A Novel Mouse Model of Hypogonadotrophic Hypogonadism: N-Ethyl-N-Nitrosourea-Induced Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Gene Mutation

Andrew J. Pask, Haruhiko Kanasaki, Ursula B. Kaiser, P. Michael Conn, Jo Ann Janovick, David W. Stockton, David L. Hess, Monica J. Justice and Richard R. Behringer

Department of Molecular Genetics (A.J.P., R.R.B.), University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030; Department of Zoology (A.J.P.), University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia; Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension (H.K., U.B.K.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115; Departments of Physiology and Pharmacology (P.M.C.), and Cell and Developmental Biology, Oregon Health & Science University, and Oregon National Primate Research Center (P.M.C., J.A.J., D.L.H.), Divisions of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Research Services, Beaverton, Oregon 97006; and Department of Molecular and Human Genetics (D.W.S., M.J.J.), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Richard R. Behringer, Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030. E-mail: rrb{at}mdanderson.org.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
An autosomal-recessive mutation that causes hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism was isolated during an N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea mutagenesis screen in mice. Affected males had micropenis and small, undescended testes with spermatogenesis arrested at the pachytene stage of meiosis, leading to sterility. Androgen-sensitive organs were small and immature. Affected females were externally normal but sterile with small ovaries due to an arrest at the secondary stage of folliculogenesis, and the uterus and oviducts were thin and immature. Circulating reproductive hormones were significantly decreased in affected males and females. There was also a dramatic reduction in the numbers of FSH- and LH-producing gonadotrophs. Meiotic mapping of the mutation and candidate gene sequencing determined that the N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea-induced lesion is in the third transmembrane domain of the GnRH receptor gene (Gnrhr). In vitro studies indicate that the mutant receptor is not coupled to the plasma membrane signal transduction system. Moreover, this mutant cannot be rescued with defined GnRH receptor pharmacoperones (pharmacological chaperones), an approach that rescues many other misfolded mutants. The mutant GnRH receptor was also shown to exert a dominant-negative effect on wild-type receptor function, indicating that the mutant receptor is unable to fold properly and likely misrouted within the cell, not reaching the plasma membrane. Surprisingly, Gnrhr mutant transcripts were significantly up-regulated in the pituitaries of Gnrhr mutants, revealing a previously unknown autoregulatory feedback loop. This is the first report of a mouse with a Gnrhr loss of function mutation. These GnRH-insensitive mice provide a novel animal model for the study of human idiopathic hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
IN THE POST GENOMIC era, much emphasis has been placed on the development of large-scale phenotype-based screens for defining gene function and understanding genome biology (1). In mice, N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) is a very potent chemical mutagen that usually causes point mutations (2). ENU has been used effectively in the mouse to generate mutants and create new models of human disease.

Recently, we reported an ENU mutagenesis screen in mice using a genetically engineered balancer chromosome to isolate recessive mutations on chromosome 11 within a 24-cM inversion defined by Trp53 and Wnt3 that cause developmental defects (3). In this screen, a total of 735 pedigrees were analyzed, yielding 230 recessive mutations, 88 of which mapped to the 24-cM region of the chromosome 11 balancer. The remaining 142 mutant phenotypes were not linked to the Trp53-Wnt3 region. The phenotypes associated with these genome-wide recessive mutations included alterations in growth, morphology, coat, and behavior. This is perhaps not surprising because visible mutant phenotypes are the most easily scored in mice. One class of mutant phenotypes that are less easily scored are those associated with sexual development.

In the last decade, numerous genes that regulate sex determination and differentiation in mice have been identified (4). Classically, the identification of sex reversal mutants in mice has been facilitated by X chromosome-linked coat color mutations that lead to variegation caused by X inactivation (5, 6). X+X males will have coat color variegation, whereas XY females will be nonvariegated. However, in a large-scale recessive mutagenesis screen, these types of mutations will likely be missed because there will be slight alteration in the sex ratios within individual pedigrees, and the affected animals will almost certainly be sterile; therefore, depending upon the goals of the screen, the pedigree will likely be discarded. Whereas complete sex reversal may be relatively hard to detect, partial sex reversal or abnormalities in the differentiation of secondary sex characteristics may be obvious by simple external examination.

During our ENU mutagenesis screen, we identified one pedigree in which a quarter of the males exhibited abnormalities in their external sexual differentiation. Subsequent analysis also revealed sex differentiation defects in females. Further studies revealed hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism. The recessive mutation proved to be unlinked to the chromosome 11 balancer region. Meiotic mapping and candidate gene sequencing identified a point mutation in the GnRH receptor (Gnrhr) gene that produces a mutant receptor incapable of signal transduction. In addition, we identified an autoregulatory feedback loop for Gnrhr in the pituitary but not the testes.

The Gnrhr gene has been intensively investigated in mammals due its key role in both reproductive function and in numerous medical therapies (7). Furthermore, mutations in human GnRHR are known to be a significant cause of hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism without anosmia or adrenal insufficiency (8, 9). This mouse mutant provides a novel model for studying the precise role of this key signaling pathway in vertebrate and human sexual differentiation and reproduction and for the development of effective treatment regimens for human idiopathic hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (IHH).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
An ENU-Induced Autosomal-Recessive Mutation That Causes Defects in Sexual Differentiation
A screen for mutations that cause recessive developmental defects within the central 24-cM region of mouse chromosome 11 was performed (3). One pedigree (BL58–116) yielded one quarter of the males with a variant phenotype found in both the test and carrier classes of progeny, indicating a mutation not linked to the chromosome 11 balancer region. Subsequent breeding analysis showed that the trait had an autosomal-recessive mode of inheritance with full penetrance and expressivity.

Affected males were readily distinguishable from unaffected males by the small size of their genital papilla and reduced genital-anal distance (Fig. 1Go). The adult internal reproductive tract was prepubescent in appearance with small testes (approximately one tenth the weight of unaffected littermates) located in the abdominal cavity (Fig. 1Go). The testicular cords showed an arrest in spermatogenesis, with germ cells blocked at the early to midpachytene stages of meiosis (Fig. 2Go). The sizes of the androgen-dependent seminal vesicle, epididymis, and os penis were dramatically reduced in affected males as compared with unaffected littermates (Fig. 1Go).



View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Gross Morphology and Histology of Control and Mutant Mice

External morphology shows shortened genital-anal distance (brackets) in the mutants compared with controls. The male reproductive tract organs of the mutants are much smaller than controls. Pink arrows,Vas deferens; white arrows, seminal vesicle; yellow arrows, testes. Visualization of the os penis with Alizarin red staining and surrounding cleared penis tissue. Histological sections of the epididymis and uterus stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The left and right panels are shown at the same scale. Control, +/+ or +/–; mutant, –/–.

 


View larger version (68K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Histological Analysis of Testes and Ovaries

Histological sections are stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Control ovary shows a follicle with an antrum (arrow). Mutant ovaries also have antral follicles (arrow). No antrum formation is found in hpg mutant ovaries. Anti-CD34 antibody staining of hpg ovary is shown in red and counterstained with hematoxylin. CD34 marks endothelial cells (arrow). Control, +/+ or +/–; mutant, –/–.

 
Affected females were less distinguishable from unaffected littermates except that they had a delay in opening of the vagina (Fig. 1Go). However, the internal reproductive tract of affected females was clearly abnormal with a prepubescent appearance. The uterus was thread-like and pale (Fig. 1Go). In addition, the size of the ovaries of affected females was approximately half that of their unaffected littermates (Figs. 1Go and 2Go). Histological analysis of the ovaries of adult affected females showed a complete absence of large antral follicles and corpora lutea (Fig. 2Go). Mutant follicles were arrested at the early antral stage, with only a few layers of granulosa cells and early antrum formation visible in about 30% of the follicles.

Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism
A significant reduction in circulating FSH levels was observed in the affected individuals of both sexes (Fig. 3Go). Circulating levels of progesterone, testosterone, androstenedione, and dihydrotestosterone were determined. Although it is natural that the various hormones tested vary between males and females, in each case a significant reduction was observed in circulating levels of the hormones in affected mice when compared with unaffected littermates (Fig. 3Go).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Circulating Hormone Levels

Histograms of indicated hormones. *, P < 0.05 by a standard t test. Control, +/+ or +/–; mutant, –/–.

 
Immunohistochemistry for LH, FSH, and prolactin (PRL) was performed on pituitary glands from affected and unaffected mice. LH and FSH immunostaining identified gonadotrophs in pituitaries of both affected and unaffected mice (Fig. 4Go). However, in the pituitaries of the affected mice the number of LH and FSH immunopositive cells was significantly reduced (P < 0.001; Fig. 4Go). The numbers of mammotrophs identified by PRL immunostaining were comparable between affected and unaffected mice (Fig. 4Go). Taken together, the mutant phenotypes suggest hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism.



View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Pituitary FSH and LH

A, Immunohistochemistry of LH, FSH, and PRL in pituitaries. Antibody staining is shown in red. Tissue is counterstained with hematoxylin. Control, +/+ or +/–; mutant, –/–. B, Statistical analysis of immunopositive cell counts in wild-type and mutant pituitaries. The histogram represents the number of positive cells per field of view under the x40 objective.

 
The hypogonadal (hpg) mutant mouse has a deletion within the Gnrh gene and serves as a model for hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (10). Therefore, we compared the ovaries of hpg mutant females with those from our mutants. hpg Mutant ovaries are about one quarter the size of wild-type and heterozygous littermates, and half that of our mutants (Fig. 2Go). hpg Mutant follicles are arrested in the secondary stage, some with multiple layers of granulosa cells; however, there is no evidence of antrum formation or corpora lutea (Fig. 2Go). Large centrally located spaces have been reported in the hpg mutant ovary interstitium (10). Immunostaining for CD34, a marker of vascular endothelium, outlines each of these structures, suggesting they are large lymphatic vessels reminiscent of the ovarian hilus (Fig. 2Go). These comparisons with the hpg mutant mouse suggest that our mutation could be an allele of Gnrh or perhaps its receptor.

A Point Mutation in Gnrhr
Analysis of pooled and individual DNA samples from affected and unaffected mice showed strong linkage for markers on chromosome 5. The peak LOD score was 12.59 at a recombination fraction of 0.03 between marker D5Mit309 (located at 44 cM on chromosome 5) and the mutation. This locus coincides with the Gnrhr gene, a strong candidate for the mutant phenotype. Sequencing of the three coding exons of Gnrhr revealed a T to C transition in exon 1, 350 bp downstream of the ATG start codon. The point mutation causes a leucine to proline amino acid change at position 117 (Fig. 5AGo). The nucleotide change eliminates a DdeI restriction enzyme site that facilitates genotyping (Fig. 5BGo). ClustalW alignment of Gnrhr nucleotide and amino acid sequence from all GenBank listed species indicated that this amino acid is conserved in all vertebrates from fish to humans. The amino acid change occurs at the N-terminal junction of the third transmembrane domain (Fig. 5CGo).



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Molecular Characterization of the Mutant Gnrhr Allele

A, Trace sequence data for wild-type and mutant Gnrhr alleles. Asterisk indicates T to C transition, causing L117P. B, PCR genotype analysis of Gnrhr mutation. C, Diagram of GnRHR protein structure within the plasma membrane (gray bar). Circles indicate individual amino acids. Known human GnRHR mutations are indicated by the solid black circles. The ENU-induced amino acid change is shown by the solid red circle. D, Real time PCR showing the relative levels Gnrhr mRNA compared with ß-actin transcripts in the pituitaries and testes of wild-type and mutant mice using real-time PCR.

 
To determine the effects of the L117P mutation on the ability of the GnRHR to activate intracellular signal transduction pathways, we transiently transfected wild-type or mutant Gnrhr into COS7 cells and measured the ability of each to stimulate inositol phosphate (IP) accumulation in response to a GnRH agonist (Fig. 6AGo). IP accumulation increased by 15-fold in COS7 cells transfected with the wild-type Gnrhr. In contrast, COS7 cells transfected with the L117P mutant Gnrhr showed no IP accumulation, indicating that signal transduction had been completely abrogated. To ensure that the L117P mutant receptor was expressed in transfected cells at comparable levels to wild type, a Western blot of transfected COS7 cell lysates was performed. Western blot analysis revealed distinct bands of equal intensity in cells transfected with either wild-type or L117P mutant GnRHR, but not in the untransfected COS7 control (Fig. 6BGo). We also tested the ability of cells transfected with mutant, wild-type, or control plasmids to bind [125I]Buserelin. COS7 cells transfected with the L117P mutant Gnrhr showed no [125I]Buserelin binding, indicating that either the receptor is not able to bind ligand or that it is not present on the cell surface (Fig. 6CGo).



View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Functional Analysis of the Mutant Gnrhr Allele

A, Accumulation of IP in COS7 cells transfected with either wild-type or Gnrhr L117P plasmids treated with or without GnRH agonist. B, Western blot analysis of COS7 cell lines transfected with Gnrhr expression vectors. C, Binding assay, the amount of bound [125I]Buserelin to cells transfected with wild-type, mutant, or control plamids. D, Attempted receptor rescue with molecular chaperones. IP accumulation in response to Buserelin stimulation is shown, after exposure of transfected cells to chemical chaperones. E, Dominant-negative effect of mutant L117P GnRHR. IP accumulation in response to Buserelin stimulation is shown in cells transfected with mutant and wild-type constructs individually and together.

 
Rescue of mutant GnRHR was attempted in transfected COS7 cells by treatment with IN3, Q89, and A222509 compounds, shown to rescue the majority of human GnRHR receptor mutations (11). Treatment with the rescue agents was unable to elicit any response to stimulation by Buserelin (Fig. 6DGo). A mouse GnRHR with E90K mutation was also included in the analysis to demonstrate rescue with the addition of the three compounds (12).

A dominant-negative effect of L117P on wild-type receptor was demonstrated by cotransfection of both forms into COS7 cells. Cotransfection of wild-type and the L117P mutant form significantly lowered wild-type receptor signal transduction ability in a dose-dependent manner, and this was unaffected by the addition of pharmacoperone, IN3. Cotransfection of the E90K mutant receptor with wild-type receptor also showed a dose-dependent decrease in wild-type signal transduction, but this was completely rescued by the addition of IN3 (Fig. 6EGo).

Identification of a GnRHR Transcriptional Autoregulatory Feedback Loop
We were able to easily amplify the mutant GnRHR cDNA from the pituitaries of homozygous mutant mice by RT-PCR but had difficulties amplifying the wild-type GnRHR cDNA from wild-type mice. This suggested that mutant GnRHR transcript levels may be elevated in mutant pituitaries relative to wild type. Therefore, GnRHR mRNA levels in the testes and pituitary glands of adult wild-type and homozygous mutant males were determined by real-time RT-PCR. GnRHR mRNA levels were found to be consistently 8-fold higher in homozygous mutant pituitaries in comparison with wild-type littermates (Fig. 5DGo). However, GnRHR mRNA levels in the testis were not significantly different between wild-type and homozygous mutant littermates (Fig. 5DGo). The relative level of GnRH mRNA was also assessed in the hypothamus and ovaries of three adult mutant and three adult wild-type mice by real-time RT-PCR. The levels of GnRH in mutant mice were not significantly different from wild-type levels (data not shown).


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
GnRH signaling is one of the best-studied reproductive pathways because of its role in coordinating sexual differentiation and reproduction in all vertebrates and its manipulation in many medical therapies (7). Mutations in human GnRHR are known to be a significant cause of hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism without anosmia or adrenal insufficiency (8, 9). Despite its pivotal role in reproductive function and disease, an animal model for GnRH insensitivity has never been created.

The ENU-induced point mutation within the Gnrhr gene causes an amino acid change, converting an invariant leucine to a proline. Our in vitro analysis demonstrates that conservation of this amino acid is essential for murine GnRHR function, as cells transduced with GnRHR L117P are unable to bind ligand or transduce signals. This is the first description of a Gnrhr mutation in mice, leading to GnRHR deficiency. This mouse mutant serves as a new animal model for human IHH.

Studies of naturally occurring human mutant GnRHR proteins suggests that most mutations (11 of the 14 known) do not affect the ability of the receptor to function, but rather the ability to fold properly, affecting its subsequent routing to the cell membrane. Treatments with various pharmacological chaperones that promote correct receptor folding and routing result in rescue of receptor function in 11 of the 14 known human GnRHR mutants (11). Rescue has also been shown in a murine ortholog of the human E90K mutant. Chaperone treatment of COS7 cells transfected with the L117P mutant receptor was not able to rescue function with any compound. The proline amino acid substitution would likely produce a break in the helix by forcing a right-angle turn in the peptide; this particular mutant may not be able to be correctly folded even in the presence of chaperones. This is supported by a human mutation that results in a loss of a proline residue in the GnRHR, which similarly cannot be corrected by treatment with rescue agents (14).

Furthermore, we demonstrated that the L117P mutant receptor exerts a dominant-negative effect on wild-type receptor function in a cotransfection assay. Oligomerization of GnRHR in the endoplasmic reticulum is essential for its activation and routing to the plasma membrane. Dominant-negative effects of mutant GnRHRs on wild-type function have been previously demonstrated in humans. This is caused by the intracellular retention of the heterooligomer of the mutant and wild-type receptors and targeting the complex (as a misfolded protein) for destruction in the endoplasmic reticulum, rather than delivering it to the plasma membrane (15). The dominant-negative effect of murine L117P on wild-type receptor function is consistent with the mutant receptor not folding appropriately and not routing to the cell surface, thus affecting the normal routing of wild-type receptors within the same cell. This indicates that the absence of receptor function seen in the L117P mutant is a result of intracellular retention of the mutant receptor.

The levels of circulating reproductive hormones were significantly reduced in Gnrhr mutant mice compared with wild-type or heterozygous littermates. Pituitary immunohistochemistry showed a reduction in the number of gonadotrophs producing FSH and LH. The overall size and histology of the mutant pituitaries were normal. Thus, there may be a reduced number of gonadotrophs or, in the absence of GnRH stimulation, only a subset of gonadotrophs express hormone. It has similarly been noted in the hpg mutant mouse that there is a 30% decrease in the number of pituitary gonadotrophs (16). This level of reduction is insufficient to account for the dramatic drop in reproductive hormone levels, suggesting that, as seen in the Gnrhr mutant, in addition to a reduction in numbers, the levels of hormone production and release from each gonadotroph are also likely reduced.

PRL immunohistochemistry showed similar patterns in wild-type and Gnrhr mutant pituitaries, indicating the mammotrophs were unaffected by the Ghrhr mutation. This is in contrast to the hpg mutant mouse in which PRL levels are significantly changed (10, 17), presumably due to the loss of GAP (GnRH-associated peptide), which forms part of the Gnrh primary transcript from which the bioactive decapeptide, GnRH, is spliced. It has been suggested that GAP either acts to inhibit PRL release from mammotrophs or as a chaperone for GnRHR (18, 19). GAP has also been shown to stimulate FSH and LH secretion from rat primary pituitary cell lines in vitro (20). Although the precise function of GAP remains undetermined, its PRL regulating action must be independent of GnRH-GnRHR signaling because PRL levels remained unaffected in the Gnrhr mutant.

Histological comparison of the Gnrhr and hpg mutant ovaries revealed similarities but also some interesting differences. Hpg mutant ovaries are about a tenth the volume of wild-type ovaries (10), whereas Gnrhr mutant ovaries are only half the size of wild type. Follicles that have undergone early antrum formation were almost never observed in hpg mutant ovaries but are quite frequent in Gnrhr mutant ovaries. This is interesting because hpg mutant ovaries develop large follicles, of a similar size to those observed in the Gnrhr mutant ovaries; however, antrum formation is not induced. This difference may be due to variation in circulating FSH levels between the two mutant mice. FSH levels were undetectable in hpg mice (10), but low and readily detectable in Gnrhr mutants. Perhaps the persistent levels of FSH in Gnrhr mutant mice are sufficient to induce early antrum formation. Alternatively, the compound effect of reduced basal FSH and LH with perturbation of PRL levels in hpg mutant mice may increase the severity of the ovarian phenotype, because PRL has been shown to have direct effects on folliculogenesis (21, 22, 23, 24).

The interstitium of hpg mutant ovaries is consistently described as atretic or cystic (10); however, the interstitium appears normal in Gnrhr mutant ovaries. Our own histological analysis of hpg mutant ovaries also revealed large cystic structures within the interstitium. However, these structures appeared reminiscent of the ovarian hilus, rather than atretic tissue. Immunostaining for CD34, a marker of vascular endothelium, showed that they were indeed vascular spaces, likely the lymphatics of the hilus. The hilus is not normally obvious as it occupies only a small portion of wild-type ovaries. However, in the hpg mutant ovary, the hilus size appears unaffected and is therefore a prominent structure in the tiny mutant ovary.

The testicular phenotypes of Gnrhr mutant male mice are similar to those reported for hpg mutant males (10, 17), both having intraabdominal testes of severely reduced size with a meiotic block in spermatogenesis. The male urogenital tract and external genitalia are similarly undervirilized. However, the interstitial tissue of the testes of Gnrhr mutant males appears normal in contrast to hpg mutant testes in which the interstitium is described as atretic.

Taken together, these data suggest the hpg mutant mouse has a more severe phenotype than the Gnrhr mutant mouse. This indicates that GnRH has additional roles in the reproductive axis, other than signaling through GnRHR alone. Alternatively, the more severe phenotype of hpg mutant mice could be due to the compound loss of GAP leading to changes in PRL levels, and/or other effects of GAP, in addition to the reduced gonadotropin levels. This hypothesis is supported by the finding that suppression of gonadotropins and PRL in eugonadal men treated for prostatic carcinoma results in a more severe reduction in testicular weight and spermatogenesis than a loss of gonadotropin production alone (25). Although the precise role of PRL in the testis remains to be determined, it has been shown to promote steroidogenesis from the Leydig cells of the testis (26, 27) and to have weak gonadotropin action in the testes of hypothalamo-pituitary-disconnected rams (28). Furthermore, PRL has active roles in the interstitial tissue of both the testis and ovary (21, 22, 23, 24). However, it is important to note that the Gnrhr and hpg mutations have been studied on different genetic backgrounds. As such, each mutation is subject to different genetic modifiers that may also be partially responsible for some of the observed phenotypic differences.

Removal of the negative feedback pathway of FSH and LH on the pituitary leads to a dramatic up-regulation of both GnRH and GnRHR (27, 28, 29). In addition, GnRH can positively regulate its own receptor in vivo (30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). Not surprisingly then, in the absence of GnRH in hpg mice, pituitary GnRHR levels are only 30% of wild type (39). Administration of exogenous GnRH to hpg mutant mice increases receptor protein, but only to 50% of wild-type levels, presumably due to the overall reduction in the number of gonadotrophs within hpg mutant pituitaries (39). Surprisingly, we found that Gnrhr mutant pituitaries had an 8-fold increase in Gnrhr mRNA levels compared with wild type. This result may be due to mutant transcripts being more stable than wild-type Gnrhr in the pituitary. Alternatively, this could be due to an autoregulatory feedback mechanism in which the inactive or misrouted GnRHR is causing up-regulation of Gnrhr transcription. This mechanism could act to increase the responsiveness of the gonadotrophs to GnRH by increasing receptor numbers in a situation in which GnRH binding and signal transduction are limiting. Interestingly, levels of testicular Gnrhr mRNA remained unaffected in the mutants. This suggests that the regulation of GnRHR in the testis is different than that in the pituitary and independent of the autoregulatory or hormonal feedback mechanisms.

The phenotypes of the Gnrhr mutant mice mirror the abnormalities found in human cases of IHH as a result of GnRHR mutation (9). Determining the response of Gnrhr mutant mice to exogenous hormone regimens will be important for understanding the pathophysiology of this disease and identification of effective treatments for IHH. Furthermore, this mouse will be a valuable tool for understanding the precise in vivo role of GnRHR signaling, among the few key molecular mechanisms controlling and modulating the vertebrate reproductive axis.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Mice
The ENU-induced mutation was analyzed on a C57BL/6 x 129S6/SvEv mixed genetic background. Animal experiments were approved by the M.D. Anderson Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Histology
Tissues for immunohistochemistry were cut at 7 µm and incubated with primary antibody for LH (anti-rat ßLH-IC-3), FSH (NIDK-anti-fFSH-IC-1), or PRL (goat-antimouse-PRL), obtained from the National Hormone and Pituitary Program, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center (Los Angeles, CA) or CD34 (rat-antimouse-CD34) from Cedarlane (Hornby, Ontario, Canada). Hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunostaining were according to standard methods.

LH- and FSH-immunopositive pituitary cells were quantified by determining the number of immunopositive cells in a field of view from two randomly chosen cross-sections of the anterior pituitary for each sample (seven wild-type and nine mutant pituitaries each for LH and FSH). The data were subject to a standard t test.

Hormone Assays
Circulating levels of FSH were obtained from individual plasma samples from eight male mice (four mutant and four wild type) and 10 female mice (four mutants and six wild-type). Progesterone, testosterone, androstenedione, and dihydrotestosterone levels were obtained from three pooled plasma samples containing four mutants or five wild-type mice of mixed sex. Levels were determined by RIA according to standard methods (40, 41).

Mutation Mapping
Pooled DNA samples from N1F1 intercross mice (18 affected and 18 unaffected males and females) were each typed for 72 Massachusetts Institute of Technology microsatellite markers distributed across the genome, to determine a chromosomal localization. Individual DNA samples were then analyzed for a subset of markers on the identified chromosome (42). Each sample was run in quadruplicate on an ABI Prism 377 DNA analyzer. Data were analyzed using GeneScan version 3.1 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) and called using Genotyper version 2.1 (Applied Biosystems).

Genotyping
Gnrhr exon 1 was amplified by PCR using primers in the flanking genomic sequence (forward, 5'-CTCCACTCTTGAAGCCTGTCC-3'; reverse, 5'-TCACCATGTTCACACAAATTC-3'). Genotype was determined by DdeI digestion of amplified products and electrophoresis on a 4% NuSieve gel (Cambrex Bioproducts, Baltimore, MD).

Functional Analyses
IP Assay: Full-length cDNA clones encoding wild-type and Gnrhr L117P were subcloned into the pcDNA3 expression vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and transiently transfected into COS7 cells. The Gnrhr expression vectors included six copies of a myc epitope tag at the amino terminus to facilitate detection of the receptors in the absence of an effective anti-GnRHR antibody. The response of transformed cell lines to a GnRH agonist (Buserelin) was measured by IP accumulation as previously described (13). All assay points were performed in triplicate, and each experiment was repeated at least three times. Western blot analysis was performed to confirm mutant receptor expression. Cell lysates were electrophoresed, blotted, and incubated with 9E10 (anti-c-myc) monoclonal antibody (CRP, Inc., Berkeley, CA). Membranes were then stripped, washed, and reprobed with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated antiactin antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA).

Receptor binding was performed by incubating transfected cells with [125I]Buserelin as previously described (13). Rescue of mutant receptor function by treatment with pharmacological chaperones and assessment of the dominant-negative effect of mutant receptors on wild-type function was performed as previously described methods (11, 15). To determine the rescue effects of pharmacological chaperones, COS7 cells were transfected with 95 ng of expression plasmids containing the wild-type or mutant cDNA or 5 ng of empty vector. IP accumulation in response to Buserelin stimulation was measured after exposure to chemical chaperones. The dominant-negative effect of mutant L117P GnRHR on wild-type receptor function was determined with COS7 cells transiently transfected with mutant and wild-type Gnrhr at an 8:1 ratio (40 ng mutant + 5 ng wild-type + 55 ng of vector) or a 19:1 ratio (95 ng mutant + 5 ng wild-type). Receptor function was assessed by IP accumulation in response to Buserelin stimulation.

PCR Quantification of Gnrhr mRNA
Total RNA was extracted from the pituitaries and testes of four mutant and four unaffected littermates at 3 wk of age, using RNeasy mini kits (QIAGEN, Chatsworth, CA) and reverse transcribed with Superscript II (Invitrogen, San Diego, CA). Gnrhr transcript levels were determined by real time PCR in the pituitary and gonads of male mice. Reactions where carried out using the Roche Light Cycler and cyber green master mix kits (Roche Clinical Laboratories, Indianapolis, IN). Gnrhr levels were determined in fold changes, as compared with ß-actin levels using the Roche Light Cycler 3.0 software.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Chun-Ming Chen and Marvin Meistrich for helpful advice and Peter Akinwunmi, Andy Salinger, Darlene Skapura, and Ying Wang for technical assistance.


    FOOTNOTES
 
This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia C. J. Martin fellowship (to A.J.P.); National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants HD39372 (to M.J.J.) and HD30284 (to R.R.B.); a cooperative agreement U54 HD28138 as part of the Specialized Cooperative Centers Program in Reproduction Research (to U.B.K.); and NIH Grants HD19899 and RR00163 (to P.M.C.). DNA sequencing and veterinary resources were supported by the NIH Cancer Center Support (Core) Grants CA16672 and HD18185.

First Published Online December 29, 2004

Abbreviations: ENU, N-Ethyl-N-nitrosourea; GAP, GnRH-associated peptide; GnRHR, GnRH receptor; IHH, idiopathic hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism; IP, inositol phosphate; PRL, prolactin.

Received for publication May 6, 2004. Accepted for publication December 20, 2004.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Justice MJ 2000 Capitalizing on large-scale mouse mutagenesis screens. Nat Rev Genet 1:109–115[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Justice MJ 1999 Mouse germline mutagenesis. In: Jackson I, Abbott C, eds. Genetics and transgenics; a practical approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 185–215
  3. Kile BT, Hentges KE, Clark AT, Nakamura H, Salinger AP, Liu B, Box N, Stockton DW, Johnson RL, Behringer RR, Bradley A, Justice MJ 2003 Functional genetic analysis of mouse chromosome 11. Nature 425:81–85[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Swain A, Lovell-Badge R 1999 Mammalian sex determination: a molecular drama. Genes Dev 13:755–767[Free Full Text]
  5. Cattanach BM, Pollard CE, Hawker SG 1971 Sex-reversed mice: XX and XO males. Cytogenetics 10:318–337[Medline]
  6. Cattanach BM, Isaacson JH 1965 Genetic control over the inactivation of autosomal genes attached to the X-chromosome. Z Vererbungsl 96:313–323[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Sealfon SC, Weinstein H, Millar RP 1997 Molecular mechanisms of ligand interaction with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor. Endocr Rev 18:180–205[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Kottler M-L, Counis R, Bouchard P 1999 Mutations of the GnRH receptor gene: a new cause of autosomal-recessive hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Arch Med Res 30:481–485[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Beranova M, Oliveira LM, Bedecarrats GY, Schipani E, Vallejo M, Ammini AC, Quintos JB, Hall JE, Martin KA, Hayes FJ, Pitteloud N, Kaiser UB, Crowley Jr WF, Seminara SB 2001 Prevalence, phenotypic spectrum, and modes of inheritance of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor mutations in idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:1580–1588[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Cattanach BM, Iddon CA, Charlton HM, Chiappa SA, Fink G 1977 Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone deficiency in a mutant mouse with hypogonadism. Nature 269:338–340[Medline]
  11. Janovick J, Goulet M, Bush E, Greer J, Wettlauffer D, Conn PM 2003 Chemical characteristics of successful pharmacologic chaperones for rescue of naturally occurring and manufactured mutants of the gonadotropin releasing hormone receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305:608–614[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Conn PM, Leanos-Miranda A, Janovick J 2002 Protein origami: therapeutic rescue of misfolded gene products. Mol Interv 2:308–316[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Bedecarrats GY, Linher KD, Kaiser UB 2003 Two common naturally occurring mutations in the human gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor have differential effects on gonadotropin gene expression and on GnRH-mediated signal transduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:834–843[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Meysing AU, Kanasaki H, Bedecarrats GY, Acierno Jr GW, Conn PM, Seminara SB, Hall JE, Crowley Jr WF, Kaiser UB 2004 New GnRHR mutations in a woman with idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism highlight the differential sensitivity of LH and FSH to GnRH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:3189–3198[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Brothers SP, Cornea A, Janovick JA, Conn PM 2004 Human ‘loss-of-function’ GnRH receptor mutants retain WT receptors in the ER: basis of the dominant-negative effect. Mol Endocrinol 18:1787–1797[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. McDowell IF, Morris JF, Charlton HM 1982 Characterization of the pituitary gonadotroph cells of hypogonadal (hpg) male mice: comparison with normal mice. J Endocrinol 95:321–330[Abstract]
  17. Mason AJ, Hayflick JS, Zoeller RT, Young WS, Phillips HS, Nikolics K, Seeburg PH 1986 The hypogonadal mouse: reproductive functions restored by gene therapy. Science 234:1366–1371[Medline]
  18. Nikolics K, Mason AJ, Szonyi E, Ramachandran J, Seeburg PH 1985 A prolactin-inhibiting factor within the precursor for human gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Nature 316:511–517[Medline]
  19. Chavali GB, Nagpal S, Majumdar SS, Singh O, Salunke DM 1997 Helix-loop-helix motif in GnRH associated peptide is critical for negative regulation of prolactin secretion. J Mol Biol 272:731–740[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Yu WH, Seeburg PH, Nikolics K, McCann SM 1988 Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-associated peptide exerts a prolactin-inhibiting and weak gonadotropin-releasing activity in vivo. Endocrinology 123:390–395[Abstract]
  21. McNatty KP, Sawers RS, McNeilly AS 1974 A possible role for prolactin in control of steroid secretion by the human Graafian follicle. Nature 250:653–655[Medline]
  22. McNatty KP 1979 Relationship between plasma prolactin and the endocrine microenvironment of the developing human antral follicle. Fertil Steril 32:433–438[Medline]
  23. Jacobs HS, Franks S, Murray MA, Hull MG, Steele SJ, Nabarro JD 1976 Clinical and endocrine features of hyperprolactinaemic amenorrhoea. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 5:439–454[Medline]
  24. McNeilly AS 1987 Prolactin and the control of gonadotrophin secretion. J Endocrinol 115:1–5[Medline]
  25. Huhtaniemi I, Parvinen M, Venho P, Rannikko S 1991 Combination of a GnRH agonist with an antiandrogen or bromocriptine in the treatment of prostatic cancer; slight potentiation of antigonadal effects. Int J Androl 14:374–386[Medline]
  26. Bex FJ, Bartke A 1977 Testicular LH binding in the hamster: modification by photoperiod and prolactin. Endocrinology 100:1223–1226[Abstract]
  27. Takase M, Tsutsui K, Kawashima S 1990 Effects of PRL and FSH on LH binding and number of Leydig cells in hypophysectomized mice. Endocrinol Jpn 37:193–203[Medline]
  28. Lincoln GA, Clarke IJ, Sweeney T 1996 ’Hamster-like’ cycles in testicular size in the absence of gonadotrophin secretion in HPD rams exposed to long-term changes in photoperiod and treatment with melatonin. J Neuroendocrinol 8:855–866[Medline]
  29. Clayton RN, Solano AR, Garcia-Vela A, Dufau ML, Catt KJ 1980 Regulation of pituitary receptors for gonadotropin-releasing hormone during the rat estrous cycle. Endocrinology 107:699–706[Abstract]
  30. Clayton RN, Catt KJ 1981 Regulation of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors by gonadal hormones. Endocrinology 108:887–895[Medline]
  31. Frager MS, Pieper DR, Tonetta S, Duncan JA, Marshall JC 1981 Pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors. Effects of castration, steroid replacement, and the role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone in modulating receptors in the rat. J Clin Invest 67:615–623[Medline]
  32. Clayton RN, Channabasavaiah K, Stewart JM, Catt KJ 1982 Hypothalamic regulation of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors: effects of hypothalamic lesions and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. Endocrinology 110:1108–1115[Medline]
  33. Loumaye E, Catt KJ 1982 Homologous regulation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors in cultured pituitary cells. Science 215:983–985[Medline]
  34. Clayton RN, Popkin RM, Fraser HM 1982 Hypothalamic regulation of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors: effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone immunoneutralization. Endocrinology 110:1116–1122[Medline]
  35. Pieper DR, Gala RR, Regiani SR, Marshall JC 1982 Dependence of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptors on GnRH secretion from the hypothalamus. Endocrinology 110:749–753[Medline]
  36. Katt JA, Duncan JA, Herbon L, Barkan L, Marshall JC 1985 The frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation determines the number of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors. Endocrinology 116:2113–2115[Abstract]
  37. Kaiser UB, Jakubowiak A, Steinberger A, Chin WW 1997 Differential effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse frequency on gonadotropin subunit and GnRH receptor messenger ribonucleic acid levels in vitro. Endocrinology 138:1224–1231[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Norwitz ER, Cardona GR, Jeong K-H, Chin WW 1999 Identification and characterization of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone response elements in the mouse gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor gene. J Biol Chem 274:867–880[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Young LS, Speight A, Charlton HM, Clayton RN 1983 Pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor regulation in the hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal (hpg) mouse. Endocrinology 113:55–61[Abstract]
  40. Hess DL, Spies HG, Hendricks AG 1981 Diurnal steroid patterns during gestation in the rhesus macaque: onset, daily variation, and the effects of dexamethasone treatment. Biol Reprod 24:609–616[Medline]
  41. Parlow AF 2003 National Hormone and Peptide Program, NIDDK: peptide hormones, subunits, antisera and other reagents available. Endocrine 22:77–79[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Dietrich WF, Miller J, Steen R, Merchant MA, Damron-Boles D, Husain Z, Dredge R, Daly MJ, Ingalls KA, O’Connor TJ 1996 A comprehensive genetic map of the mouse genome. Nature 380:149–152[CrossRef][Medline]