice [2, 3]. These studies indicate that imprinted gene expression regulated by the IG-DMR and H19-DMR is the key barrier, which prevents the development of bimaternal embryos.

In order to manipulate genomic imprinting in phaESCs, the CRISPR-Cas9 system was used to delete the IG-DMR and H19-DMR in a phaESC line that was established from a 129S6/SvEvTac mouse oocyte (Fig 1A and S1A and S1B Fig). After transfection with expression vectors for CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases and guide RNAs, a piggyBac transposon plasmid for EGFP expression, and an expression vector for a piggyBac transposase, single cells were plated into multi-well dishes to establish clonal cultures. 2 double-knockout phaESC lines, DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2, were identified by PCR-based genotyping (S1C Fig). These DKO-phaESC lines also expressed EGFP that allowed analysis of their contribution to embryos in further studies. DNA sequencing confirmed the deletions of 4,168 base pairs (bp) in the IG-DMRs for both DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2 (Fig 1B). Similarly, deletions of 3,908 and 3,927 bp in the H19-DMRs were confirmed in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2, respectively. Both ESC lines showed a typical ESC morphology comparable to that of the parental phaESC line (Fig 1C). An intact haploid karyotype was confirmed by analysis of metaphase chromosome spreads (Fig 1D).

Fig 1. Generation of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR deletions in haESCs.

Fig 1

(A) IG-DMR and H19-DMR deletions were engineered in phaESCs, which were established from haploid blastocysts obtained from activated mouse oocytes, by simultaneous transfection with four vectors encoding CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases, a CAG-EGFP-IRES-hygro piggyBac transposon vector, and a transposase vector. (B) Sequences of PCR fragments amplified over the deleted regions confirmed the loss of both DMRs in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2. (C) Morphology of DKO-phaESC lines. Scale bar, 200 μm. (D) Haploid karyotypes were observed in both DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2. (E) Transcription of imprinted genes Gtl2 and H19, both of which are maternally expressed and regulated by the IG- and H19-DMRs, was reduced in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2. Gene expression was normalized to Gapdh relative to the parental cell line. Data represents relative expression of each sample with the mean values and standard deviation (n = 4). **** P < 0.0001; ** P < 0.01; ns, non-significant.

The maternally expressed Gtl2 gene maps to a large imprinted cluster on mouse chromosome 12 and is regulated by the paternally methylated IG-DMR [26]. The maternally expressed gene H19 maps close to the paternally expressed Igf2 gene on chromosome 7 and is regulated by a shared H19-DMR. As expected, transcription of Gtl2 and H19 was lost in both DKO-phaESC lines (Fig 1E). In addition, expression of the paternally expressed Dlk1 gene was slightly reduced in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2 compared with the expression of the parental phaESC line. No significant difference was observed in the expression of the paternally expressed Igf2 gene.

Generation of semi-cloned embryos and scESCs by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes

For assessing the potential of DKO-phaESCs as sperm replacement, we injected single cells into MII oocytes, which were obtained from B6D2F1 females after superovulation (Fig 2A). Previously, ahaESCs that were arrested in mitosis at M-phase by demecolcine treatment had been used as sperm substitute with greater efficiency than ahaESCs in G0- or G1-phase [9]. Demecolcine binds to non-polymerized tubulin, and inhibits polymerization of microtubules leading to cell cycle arrest in mitosis without the formation of a spindle [27]. We treated DKO-phaESC-2 with demecolcine and purified the metaphase arrested 2n population by cell sorting (Fig 2B). Semi-cloned embryos were then constructed by injection of M-phase DKO-phaESC-2 cells into MII oocytes, followed by activation with strontium chloride. After activation, the majority of semi-cloned embryos exhibited weak EGFP fluorescence distributed over the cytoplasm. In a small number of embryos, a single round area of intense EGFP fluorescence was evident (Fig 2C), which indicated that the plasma membrane of DKO-phaESCs had inadvertently remained intact during injection. Semi-cloned embryos were subsequently cultured in vitro and developed to the 2-cell and blastocyst stage at the frequency of 58.7% (98/167) and 12.6% (21/167), respectively. At the 2-cell stage little or no EGFP expression was detected (Table 1). EGFP expression started gradually with the 4-cell stage at day 2 after injection. Finally, all the blastocysts exhibited EGFP expression, indicating DKO-phaESCs contributed to the blastocyst genome and no parthenogenetic blastocysts had developed.

Fig 2. Characterization of scESC lines derived by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes.

Fig 2

(A) A scheme of the generation of scESC lines by injection of DKO-phaESCs into MII oocytes. (B) DKO-phaESCs were arrested in metaphase with demecolcine for 8 hours and sorted for a 2n DNA content. The peak of the Hoechst intensity corresponding to 2n DKO-phaESCs is indicated (asterisk). (C) Semi-cloned embryo development after injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes. EGFP fluorescence merged with bright field images are shown. At day 4, morulae developed to blastocysts. Scale bar, 200 μm. (D, E) DNA content analysis of 4 scESC lines, which were either untreated (D) or treated with demecolcine (E), by flow cytometry after Hoechst staining. (D) DNA content at the G1 phase of scESC-1 and scESC-3 appeared in the middle between the DNA content of G1 and G2 phase control diploid ESCs, indicating scESC-1 and scESC-3 are triploid. scESC-4 contained both diploid and tetraploid cells. (E) Only one population of DNA content was observed in each scESC-1, scESC-2 and scESC-3, while scESC-4 showed two populations of different DNA contents. A haploid-diploid mixed ESC line and a diploid ESC line were included as a reference (top). The percentage of cells within the peaks is indicated in the histograms (top and bottom). (F) Metaphase spreads show triploid karyotypes of scESC-1 and scESC-3, and a tetraploid karyotype of scESC-4.

Table 1. Summary of preimplantation development of semi-cloned embryos derived by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes.

No. of oocytes injected No. of 2-cell embryos No. of 4-cell embryos No. of morulae No. of blastocysts (% of oocytes injected)
All oocytes or embryos 167 98 50 43 21 (12.6%)
Embryos with EGFP expression - 0 31 34 21

To further analyze the semi-cloned embryos, we cultured 5 semi-cloned blastocysts and established 4 semi-cloned ESC lines, scESC-1 to scESC-4 (S2A Fig). Genotyping revealed that these scESC lines possessed both wild-type and deleted alleles of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR, confirming the contribution of DKO-phaESC and oocyte genomes (S2B Fig). We next analyzed the DNA content of all 4 scESC lines by flow cytometry after Hoechst staining (Fig 2D). In addition, the DNA content of M-phase arrested scESC lines was analyzed after the treatment with demecolcine for 8 hours (Fig 2E). scESC-2 exhibited an expected diploid DNA content, while the other 3 scESC lines appeared to be polyploid. All cells in scESC-1 and scESC-3 showed a triploid DNA content. scESC-4 contained cells with a diploid and tetraploid DNA content at the ratio of 86.4% and 11.6%, respectively. The analysis of metaphase chromosomes confirmed a triploid karyotype in scESC-1 and scESC-3, and a tetraploid karyotype in scESC-4 (Fig 2F). Considering that polyploidy is not compatible with mouse development [2124], this observation might be relevant for improving semi-cloning by phaESC injection.

Generation of semi-cloned mice from semi-cloned embryos

For further analysis of semi-cloned embryos, we performed embryo transfer to obtain semi-cloned mice. Constructed semi-cloned embryos were cultured to the 2-cell stage and transferred to oviducts of pseudopregnant Swiss Webster females. We chose Swiss Webster recipients for their albino coat color, which is readily distinguished from the agouti coat color of phaESCs and B6D2F1 oocytes. In parallel, albino 2-cell embryos were derived from Swiss Webster mice by in vitro fertilization (IVF) as a technical control. A total of 39 semi-cloned and 20 control 2-cell embryos were transferred to 4 recipient females (Table 2). Two of the four recipient females maintained pregnancy and delivered 6 pups (termed F0 no.1-6) and 1 pup (F0 no.7) (Fig 3A). F0 no. 6 and 7 had dark eye pigmentation and toe biopsies indicated EGFP expression under UV illumination (Fig 3B). Genotyping confirmed that F0 no. 6 and 7 were female and heterozygous for the IG-DMR and H19-DMR, carrying wild-type and deletion alleles (Fig 3C). Both mice grew normally without any apparent phenotypes or health problems. Furthermore, they were fertile and delivered full-term F1 pups, when mated with Swiss Webster males (Fig 3D). Transmission of the EGFP transgene was observed in about half of these F1 mice (7/15) in the expected Mendelian ratio (S3 Fig). Bisulfite DNA sequencing demonstrated that F0 no. 6 and 7 carried both methylated and unmethylated DMR alleles of the 3 imprinted genes Kcnq1, Igf2r and Peg13 (Fig 3E). Kcnq1 of F0 no.6, and Igf2r of F0 no. 6 and 7 appeared to be slightly hypermethylated compared to the control B6D2F1 female mouse. Conversely, Peg13 was less methylated in F0 no. 6 and 7 than in the control. Considering that we observed slightly increased methylation levels in the control, which was comparable to that in F0 no. 6 and no. 7, we suggest that methylation of the 3 imprinted genes that we investigated was within a normal range in the 2 semi-cloned mice. This view is consistent with our observation that the semi-cloned mice were healthy and fertile.

Table 2. Summary of semi-cloned mice generated by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes.

Embryo types No. of oocytes injected No. of 2-cell embryos No. of transferred 2-cell embryos No. of delivered pups (% of transferred 2-cell embryos)
Control - - 20 5 (25%)
Semi-cloned 50 39 39 2 (5.1%)

Fig 3. Generation of semi-cloned mice by transfer of semi-cloned embryos into recipient mothers.

Fig 3

(A) 7 offspring (F0 no. 1–7) were obtained from 2 albino recipient mothers after transfer of semi-cloned and albino control 2-cell embryos. F0 no. 6 (indicated by asterisk) and no. 7 displayed black eyes and agouti coat color indicating DKO-phaESC derived pigmentation. (B) Toe biopsies of F0 no. 1–7. Biopsies of F0 no. 6 and 7 expressed EGFP under UV illumination. (C) Genotyping of F0 no. 1–7. F0 no. 6 and 7 possessed wild type and deletion alleles of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR. (D) Mating of semi-cloned F0 no. 6 and 7 with wild type males yielded healthy F1 pups (indicated by asterisk). (E) Bisulfite DNA methylation analysis of Kcnq1, Igf2r and Peg13 in biopsies of F0 and a control mouse. White circles represent unmethylated CpGs; black circles represent methylated CpGs. The ratio of methylated CpGs is shown in brackets.

Discussion

The successful production of semi-cloned mice in our study shows that phaESCs with deletions of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR can replace sperm in mouse development. We unexpectedly observed that some scESC lines that we derived from semi-cloned embryos were triploid or contained a mixture of diploid and tetraploid cells (Fig 2D–2F). Several reasons for polyploid genomes in semi-cloned embryos can be considered.

One possible cause is the failure to extrude one haploid genome either from the spindle of the MII oocyte or of the M-phase arrested DKO-phaESC after the construction of a semi-cloned embryo. By following a previous study [9], we used DKO-phaESCs arrested at M-phase by demecolcine treatment as donor cells for semi-cloned embryos. Since demecolcine inhibits the polymerization of microtubules, the formation of mitotic spindles was presumably blocked in DKO-phaESCs, when they were injected into MII oocytes. It is possible that erroneous assembly of a spindle or erroneous attachment of the M-phase chromosomes of DKO-phaESC to the spindle after injection into oocytes might have caused chromosome segregation defects. Polyploidy could also arise, if long treatment with demecolcine led to diploidization of DKO-phaESCs. It is conceivable that some DKO-phaESCs might exit mitotic arrest and enter G1 phase without chromosome segregation and cytokinesis. However, we deem this an unlikely scenario. Lastly, the injection procedure might have induced errors in the MII spindle of the oocyte. In these three scenarios, 2n chromatids of either an MII oocyte or a DKO-phaESC would contribute to the embryo, resulting in a triploid genome.

A mixed karyotype of diploidy and tetraploidy was also observed in one scESC line. This is more difficult to explain. A mixed karyotype could possibly arise by erroneous chromosome segregation at the 2nd or a later cleavage division [28]. Alternatively, tetraploidy could have arisen during or after scESC derivation. However, we think this is unlikely considering that mouse ESCs stably maintain a normal diploid genome and the injection procedure would hardly affect ESC derivation, which was initiated 4 days later. We favor the interpretation that both diploid and tetraploid cells might have developed in the semi-cloned embryo. Several studies on chimeric blastocysts containing diploid and tetraploid embryonic cells have shown that tetraploid cells contributed to extra-embryonic tissues but rarely to the fetus [2931]. Nevertheless, there has been a report that tetraploid embryos developed to blastocysts and formed fetuses after implantation [22]. Considering these results, it is possible that tetraploid cells developed to inner cell mass cells of the blastocyst, and both diploid and tetraploid scESCs were derived in one out of 4 lines in our study. The unexpected observation of polyploidy in several scESC lines is possibly an impediment for the development of semi-cloned mice and could be a target for improvements to increase the yield of normal semi-cloned embryos in the future [2124]. Further studies are expected to reveal the mechanism of polyploidy in semi-cloned embryos.

The application of haESC for replacing gametic genomes has potential for genetics because mutations can be efficiently introduced into haESCs in contrast to oocytes and spermatozoa. We demonstrate that 2 DMRs can be deleted in a single step in haESCs with maintenance of a haploid karyotype. The generation of transgenic embryos or mice by substituting haESCs for gametic genomes might be especially useful for allele specific analyses and for studying genomic imprinting. haESCs can be a tool for genetic screening of factors required for fertilization or embryogenesis through injection of genetically modified haESCs into oocytes. To date, remarkable studies have reported the application of this haESC technology for genetic screening [1618]. The mechanism by which haESCs contribute to semi-cloned embryos remains an important focus of further investigation. The observation of polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos in our study emphasizes that further mechanistic insight into the contribution of haESC to semi-cloned embryos is needed for a better understanding of gametic genome adaptation and for increasing the efficiency of semi-cloning.

Materials and methods

Animals and experiments

C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice were purchased from Charles River Laboratories (Wilmington, USA). Swiss Webster and 129S6/SvEvTac mice were purchased from Taconic Biosciences (Rensselaer, USA). All the mice were housed in the animal facility of ETH Zurich. All animal experiments were performed under the license ZH152/17 in accordance with the standards and regulations of the Cantonal Ethics Commission Zurich.

Oocyte collection

Four- to five-week-old female mice were induced to superovulate by injection of 5 IU pregnant mare’s serum gonadotropin followed by 5 IU human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) were collected from the oviducts 15–17 hours after hCG injection and were placed in M2 medium. COCs were treated with 0.1% hyaluronidase until the cumulus cells dispersed.

Derivation and culture of phaESC lines

Derivation of phaESC lines from 129S6/SvEvTac mice was performed as previously described [7]. For introducing deletions of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, previously published oligonucleotides for guide RNAs (gRNAs) [16] were ligated into the pX330-U6-Chimeric_BB-CBh-hSpCas9 vector (Addgene, #42230) that was digested with BbsI restriction enzyme (S1 Fig). Sequences of gRNAs are listed in S1 Table. Simultaneous transfection of 4 Cas9/gRNA vectors, a piggyBac plasmid carrying a CAG-EGFP-IRES-hygro transgene, and a hyperactive piggyBac transposase plasmid was performed into a phaESC line using lipofectamine 2000 by following a manufacturer’s protocol. Subsequently single EGFP expressing haploid cells were isolated by flow cytometer (MoFlo Astrios EQ, Beckman Coulter) after staining with 15 μg/ml Hoechst 33342 (Invitrogen) and cultured with irradiated mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) in 2i plus LIF medium [32, 33]. After the growth of clonal single colonies, a subset of cells in each line was analyzed by flow cytometer after staining with Hoechst to select cell lines containing haploid cells and were genotyped to screen cell lines with deletions of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR. Subsequently, haploid 1n cell population in each selected haploid cell line was purified by cell sorting after Hoechst staining and was cultured on a gelatin-coated plate without MEFs in 2i plus LIF medium. Each haploid cell line was maintained with purification of haploid cell population by cell sorting after Hoechst staining every 4–6 passages. Chromosome counting and the second genotyping of each cell line was performed after MEFs were excluded by cell passages.

Construction of semi-cloned embryos

Construction of semi-cloned embryos was performed following a published protocol [16] with a few modifications. DKO-phaESCs were maintained without MEFs in 2i plus LIF medium [32, 33]. M-phase arrest was performed for DKO-phaESCs by culturing in the medium supplemented with 0.05 mg/ml demecolcine (Merck) for 8 hours. After staining with Hoechst, DKO-phaESCs with a 2n DNA content were sorted by flow cytometer. Sorted DKO-phaESCs were maintained in 2i plus LIF medium supplemented with 20 mM HEPES (Invitrogen) and the tube containing cell suspension was kept on ice until the use for injection. In parallel, MII oocytes were harvested from superovulated B6D2F1 females. To construct semi-cloned embryos, sorted single DKO-phaESCs were injected into MII oocytes using a piezo-driven micromanipulator (Eclipse Ti, Nikon; PiezoXpert, Eppendorf). After injection embryos were cultured in KSOM medium for 1 hour and subsequently activated for 6 hours in KSOM medium containing 5 mM strontium chloride and 2 mM EGTA. After activation, embryos were washed and cultured in KSOM medium at 37°C under 5% CO2 in air.

Derivation of scESC lines

After the culture of semi-cloned embryos in KSOM medium for 4–5 days, each blastocyst was transferred on MEFs in serum plus LIF medium, which component was previously described [34]. For unhatched blastocysts, zona pellucida was removed by the treatment with the Tyrode’s solution (Merck) before the transfer. After the expansion of blastocyst outgrowth, cells were maintained on MEFs until the passage 5. After the passage 5, scESCs were maintained on gelatin-coated plates without MEFs in serum plus LIF medium. Karyotyping by flow cytometry and chromosome counting was performed for scESCs at the passage 9.

Genotyping

DNA extraction from cells and biopsies was performed using lysis buffer (100 mM Tris pH 8.5, 200 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA and 0.2% SDS) supplemented with 0.1 mg/ml proteinase K at 55°C for at least 4 hours. Debris were pelleted by centrifuging for 5 minutes at 13,000 rpm. Supernatant was replaced into a new tube containing equal volume of isopropanol. After mixing, the tube was centrifuged for 5 minutes at 13,000 rpm to pellet precipitated genomic DNA. The pellet was washed with 70% ethanol and resuspended by 50–200 μl water. PCR was performed using Phusion Hot Start II DNA Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s protocol. PCR products were separated by electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gels and stained with ethidium bromide for visualization under a UV transilluminator. Primers used for genotyping are listed in S1 Table.

Transcription analysis

RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s protocol, including an on-column DNA digest using RNase-free DNase (Qiagen). RNA concentration was determined using a NanoDrop Lite (Thermo Fisher Scientific). 500 ng total RNA was reverse transcribed using the PrimeScript RT Master Mix (Takara) according to the manufacturer’s instruction. RT-PCR was performed at a 384 well format on the 480 Lightcycler instrument (Roche) using KAPA SYBR FAST qPCR KIT (Kapa Biosystems). Fold change expression was calculated using the ΔΔct method. Gapdh expression was used for normalization. Primers used for transcription analysis are listed in S1 Table.

Chromosome counting

For karyotyping, chromosome spreads of ESCs were prepared on glass slides as described [35]. Chromosomes were stained with Giemsa solution (Merck), washed with Gurr’s buffer, and subsequently chromosomes were imaged under the microscope (Axio Observer Z1, Zeiss). Pictures were taken using an ORCA-Flash4.0 camera (Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.) and chromosome counts were determined.

In vitro fertilization (IVF)

Sperm mass collected from the cauda epididymis of Swiss Webster males were pre-incubated in Sequential Fert (ORIGIO) at 37°C under 5% CO2 in air. COCs were harvested from the oviductal ampulla of superovulated Swiss Webster females. After 1 hour of pre-incubation of sperm mass, a small aliquot of sperm suspension was added to a Sequential Fert drop containing COCs. Six hours later, oocytes were washed and transferred to KSOM medium. Embryo development to the 2-cell stage was assessed after 24 hours of IVF.

Embryo transfer

Recipient Swiss Webster females were mated with vasectomized Swiss Webster males the night before, and plugs were confirmed in the morning of the day of the embryo transfer. Nine or ten 2-cell embryos derived by DKO-phaESC injection and 5 control 2-cell embryos by IVF were transferred into the oviducts of pseudo-pregnant recipient females. On day 19.5 of gestation, full-term pups were naturally delivered from recipient females.

Bisulfite sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from toes of newborn semi-cloned mice and ear biopsy of 3 weeks old B6D2F1 mice with lysis buffer containing proteinase K, followed by isopropanol precipitation. Bisulfite conversion was performed using the EZ DNA methylation Gold kit (ZYMO Research). PCR was performed under the following temperature profile: 30 sec 98°C, 20 x (10 sec 98°C, 30 sec 65–55°C with -0.5°C per cycle, 30 sec 72°C), 35 x (10 sec 98°C, 30 sec 55°C, 30 sec 72°C), 5 min 72°C. The PCR products were cloned into pJet1.2 vector using the CloneJET PCR Cloning Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), followed by the transformation into competent DH5α E.coli. Insert sequences for each colony were obtained through the commercial Ecoli NightSeq service (Microsynth). Bisulfite sequencing was analyzed with the QUMA methylation analysis tool (http://quma.cdb.riken.jp/). Primers used for PCR and sequencing are listed in S1 Table.

Statistical analysis

For comparison of quantitative RNA expression levels of imprinted genes, measurements were analyzed with the GraphPad Prism 8 software using a two-tailed unpaired t-test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Deletions of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR in phaESC lines.

(A) A design of gRNAs and primers targeting the deletions of the IG-DMR. (B) A design of gRNAs and primers targeting the deletions of the H19-DMR. (C) PCR fragments flanking both IG-DMR (319 bp) and H19-DMR (407 bp) by primers targeting deleted loci were observed in 2 DKO-phaESC lines, whereas the deleted sequences were absent in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Derivation and genotyping of scESC lines.

(A) Derivation of scESC lines from blastocysts generated by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes. Images of blastocysts, outgrowth (passage 0) and scESCs after derivation are shown. Regular black bar, 100 μm; bold black bar, 200 μm; white bar, 100 μm. (B) Genotyping of 3 scESC lines. All 3 scESC lines exhibited both wild type and mutant alleles for the IG-DMR and H19-DMR, indicating both oocytes and DKO-phaESCs genome contributed to the genome of blastocysts.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Genotyping of F1 generation born to semi-cloned F0 mice.

PCR-based genotyping was performed for 15 F1 mice born to semi-cloned females (F0 no.6 and 7) and wild type Swiss Webster males. EGFP transgene was inherited to 7 among 15 F1 mice.

(PDF)

S1 Table. List of oligos.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Stefan Butz and Dr. Tuncay Baubec for providing primers and advice on bisulfite sequencing. We also acknowledge Ms. Michèle Schaffner and Mr. Thomas M. Hennek for their technical support on embryo transfer.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

AW, grant 31003A_152814/1 from the Swiss National Science Foundation, WEB page: www.snf.ch The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Surani MA, Barton SC, Norris ML. Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature. 1984;308(5959):548–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kawahara M, Wu Q, Takahashi N, Morita S, Yamada K, Ito M, et al. High-frequency generation of viable mice from engineered bi-maternal embryos. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(9):1045–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kono T, Obata Y, Wu Q, Niwa K, Ono Y, Yamamoto Y, et al. Birth of parthenogenetic mice that can develop to adulthood. Nature. 2004;428(6985):860–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Leighton PA, Ingram RS, Eggenschwiler J, Efstratiadis A, Tilghman SM. Disruption of imprinting caused by deletion of the H19 gene region in mice. Nature. 1995;375(6526):34–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lin SP, Youngson N, Takada S, Seitz H, Reik W, Paulsen M, et al. Asymmetric regulation of imprinting on the maternal and paternal chromosomes at the Dlk1-Gtl2 imprinted cluster on mouse chromosome 12. Nat Genet. 2003;35(1):97–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Elling U, Taubenschmid J, Wirnsberger G, O'Malley R, Demers SP, Vanhaelen Q, et al. Forward and reverse genetics through derivation of haploid mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9(6):563–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Leeb M, Wutz A. Derivation of haploid embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos. Nature. 2011;479(7371):131–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Li W, Shuai L, Wan H, Dong M, Wang M, Sang L, et al. Androgenetic haploid embryonic stem cells produce live transgenic mice. Nature. 2012;490(7420):407–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yang H, Shi L, Wang BA, Liang D, Zhong C, Liu W, et al. Generation of genetically modified mice by oocyte injection of androgenetic haploid embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2012;149(3):605–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Leeb M, Dietmann S, Paramor M, Niwa H, Smith A. Genetic exploration of the exit from self-renewal using haploid embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(3):385–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Monfort A, Di Minin G, Postlmayr A, Freimann R, Arieti F, Thore S, et al. Identification of Spen as a Crucial Factor for Xist Function through Forward Genetic Screening in Haploid Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell Rep. 2015;12(4):554–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pettitt SJ, Rehman FL, Bajrami I, Brough R, Wallberg F, Kozarewa I, et al. A genetic screen using the PiggyBac transposon in haploid cells identifies Parp1 as a mediator of olaparib toxicity. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li Z, Wan H, Feng G, Wang L, He Z, Wang Y, et al. Birth of fertile bimaternal offspring following intracytoplasmic injection of parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells. Cell Res. 2016;26(1):135–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhong C, Xie Z, Yin Q, Dong R, Yang S, Wu Y, et al. Parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells efficiently support mouse generation by oocyte injection. Cell Res. 2016;26(1):131–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wan H, He Z, Dong M, Gu T, Luo GZ, Teng F, et al. Parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells produce fertile mice. Cell Res. 2013;23(11):1330–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhong C, Yin Q, Xie Z, Bai M, Dong R, Tang W, et al. CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Genetic Screening in Mice with Haploid Embryonic Stem Cells Carrying a Guide RNA Library. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17(2):221–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Li ZK, Wang LY, Wang LB, Feng GH, Yuan XW, Liu C, et al. Generation of Bimaternal and Bipaternal Mice from Hypomethylated Haploid ESCs with Imprinting Region Deletions. Cell Stem Cell. 2018;23(5):665–76 e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li Q, Li Y, Yang S, Huang S, Yan M, Ding Y, et al. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated base-editing screening in mice identifies DND1 amino acids that are critical for primordial germ cell development. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(11):1315–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tsuiko O, Jatsenko T, Parameswaran Grace LK, Kurg A, Vermeesch JR, Lanner F, et al. A speculative outlook on embryonic aneuploidy: Can molecular pathways be involved? Dev Biol. 2019;447(1):3–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Storchova Z, Pellman D. From polyploidy to aneuploidy, genome instability and cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2004;5(1):45–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eglitis MA, Wiley LM. Tetraploidy and early development: effects on developmental timing and embryonic metabolism. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1981;66:91–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kaufman MH, Webb S. Postimplantation development of tetraploid mouse embryos produced by electrofusion. Development. 1990;110(4):1121–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yamazaki W, Takahashi M, Kawahara M. Restricted development of mouse triploid fetuses with disorganized expression of imprinted genes. Zygote. 2015;23(6):874–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Imai H, Iwamori T, Kusakabe KT, Kiso Y, Ono E, Kano K. Hyper-polyploid embryos survive after implantation in mice. Zygote. 2020:1–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kono T, Obata Y, Yoshimzu T, Nakahara T, Carroll J. Epigenetic modifications during oocyte growth correlates with extended parthenogenetic development in the mouse. Nat Genet. 1996;13(1):91–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Plasschaert RN, Bartolomei MS. Genomic imprinting in development, growth, behavior and stem cells. Development. 2014;141(9):1805–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jordan MA, Wilson L. Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(4):253–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Potapova T, Gorbsky GJ. The Consequences of Chromosome Segregation Errors in Mitosis and Meiosis. Biology (Basel). 2017;6(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Amano T, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y. Comparison of heat-treated and tetraploid blastocysts for the production of completely ES-cell-derived mice. Zygote. 2001;9(2):153–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Eggan K, Akutsu H, Loring J, Jackson-Grusby L, Klemm M, Rideout WM 3rd, et al. Hybrid vigor, fetal overgrowth, and viability of mice derived by nuclear cloning and tetraploid embryo complementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(11):6209–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nagy A, Gocza E, Diaz EM, Prideaux VR, Ivanyi E, Markkula M, et al. Embryonic stem cells alone are able to support fetal development in the mouse. Development. 1990;110(3):815–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nichols J, Jones K, Phillips JM, Newland SA, Roode M, Mansfield W, et al. Validated germline-competent embryonic stem cell lines from nonobese diabetic mice. Nat Med. 2009;15(7):814–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ying QL, Wray J, Nichols J, Batlle-Morera L, Doble B, Woodgett J, et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature. 2008;453(7194):519–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Postlmayr A, Dumeau CE, Wutz A. Cdk8 is required for establishment of H3K27me3 and gene repression by Xist and mouse development. Development. 2020;147(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Campos PB, Sartore RC, Abdalla SN, Rehen SK. Chromosomal spread preparation of human embryonic stem cells for karyotyping. J Vis Exp. 2009(31). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jon Schoorlemmer

28 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-12064

Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wutz,

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 within 3 months. 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jon Schoorlemmer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr Wutz

Both reviewers agree that "The authors provide a comprehensive and complete manuscript supported by high technical standards, the conclusions drawn are appropriately and supported by the data".

However, both reviewers raise questions that need to be answered and/or addressed before the manuscript can be accepted.

Best regards

Jon Schoorlemmer

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript 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

**********

4. Is the manuscript 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 note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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: This manuscript concerns the manipulation of haESC to eliminate DMRs; the generation of healthy mice by zygotic injection of mitotically arrested phaESCs with eliminated DMRs and supposed effects on posterior genomic imprinting; and the use of ESC from semi-cloned blastocyst to analyze ploidy. The highly demanding experiments and controls are well designed and carried out, the manuscript is well written, the Figures excellently explicative and the sections are well organized. I have a few comments for the authors.

1 Except for cloning experts (and maybe not even all of them), the use of demecolcine for metaphase arrest is not common knowledge. Its use and desired molecular effects can be better explained. Has ploidy of the positively-sorted cells been assessed post-sorting?; are the authors sure the cell suspension was 100% single cells? Information should be provided regarding the media used pre- and post-sorting.

The ploidy of the cells should be mentioned in line 147

2 Lines 243 - 245: the generation of semi-cloned mice is called efficient. How do the rates mentioned stack up against published reports?

3 It would be relevant to explain from how many semi-cloned blastocysts the ESC lines were derived.

Line 270: also frequency ?

Line 283: The frequency depends on the number of blastocysts from which these lines were derived

4 As a general point, conclusions could be toned down to reflect the limited number of animals, blastocysts and scESC lines, etc that were analyzed to reach them. For example lines 170 and 247.

Minor points

- Some numbers are required to support the following statement: "Some methylation patterns including Kcnq1 and Peg13 of 213 progeny no.6 and Igf2r of progeny no. 7 appeared slightly hypermethylated".

- It would be of interest to know about the methylation status in semi-cloned animals of the DMRs deleted from the haESC. Is information available from these loci? If not, can authors explain why these experiments were not carried out or not included?

- procedures and medium used for "Each haploid cell line was maintained without mouse 318 embryonic fibroblasts" should be mentioned briefly

- The failure of the oocyte to separate haploid genomes after metaphase arrest, appears an obvious mechanisms for the polyploidy observed. Could the authors comment?

- line 313 manufacture’s protocol

The manuscript could use some language editing. While most is very well written, some specific passages/paragraphs/lines are not (I cite some but not all examples):

-"because uniparental embryos cause developmental " is simply incorrect, defect should be replaced by "suffer".

-The genetic information of an oocyte and a spermatozoon are inherited to the offspring. I would suggest "are inherited" be replaced by "is passed onto", or "is inherited by".

- line 264 "retarded before 15 days of gestation" is not clear

- sentence in lines 237-239 could be rewritten for clarity

- lines 250 and 266 overlap

- lines 239/240 are a copy of lines 143-145

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript Aizawa and colleagues provide a characterization of embryonic stem cell (ESC) lines derived from semi-cloned embryos generated by injection of parthenogenetic haploid ESC (phaESC) into mouse oocytes.

The authors show here: 1) generation of phaESC injection carrying the double deletion of H19 and IG - paternal differentially methylated regions (DMRs), 2) generation of mouse competent semi-cloned embryos by phaESC doubleKO lines and characterization of ESC derived from blastocyst (termed scESC), 3) generation of F1 progeny and targeted DNA methylation analysis of imprinted genes.

The authors provide a comprehensive and complete manuscript, the experimental design seems supported by high technical standards, the drawn conclusions are appropriate and supported by the data.

Although the efficiency and a broad characterization of this line of approaches have been previously shown by this and others laboratories (e.g. requirement of deletion of IG and H19 paternally DMRs, successful generation of semi-cloned embryos by injection of haploid cells in MII oocytes), I do consider genuinely interesting and novel the discovery of frequent polyploidy on scESC, raising a potential explanation of the low developmental competence of embryos obtained by this methodology. Thus, I think that the results shown in this manuscript could be of interest for the scientific community.

However, I consider that some aspects should be clarified prior to its acceptance for publication in PLoS One.

Major points:

- Line 155: Is the Table 1 referring to the embryos that show eGFP expression, or the ones that are simply developing? Could you provide a more comprehensive table of the development of injected embryos including the percentage of which show eGFP expression? This information seems to be provided only at the blastocyst stage.

- Line 159: mESC cultured on 2i have shown an altered karyotype over culture passaging. How many passages do have scESC cell lines when analyzed? In material and methods is mentioned that purification of phaESC is performed every 4-6 passages but I could not find when chromosome countings of scESC are performed. Which culture media has been used? (I could not find it either on Materials and methods). Do you think that this scESC derivation could influence polyploidy of the cells?.

- Lines 167 - 172: It is interesting the raised hypothesis that polyploidy could be an important limiting factor in the embryonic development of semi-cloned embryos. The authors say that is frequent and prevalent, but how prevalent polyploidy is in scESC derived lines?. Could the authors provide the percentage of scESC that showed polyploidy by karyotype analysis in the different cell lines?.

- Line 194 - 196: This section introduction is rather confusing as semi-cloned embryos competence to develop to mice has been previously proved, as the authors have cited in Refs 13 and 14. Please rephrase this sentence.

- Lines 243 - 244: I find a bit confusing the way of presenting the percentage of efficiently generated semi-cloned blastocysts and mice in this sentence. Is this referring to the developmental progression shown in Figure 2 (blastocysts), or the one of semi-cloned mice shown in Figure 3?. Please clarify this issue.

Minor points

- Supplementary Fig2A and Fig2B, why there are images and genotyping controls of only 3 scESC lines?

- Line 95, ‘generaterd’

- Line 208 -210: Please refer to the subsequent progenies as F0 and F1.

**********

6. 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. 2020 Sep 10;15(9):e0233072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233072.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Aug 2020

Point to point response to the reviewers’ comments

Response to Reviewer #1

1. Except for cloning experts (and maybe not even all of them), the use of demecolcine for metaphase arrest is not common knowledge. Its use and desired molecular effects can be better explained. Has ploidy of the positively-sorted cells been assessed post-sorting?; are the authors sure the cell suspension was 100% single cells? Information should be provided regarding the media used pre- and post-sorting. The ploidy of the cells should be mentioned in line 147.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have added a brief explanation of the effect of demecolcine in lines 148-150. Demecolcine depolymerizes mircotubules and therefore prevents the formation of a mitotic spindle and causes a cell cycle arrest in M-phase. The haploid cell population arrested at M-phase, which were sorted by the flow cytometry, overlaps with the population of diploid cells in G0/G1-phase (Figure 2B). Considering that demecolcine gives a near complete arrest in mitosis and no 1n peak corresponding to a haploid G0/G1-phase population was observed after demecolcine treatment, diploid cells at G0/G1-phase can be excluded from the sort gate. A single haESC was then injected into each oocytes. Thereby, it was visibly confirmed that the injected cell was a single cell and not an aggregate or cluster of cells.

The information on medium used pre- and post-sorting has been added in lines 343-349 as requested.

In addition, we discuss now a potential role of demecolcine treatment for emergence of polyploidy of semi-cloned ESCs in lines 251-262.

2. Lines 243 - 245: the generation of semi-cloned mice is called efficient. How do the rates mentioned stack up against published reports?

Response: We thank the reviewer for bringing the unclear language to our attention. Our frequency for obtaining semi-cloned embryos is in line with the literature. However, considering limited numbers in our study, we have toned down the conclusions and have rephrased the text to refrain from making assessments of efficiency concerning our semi-cloning experiments. Consequently, we have deleted lines 243-245 of the original version in the revision.

3. It would be relevant to explain from how many semi-cloned blastocysts the ESC lines were derived.

Line 270: also frequency?

Line 283: The frequency depends on the number of blastocysts from which these lines were derived

Response: We have established 4 scESC lines from 5 semi-cloned blastocysts. This information has been added in lines 165-166 in the revised text. In addition, we have added an explanation in lines 291-293, that one of the scESC lines contained a mixture of diploid and tetraploid cells. In line 283, ‘frequent’ has been deleted (new line 295-298) due to the limited number of samples.

4. As a general point, conclusions could be toned down to reflect the limited number of animals, blastocysts and scESC lines, etc that were analyzed to reach them. For example lines 170 and 247.

Response: We have followed the reviewer’s suggestion and toned down our conclusions and removed the statements on efficiency. We have rewritten the sentence in line 170 of the original text (new lines 172-173). In addition, we have removed the discussion of cell cycle synchronization in former line 247.

Minor points

- Some numbers are required to support the following statement: "Some methylation patterns including Kcnq1 and Peg13 of 213 progeny no.6 and Igf2r of progeny no. 7 appeared slightly hypermethylated".

In response, we have added the percentage of methylated CpGs to the panel in Figure 3E and a description that more than 75% of methylated CpGs were observed over these 3 DMRs has been added in the text (lines 223-224).

- It would be of interest to know about the methylation status in semi-cloned animals of the DMRs deleted from the haESC. Is information available from these loci? If not, can authors explain why these experiments were not carried out or not included?

Response: The reviewer asks for the methylation status of the H19- and IG-DMRs. Since these DMRs are deleted in the DKO-phaESCs their methylation status cannot be assessed in the semi-cloned scESCs or mice. Only the oocyte-derived allele of these DMRs is present. As the maternal oocyte-derived DMRs were not manipulated in our experiments, we would strongly suggest that their methylation status is normal and, thus, predictable. We have therefore focused on the analysis of 3 imprinted genes (Kcnq1, Igf2r and Peg13), in which semi-cloned mice possess 2 alleles.

- procedures and medium used for "Each haploid cell line was maintained without mouse 318 embryonic fibroblasts" should be mentioned briefly

Response: In the revised version, details of the procedures and haESC culture have been added in lines 328 and 338.

- The failure of the oocyte to separate haploid genomes after metaphase arrest, appears an obvious mechanisms for the polyploidy observed. Could the authors comment?

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment and agree that a failure in separating the oocyte haploid genomes is a possible cause of polyploidy. In addition, the failure to separate the sister chromatids of M-phase arrested DKO-phaESCs would similarly cause polyploidy. This could be a potential consequence of demecolcine treatment. We have now added these points to the discussion in lines 251-259.

- line 313 manufacture’s protocol

Response: The word was revised as manufacturer’s protocol.

The manuscript could use some language editing. While most is very well written, some specific passages/paragraphs/lines are not (I cite some but not all examples):

-"because uniparental embryos cause developmental " is simply incorrect, defect should be replaced by "suffer".

Response: The sentence was changed to “because uniparental embryos suffer developmental defects” in line 37.

-The genetic information of an oocyte and a spermatozoon are inherited to the offspring. I would suggest "are inherited" be replaced by "is passed onto", or "is inherited by".

Response: The sentence was changed to “The genetic information of an oocyte and a spermatozoon is passed onto the offspring.” in line 35.

- line 264 "retarded before 15 days of gestation" is not clear

Response: The sentence was changed to “the most viable embryos developed until the 15th day of gestation” in lines 276-277.

- sentence in lines 237-239 could be rewritten for clarity

Response: We have rewritten the sentence (former lines 237-239; now in lines 253-254).

- lines 250 and 266 overlap

Response: We have removed the sentence in the former line 266.

- lines 239/240 are a copy of lines 143-145

Response: The sentences in the former lines 239/240 have been deleted.

Response to Reviewer #2

Major points:

- Line 155: Is the Table 1 referring to the embryos that show eGFP expression, or the ones that are simply developing? Could you provide a more comprehensive table of the development of injected embryos including the percentage of which show eGFP expression? This information seems to be provided only at the blastocyst stage.

Response: We have previously shown the development of all the embryos including embryos that did not show EGFP expression in Table 1. In the revision, we have added a row to the table that lists the number of embryos showing EGFP expression. We point out that GFP expression appeared gradually from the 4-cell stage on and it is likely that a detection threshold was reached by different embryos at different times. At the blastocyst stage all embryos showed GFP expression suggesting that heterogeneity at earlier stages was likely due to the timing of GFP expression or our ability to clearly detect green fluorescence under the microscope.

- Line 159: mESC cultured on 2i have shown an altered karyotype over culture passaging. How many passages do have scESC cell lines when analyzed? In material and methods is mentioned that purification of phaESC is performed every 4-6 passages but I could not find when chromosome countings of scESC are performed. Which culture media has been used? (I could not find it either on Materials and methods). Do you think that this scESC derivation could influence polyploidy of the cells?

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important detail. We are aware of reports of chromosomal instability of mouse ESCs in 2i medium from several labs. To exclude this as an effect we have established and maintained our scESC lines in serum plus LIF medium. This detail has been added in lines 357-365 of the methods section. DNA content analysis by flow cytometry and chromosome counting were performed at the passage 9. Considering scESC lines were karyotyped at early passage (passage 9), we suggest that culture did not have a material influence on polyploidy of scESC lines. This view is consistent with the observation that mouse ESCs rarely become polyploid in culture. Frequent aneuploidies are caused by the gain or loss of individual chromosomes including a gain of chromosome 8 and loss of one of one X chromosome in female ESCs.

- Lines 167 - 172: It is interesting the raised hypothesis that polyploidy could be an important limiting factor in the embryonic development of semi-cloned embryos. The authors say that is frequent and prevalent, but how prevalent polyploidy is in scESC derived lines?. Could the authors provide the percentage of scESC that showed polyploidy by karyotype analysis in the different cell lines?.

Response: In order to accurately assess the percentage of polyploid cells in each of our 4 scESC lines, we have measured their DNA content by flow cytometry after demecolcine treatment. This allows us to observe the cells arrested in mitosis and therefore each ploidy state can be assigned a single peak. From this analysis we find that the scESC-1, scESC-2, and scESC-3 are homogenous cultures, whereby scESC-2 is diploid, and scESC-1 and scESC-3 are triploid. scESC-4 is a mixed culture comprised of 11.6% tetraploid and 86.4% diploid cells. The new data is shown in Figure 2E and discussed in the text in lines 170-175.

- Line 194 - 196: This section introduction is rather confusing as semi-cloned embryos competence to develop to mice has been previously proved, as the authors have cited in Refs 13 and 14. Please rephrase this sentence.

Response: We have rephrased the sentence explaining the aim for further analysis of semi-cloned embryos in lines 205-206 following the reviewer’s suggestion.

- Lines 243 - 244: I find a bit confusing the way of presenting the percentage of efficiently generated semi-cloned blastocysts and mice in this sentence. Is this referring to the developmental progression shown in Figure 2 (blastocysts), or the one of semi-cloned mice shown in Figure 3?. Please clarify this issue.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have removed statements of efficiency regarding our semi-cloning experiments considering the limited numbers in our study. Therefore, we have removed the sentences in the former lines 243-244. Please, see also the response to reviewer 1 points 2 to 4.

Minor points

- Supplementary Fig2A and Fig2B, why there are images and genotyping controls of only 3 scESC lines?

Response: We have added images and genotyping results and now show the data for all 4 scESC lines in Supplementary Fig2A and 2B.

- Line 95, ‘generaterd’

Response: We have corrected the spelling mistake.

- Line 208 -210: Please refer to the subsequent progenies as F0 and F1.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion for clarifying the text. We have changed the text (line 212-223) and figures (Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure 3) and now refer to the semi-cloned mice as F0, their offspring as F1 generation to make the discussing clearer.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point_To_Point_Response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jon Schoorlemmer

11 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12064R1

Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wutz,

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 Sep 25 2020 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'.

  • 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jon Schoorlemmer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear author, dear Dr Wutz,

As the authors suggest in the cover letter, most points that were raised by the reviewers have been addressed, with the inclusion of additional data and text clarifications.

Before formal acceptation however, a few more minor point should be adressed, one of which became clear only once methylation percentages were added to Figure 3E.

1 Lines 223-227.

The description of this Figure is partially incorrect, and the conclusion is still overstated:

- The sentence “patterns ………….appear hypermethylated” is gramatically incorrect.

- The Peg13 locus in no.6 is not hypermethylated compared to control. It should be mentioned that the control is Female B6D2F1.

- It appears the Peg13 locus lost some methylation

- The fact that imprinting is mostly maintained, supports the idea that methylation patterns are “normal”

- Introduce “mostly” to tone down this conclusion: The 2 semi-cloned mice possessed mostly normal methylation patterns.

I would personally be curious regarding the methylation status of the oocyte-derived allele of th DMRs. Although not manipulated, showing that their methylation status is as predicted would have supported the “mostly” normal methylation patterns.

2 Lines 275-277

It is not clear to me what is being expressed in this sentence. Can that be rephrased?

Best regards

Jon Schoorlemmer

[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. 2020 Sep 10;15(9):e0233072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233072.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Aug 2020

Point to point response to the comments for the authors

1. Lines 223-227.

The description of this Figure is partially incorrect, and the conclusion is still overstated:

- The sentence “patterns ………….appear hypermethylated” is gramatically incorrect.

- The Peg13 locus in no.6 is not hypermethylated compared to control. It should be mentioned that the control is Female B6D2F1.

- It appears the Peg13 locus lost some methylation

- The fact that imprinting is mostly maintained, supports the idea that methylation patterns are “normal”

- Introduce “mostly” to tone down this conclusion: The 2 semi-cloned mice possessed mostly normal methylation patterns.

I would personally be curious regarding the methylation status of the oocyte-derived allele of th DMRs. Although not manipulated, showing that their methylation status is as predicted would have supported the “mostly” normal methylation patterns.

Response: We have corrected the sentence “patterns … appear hypermethylated” and changed the description of DNA methylation at the Peg13. The sentence reads now “Conversely, Peg13 was less methylated in F0 no. 6 and 7 than in the control”

We agree that an analysis of methylation at the H19- or IG-DMR would have allowed us to confirm the unmethylated status of the two DMRs on the oocyte derived chromosomes. Normal development of the two semi-cloned mice is consistent with the expected normal methylation at these 2 imprinted loci. Considering this point, we have toned down our conclusion. The section reads now “Considering that we observed slightly increased methylation levels in the control, which was comparable to that in F0 no. 6 and no. 7, we suggest that methylation of the 3 imprinted genes that we investigated was within a normal range in the 2 semi-cloned mice. This view is consistent with our observation that the semi-cloned mice were healthy and fertile.”

2. Lines 275-277

It is not clear to me what is being expressed in this sentence. Can that be rephrased?

Response: We have rephrased this paragraph. It is harder to explain how mixed diploid and tetraploid cells could have arisen in a single semi-cloned embryo and we have extended the discussion and include two additional references. We hope that the revised paragraph will be informative for the reader.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point_To_Point_Response.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Jon Schoorlemmer

26 Aug 2020

Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells

PONE-D-20-12064R2

Dear Dr. Wutz,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Jon Schoorlemmer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear author, dear Dr Wutz,

I consider the altered phrasing of high quality and have no further comments. I am happy to inform you that your manuscript "Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic

stem cells" is now acceptable for publication.

Acceptance letter

Jon Schoorlemmer

1 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-12064R2

Polyploidy of semi-cloned embryos generated from parthenogenetic haploid embryonic stem cells

Dear Dr. Wutz:

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

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 plosone@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. Jon Schoorlemmer

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 Fig. Deletions of the IG-DMR and H19-DMR in phaESC lines.

    (A) A design of gRNAs and primers targeting the deletions of the IG-DMR. (B) A design of gRNAs and primers targeting the deletions of the H19-DMR. (C) PCR fragments flanking both IG-DMR (319 bp) and H19-DMR (407 bp) by primers targeting deleted loci were observed in 2 DKO-phaESC lines, whereas the deleted sequences were absent in DKO-phaESC-1 and DKO-phaESC-2.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Derivation and genotyping of scESC lines.

    (A) Derivation of scESC lines from blastocysts generated by injection of DKO-phaESCs into oocytes. Images of blastocysts, outgrowth (passage 0) and scESCs after derivation are shown. Regular black bar, 100 μm; bold black bar, 200 μm; white bar, 100 μm. (B) Genotyping of 3 scESC lines. All 3 scESC lines exhibited both wild type and mutant alleles for the IG-DMR and H19-DMR, indicating both oocytes and DKO-phaESCs genome contributed to the genome of blastocysts.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Genotyping of F1 generation born to semi-cloned F0 mice.

    PCR-based genotyping was performed for 15 F1 mice born to semi-cloned females (F0 no.6 and 7) and wild type Swiss Webster males. EGFP transgene was inherited to 7 among 15 F1 mice.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. List of oligos.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point_To_Point_Response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point_To_Point_Response.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES