microPublication

Get Your Data Out, Be Cited

  • About
    • Editorial Policies
      • Editorial Staff
      • Editorial Board
      • Criteria For Publication
      • Publishing Information
      • Data Sharing Policy
    • For Authors
      • Preparation And Submission Of A Manuscript
      • Peer Review Process
      • Following Acceptance
      • Appeals
    • For Reviewers
    • Why micropublish?
  • Submit a microPublication
  • Journals
    • microPublication Biology
      • Editorial Board
  • microPublications
    • Biology
      • Species
        • Arabidopsis
        • C. elegans
        • D. discoideum
        • Drosophila
        • Human
        • Mouse
        • S. cerevisiae
        • S. pombe
        • Xenopus
        • Zebrafish
      • Categories
        • Phenotype Data
        • Methods
        • Expression Data
        • Genotype Data
        • Integrations
        • Genetic Screens
        • Models of Human Disease
        • Software
        • Interaction data
        • Database Updates
        • Electrophysiology Data
        • Phylogenetic Data
        • Science and Society
        • Biochemistry
  • Contact
  • More
    • Archives
    • FAQs
    • Newsletter
microPublication / Biology / The C. elegans pseudogene sspt-16...
The C. elegans pseudogene sspt-16 (F55A3.7) is required to safeguard germ cells against reprogramming
Andreas Ofenbauer1,2, Clara Maria Kraus1,2 and Baris Tursun1,2
1Berlin Institute of Medical Systems Biology, 10115 Berlin, Germany
2Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, 13125 Berlin, Germany
Correspondence to: Andreas Ofenbauer (aofenbauer@gmail.com); Baris Tursun (baris.tursun@mdc-berlin.de)

Abstract

We recently identified FAcilitates Chromatin Transcription (FACT) as a reprogramming barrier of transcription factor (TF) mediated conversion of germ cells into neurons in C. elegans. FACT is a conserved heterodimer consisting of SPT16 and SSRP1 in mammals. Duplication events during evolution in C. elegans generated two SSRP1 homologs named HMG-3 and HMG-4, while SPT-16 is the only homolog of SPT16. Yet, the pseudogene F55A3.7 has nearly complete nucleotide sequence homology to the spt-16 gene. However, F55A3.7 lacks some spt-16 exons and DNA pieces so we named it sspt-16 (short spt-16). Surprisingly, the deletion mutant ok1829, which affects only the sspt-16 pseudogene, shows similar germ cell reprogramming effects as described previously for FACT-depleted animals. We examined whether lack of sspt-16 affects other genes or chromatin accessibility, which may explain the permissiveness for germ cell reprogramming.

Figure 1. sspt-16 is a novel ncRNA: (A) Models of FACT subunits in H. sapiens (top) and C. elegans (middle). Conserved protein domains according to Pfam (pfam.xfam.org) and InterPro (ebi.ac.uk/interpro) are indicated. The pseudogene sspt-16 and its mother gene spt-16 are less than 2 kb apart from each other (bottom). The ok1829 deletion allele of sspt-16 is indicated in red. RNA image adapted from https://commons.wikimedia.org (CC BY-SA 3.0, free to use and change). (B) After broad induction of the ASE neuron specifying TF CHE-1 in L4 animals, no ectopic expression of the ASE neuron fate reporter gcy-5p::GFP can be detected 24 h later (top and middle left). However, in the sspt-16(ok1829) deletion background, ectopic gcy-5p::GFP expression can be detected in the germline (top and middle right). Some reprogrammed germ cells show axo-dendridic like projections (bottom right, indicated by white arrows) and some also show the pan-neuronal marker rab-3p::NLS::tagRFP (bottom left and middle, indicated by orange arrows). Scale bars = 20 µm. (C) We could verify sspt-16 RNA transcripts through RT-PCR (top; blue primers result in 143 bp for spt-16, while green primers result in 764 bp for spt-16 and 289 bp for sspt-16). All primers were designed at intron/exon borders, so that the expected sizes correspond to spliced mRNA or ncRNA, but not DNA. Additionally, we could detect sspt-16 ncRNA transcripts through long-read (Nanopore) and short-read (Illumina) RNA-seq (bottom). (D) Using CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing, a 3xFLAG-tag was introduced at the C-terminal end of endogenous sspt-16 / F55A3.7 (top). SSPT-16::3xFLAG worm lysates did not show any immunofluorescent FLAG staining, while the LMN-1::2xFLAG positive control did (bottom left). N2 (negative control), HIS-71::2xFLAG (positive control) and SSPT-16::3xFLAG worm lysates were used in a western blot. A positive band for SSPT-16::3xFLAG would have been expected at 24.3 kDa, if a tagged protein was generated from the edited sspt-16 locus. (E) We checked the sspt-16(ok1829) deletion background for gene expression changes of the germline FACT members spt-16 and hmg-3, as well as of the histone chaperone and reprogramming barrier lin-53, by using qPCR (left) and western blots (right), but could not detect any significant difference neither on mRNA nor on protein level for the tested genes. Error bars represent SD, n.s.: not significant according to a one-way ANOVA. (F) Using the CRISPR/Cas system, we generated an additional sspt-16 deficient strain (bar37) by knocking in an aptamer-ribozyme sequence that depletes transcribed sspt-16 ncRNA molecules and confirmed its functionality by qPCR using two different primer pairs which target sspt-16 ncRNA. ***: p<0.001 according to a one-way ANOVA. (G) The phenotype penetrance (ectopic GFP expression in the germline after broad CHE-1 induction) was assessed for WT control, the Δsspt-16(ok1829) deletion strain and the Δsspt-16(apta) aptamer-ribozyme strain. n = 147–252; 4 biological repeats. ***: p<0.001 according to a one-way ANOVA. Error bars represent SEM. (H) Germline specific ATAC-seq of N2 and Δsspt-16(ok1829) strains revealed that there are basically no significant differences in chromatin accessibilities. Two loci that were identified as different (turquoise) were the ok1829 deletion itself, as well as another undocumented deletion that is present in the original ok1829 strain, so represent deletions on DNA level rather than differentially accessible chromatin. (I) Genomic location of sspt-16 and spt-16 loci showing active and repressive chromatin marks. A screenshot of JBrowse implemented in wormbase.org (WS280) is shown with publicly available tracks for repressive H3 modifications: H3K27me3 (emb/L3/adult), H3K9me2/3 (emb/L3/adult); active: H3K36me3 (emb/L3), H3K9ac (L3), H3K77ac (adult). The loci are located at the right arm of chromosome I. The red line indicates the sspt-16 / spt-16 location, which appears to lie within a putative chromosomal compartment border region.

Description

FAcilitates Chromatin Transcription (FACT) is a histone chaperone complex, which is implicated in a variety of biological processes by regulating nucleosome deposition and chromatin accessibility (Orphanides et al. 1998; Hammond et al. 2017). In C. elegans, we previously demonstrated that FACT is a reprogramming barrier of transcription factor (TF) mediated reprogramming to neuron-like cells by safeguarding intestinal and germ cell identities (Kolundzic et al. 2018). Its role as a reprogramming barrier is conserved such that FACT depletion in human fibroblast culture enhanced reprogramming efficiency into both iPSCs and neurons (Kolundzic et al. 2018). FACT is a heterodimer consisting of two subunits: SUPT16H (suppressor of Ty 16 homolog, also known as SPT16) and SSRP1 (structure-specific recognition protein 1) in mammals (Orphanides et al. 1999). In C. elegans, SSRP1 has two homologs: HMG-3 and HMG-4, while SPT-16 is the single homolog of SPT-16 (Kolundzic et al. 2018). The existence of the two alternative FACT subunits HMG-3 and HMG-4 is the consequence of gene duplication, resulting in two functional paralogous proteins with distinct expression patterns: HMG-3 is expressed exclusively in the germline, while HMG-4 is expressed primarily in the soma (Kolundzic et al. 2018). Interestingly, SPT-16 also went through a gene duplication event, resulting in the uncharacterized pseudogene F55A3.7, which we named sspt-16 (short spt-16), because it lacks some genomic DNA pieces and an open reading frame when compared to the spt-16 gene locus (Figure 1A).

Pseudogenes can have coding-independent regulatory functions during differentiation and tumorigenesis (Singh et al. 2020). A well-studied example is the pluripotency TF and tumor marker factor OCT4 with respect to its seven pseudogenes, which are differentially expressed in different tumors (Poursani et al. 2016). For instance, in hepatocellular carcinoma, OCT4-pg4 (OCT4 pseudogene 4) functions as a natural micro RNA sponge to regulate OCT4 expression by competing for miR-145 (Wang et al. 2013).

We wondered whether sspt-16 has a function which may be related to its origin gene spt-16 and FACT with regard to safeguarding germline identity in C. elegans. To address this question, we combined the deletion mutant ok1829, which lacks a large genomic fragment only of sspt-16 (Figure 1A), with a strain carrying the heat-shock inducible TF CHE-1 and the ASE neuron fate reporter gcy-5p::GFP. We demonstrated previously that overexpressed CHE-1 induces germ cell reprogramming to ASE neuron-like cells upon HMG-3 depletion (Kolundzic et al. 2018) and tested whether lack of the pseudogene sspt-16 causes a related germ cell reprogramming phenotype (Figure 1B). Indeed, after broad induction of the ASE neuron-specifying TF CHE-1 in L4 animals, ectopic expression of the ASE neuron fate reporter gcy-5p::GFP could be detected in the germline (assessed after 24 h) (Figure 1B). Some reprogrammed germ cells showed axo-dendritic projections (Figure 1B, bottom right), indicating that they acquired neuronal-like features. Additionally, reprogrammed germ cells also express the pan-neuronal marker rab-3p::NLS::tagRFP, corroborating the notion that the sspt-16 depletion background allows conversion of germ cells to neuron-like cells upon induction of CHE-1 overexpression. Taken together, these results indicate that the pseudogene sspt-16 exhibits a similar safeguarding function of germline identity as previously described for FACT (Kolundzic et al. 2018).

In order to understand how sspt-16 contributes to safeguarding the germline we proved that it is transcribed, which we could verify by detecting sspt-16 RNA transcripts through PCR using intron/exon border spanning primers (Figure 1C, top). Additionally, we detected sspt-16 RNA transcripts in long-read RNA-seq by Nanopore, confirming that the transcript underwent splicing events and consists of four exons (Figure 1C, bottom). The sspt-16 transcript should be considered as a non-coding RNA (ncRNA) because it contains two premature stop codons and a CRISPR-mediated FLAG epitope tag insertion at the presumptive C-terminus did not yield in any protein detection for immune staining and blotting (Figure 1D). Furthermore, inspection of polysome tracks provided in JBrowse  (WS280) and a recent ribosome profiling study (Malone et al. 2017) do not indicate that a full-lenght sspt-16 (F55A3.7) peptide is generated. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of shorter peptides originating from the sspt-16 locus.

Since our lab has identified other reprogramming barriers in the past (Tursun et al. 2011; Kolundzic et al. 2018; Hajduskova et al. 2019), we wanted to assess whether the expression levels of known factors are altered in an sspt-16 depleted background, which could explain the resulting permissiveness for germ cell reprogramming in ok1829 animals. We checked the sspt-16(ok1829) deletion background for gene expression changes of the germline FACT members spt-16 and hmg-3, as well as for lin-53, another histone chaperone which blocks reprogramming of germ cells by promoting the formation of repressive chromatin barriers (Tursun et al. 2011). We performed gonad specific qPCR and whole worm western blots of WT compared to sspt-16(ok1829) animals, but could not detect any significant difference neither on mRNA nor on protein level for the tested factors (Figure 1E). This outcome, that lack of sspt-16 does not affect the neighboring spt-16 gene or other known reprogramming barrier factors, suggests that sspt-16 is required for safeguarding germline identity through other mechanisms.

To investigate the role of sspt-16 in safeguarding germ cells, we decided to examine whether it is sufficient to create permissiveness for germ cell reprogramming if only the sspt-16 transcript is eliminated but not the genomic DNA sequence as in the sspt-16(ok1829) mutant. We therefore knocked in an aptamer-ribozyme sequence at the 3’ end of WT sspt-16 using CRISPR/Cas. The cleavage activity of the ribozyme leads to RNA decay in absence of tetracycline (Wurmthaler et al. 2019). Testing by qPCR with two different primer pairs using WT animals as reference and sspt-16(ok1829) animals as positive control confirmed that sspt-16 transcripts were efficiently depleted in the new aptamer-ribozyme strain sspt-16(bar37), from now on referred as sspt-16(apta) (Figure 1F). However, in contrast to the deletion allele sspt-16(ok1829), where we can consistently see a germ cell conversion phenotype in almost 25% of animals, we couldn’t detect ectopic GFP expression in the germline of sspt-16(apta) animals. This finding suggests that it is not only the absence of sspt-16 ncRNA, but also the lack of genomic DNA of the sspt-16 locus, which is required to create permissiveness for germ cell reprogramming (Figure 1G).

We speculated that the presence of the sspt-16(ok1829) deletion could result in altered chromatin accessibility states in germ cells thus making them more amenable for CHE-1-mediated reprogramming to neurons as previously observed upon depletion of FACT (Kolundzic et al. 2018). To test this hypothesis, we performed a germline-specific Assay for Transposase Accessible Chromatin with high-throughput sequencing (ATAC-seq). However, we found no significant differences in chromatin accessibility of WT vs. sspt-16(ok1829) germlines (Figure 1H). Only two differentially accessible loci were identified with an adjusted p value of <1, one of which represents the ok1829 deletion itself (Figure 1H). As we could not find significant chromatin accessibility changes in sspt-16(ok1829) germlines, we speculate that differences at the level of chromatin modifications rather than its accessibility may be contributing to the decreased maintenance of germ cell identity in these mutants. This notion is supported by an interesting observation when revisiting publicly available data for active and repressive chromatin modifications (Figure 1I). When inspecting ChIP-seq and ChIP-chip tracks for repressive (H3K27me3 emb/L3/adult, H3K9me2/3 emb/L3/adult) and active (H3K36me3 emb/L3, H3K9ac L3, H3K77ac adult) H3 modifications, it appears that the sspt-16 / spt-16 locus lies within a region of the right arm of chromosome I, which delineates a boundary for repressive and active chromatin. Thus, we speculate that the lack of genomic DNA within the sspt-16 locus may lead to a boundary weakening, which could cause spreading of active chromatin and thereby allow activation of ectopic gene expression. Yet, the exact mechanism of how lack of the sspt-16 locus causes permissiveness for germ cell reprogramming remains to be determined and future investigation should focus on changes of chromatin modifications in the sspt-16 deletion mutant.

Methods

Request a detailed protocol

C. elegans strains and maintenance
All strains used were grown in nematode growth medium (NGM) at 15°C as previously described (Brenner 1974). Heat-shocking of strains was performed at 37° C for 30 min following incubation at 25° C O/N.

RNA-seq
Library preparation for RNA sequencing was carried out using NEXTFLEX Rapid Directional RNA-Seq Kit 2.0 (Bioo Scientific) and SQK-DCS109/EXP-NBD104 (Nanopore) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Libraries were sequenced using paired‐end sequencing length of a 100 nucleotides on a HiSeq 4000 machine (Illumina) and Minion (Nanopore).

Gonad dissection
Gonads were dissected as previously described (Jones et al. 1996).

Gonad specific ATAC-seq
Each replicate of dissected gonads (50 gonad arms in 20 µl ddH2O in a 1.5 ml Eppendorf tube) was filled up with 700 µl of freshly prepared and precooled buffer A (15 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5/2 mM MgCl2/0.34 M sucrose/0.15 mM spermine/0.5 mM spermidine/1 mM DTT/0.5 mM PMSF/0.25% NP40/0.1% Triton X-100) (Ooi et al. 2010) and subjected to 30 strokes of a tight fitting plastic pestle to open up the gonads and to isolate the nuclei. Subsequently, the pestle was rinsed with 300 µl of buffer A, each sample was spun for 5 min (5000 g/4° C) and the supernatant was discarded. The in this way purified nuclei were tagmented using the Nextera DNA Flex Library Prep Kit (Illumina) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, adding additional PBS and Tween-20 to the tagmentation buffer as described by (Corces et al. 2017) and sequenced using paired-end-sequencing length of 75 nucleotides on a HiSeq4000 machine (Illumina).

Reagents

List of strains

Name Genotype Availability
N2 Caenorhabditis Elegans CGC
RB1524 F55A3.7(ok1829) I. CGC
BAT28 otIs305 [hsp-16.2p::che-1::3xHA, rol-6(su1006)], ntIs1 [gcy-5p::GFP, lin-15(+)] V. upon request
BAT372 F55A3.7(ok1829) I; otIs305 [hsp-16.2p::che-1::3xHA, rol-6(su1006)], ntIs1 [gcy-5p::GFP, lin-15(+)] V. upon request
BAT748 barEx308 [hsp-16.2::H3_S10E::2xFLAG, hsp-16.2::His-71_S10E::2xFLAG, myo-2p::mCherry], otIs305 [hsp-16.2p::che-1::3xHA, rol-6(su1006)], ntIs1 [gcy-5p::GFP, lin-15(+)] V. upon request
BAT1468 barIs165 [myo-3p::lmn-1T40I::2xFLAG::SL2::NLS::tagRFP] upon request
BAT1594 F55A3.7(bar23[F55A3.7::3xFLAG]) I. upon request
BAT1560 hmg-3(bar24[hmg-3::3xHA]) I. upon request
BAT1749 hmg-3(bar24[hmg-3::3xHA]) I; F55A3.7(ok1829) I. upon request
BAT2099 F55A3.7(bar37[F55A3.7::aptamer]) I; otIs305 [hsp-16.2p::che-1::3xHA, rol-6(su1006)], ntIs1 [gcy-5p::GFP, lin-15(+)] V. upon request
BAT2192 F55A3.7(ok1829) I; otIs355 [rab-3::NLS::TagRFP]; otIs305 [hsp-16.2p::che-1::3xHA, rol-6(su1006)], ntIs1 [gcy-5p::GFP, lin-15(+)] V. upon request

 

List of (q)RT-PCR primers

Forward primer Sequence Reverse primer Sequence Target Gene
oBT504 GTGTGGGACCTATCTAAGA oBT223 TTACTGTTGTCTCTCTACCAC lin-53
oBT823 GGATCGTTGGAGGCTCATACT oBT824 TCATTATCAGATTCAGCATTCAGG spt-16 and sspt-16
oBT827 CATTTTCGAGTTTGGGAAGG oBT828 CCATTGAAATAGTCGAGTTGT hmg-3
oBT839 GGAGGCCCACACTAATGGATTTAGATACACATC oBT840 CTGGATTCTTGAGATGGAAGTGC spt-16
oBT863 CTGCTGGACAGGAAGATTACG oBT864 CTCGGACATTCTCGAATGAAG cdc-42
oBT4011 GCTGAACAACGGGAGAAGGA oBT4012 ACGCGAAAATTGGCTGTACAAA sspt-16

 

List of antibodies

Primary AB Host & Clonality Dilution Company Secondary AB
Anti-α-tubulin mouse, mono 1:10000 Sigma Anti-mouse-HRP, 1:10000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc.
Anti-FLAG mouse, mono 1:1000 Sigma Anti-mouse-HRP, 1:10000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc. or Anti-mouse AlexaFluor488, 1:1500, Molecular Probes
Anti-HA-HRP chicken, poly 1:1000 Abcam –
Anti-LIN-53 rabbit, mono 1:2000 Pineda Anti-rabbit-HRP, 1:10000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc.
Anti-SPT-16 guinea pig, mono 1:2000 Pineda Anti-guinea pig-HRP, 1:10000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc.

 

Acknowledgments

We thank Sergej Herzog and Anne Krause for technical assistance. We also thank the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC), which is funded by the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40OD010440), for providing strains for this study. All procedures conducted in this study were approved by the Berlin State Department for Health and Social (LaGeSo). The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

Brenner S. 1974. The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 77: 71-94.
PubMed
Corces MR, Trevino AE, Hamilton EG, Greenside PG, Sinnott-Armstrong NA, Vesuna S, Satpathy AT, Rubin AJ, Montine KS, Wu B, Kathiria A, Cho SW, Mumbach MR, Carter AC, Kasowski M, Orloff LA, Risca VI, Kundaje A, Khavari PA, Montine TJ, Greenleaf WJ, Chang HY. 2017. An improved ATAC-seq protocol reduces background and enables interrogation of frozen tissues. Nat Methods 14: 959-962.
PubMed
Hajduskova M, Baytek G, Kolundzic E, Gosdschan A, Kazmierczak M, Ofenbauer A, Beato Del Rosal ML, Herzog S, Ul Fatima N, Mertins P, Seelk-Müthel S, Tursun B. 2019. MRG-1/MRG15 Is a Barrier for Germ Cell to Neuron Reprogramming in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 211: 121-139.
PubMed
Hammond CM, Strømme CB, Huang H, Patel DJ, Groth A. 2017. Histone chaperone networks shaping chromatin function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18: 141-158.
PubMed
Jones AR, Francis R, Schedl T. 1996. GLD-1, a cytoplasmic protein essential for oocyte differentiation, shows stage- and sex-specific expression during Caenorhabditis elegans germline development. Dev Biol 180: 165-83.
PubMed
Kolundzic E, Ofenbauer A, Bulut SI, Uyar B, Baytek G, Sommermeier A, Seelk S, He M, Hirsekorn A, Vucicevic D, Akalin A, Diecke S, Lacadie SA, Tursun B. 2018. FACT Sets a Barrier for Cell Fate Reprogramming in Caenorhabditis elegans and Human Cells. Dev Cell 46: 611-626.e12.
PubMed
Malone B, Atanassov I, Aeschimann F, Li X, Großhans H, Dieterich C. 2017. Bayesian prediction of RNA translation from ribosome profiling. Nucleic Acids Res 45: 2960-2972.
PubMed
Ooi SL, Henikoff JG, Henikoff S. 2010. A native chromatin purification system for epigenomic profiling in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nucleic Acids Res 38: e26.
PubMed
Orphanides G, LeRoy G, Chang CH, Luse DS, Reinberg D. 1998. FACT, a factor that facilitates transcript elongation through nucleosomes. Cell 92: 105-16.
PubMed
Orphanides G, Wu WH, Lane WS, Hampsey M, Reinberg D. 1999. The chromatin-specific transcription elongation factor FACT comprises human SPT16 and SSRP1 proteins. Nature 400: 284-8.
PubMed
Poursani EM, Mohammad Soltani B, Mowla SJ. 2016. Differential Expression of OCT4 Pseudogenes in Pluripotent and Tumor Cell Lines. Cell J 18: 28-36.
PubMed
Singh RK, Singh D, Yadava A, Srivastava AK. 2020. Molecular fossils "pseudogenes" as functional signature in biological system. Genes Genomics 42: 619-630.
PubMed
Tursun B, Patel T, Kratsios P, Hobert O. 2011. Direct conversion of C. elegans germ cells into specific neuron types. Science 331: 304-8.
PubMed
Wang L, Guo ZY, Zhang R, Xin B, Chen R, Zhao J, Wang T, Wen WH, Jia LT, Yao LB, Yang AG. 2013. Pseudogene OCT4-pg4 functions as a natural micro RNA sponge to regulate OCT4 expression by competing for miR-145 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Carcinogenesis 34: 1773-81.
PubMed
Wurmthaler LA, Sack M, Gense K, Hartig JS, Gamerdinger M. 2019. A tetracycline-dependent ribozyme switch allows conditional induction of gene expression in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Commun 10: 491.
PubMed

Funding

This work was funded by the ERC-StG-2014-637530 and the Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association.

Author Contributions

Andreas Ofenbauer: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing
Clara Maria Kraus: Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation
Baris Tursun: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing - review and editing, Writing - original draft.

Reviewed By

Anonymous

History

Received: April 16, 2021
Revision received: May 4, 2021
Accepted: May 5, 2021
Published: May 18, 2021

Copyright

© 2021 by the authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Ofenbauer, A; Kraus, CM; Tursun, B (2021). The C. elegans pseudogene sspt-16 (F55A3.7) is required to safeguard germ cells against reprogramming. microPublication Biology. 10.17912/micropub.biology.000392.
Download: RIS BibTeX
microPublication Biology is published by
1200 E. California Blvd. MC 1-43 Pasadena, CA 91125
The microPublication project is supported by
The National Institute of Health -- Grant #: 1U01LM012672-01
microPublication Biology:ISSN: 2578-9430