Specification of germ cell fate is fundamental in development and heredity. Recent evidence indicates that in mice, specification of primordial germ cells (PGCs), the common source of both oocytes and spermatozoa, occurs through the integration of three key events: repression of the somatic program, reacquisition of potential pluripotency and ensuing genome-wide epigenetic reprogramming. Here we provide genetic evidence that Prdm14, a PR domain-containing transcriptional regulator with exclusive expression in the germ cell lineage and pluripotent cell lines, is critical in two of these events, the reacquisition of potential pluripotency and successful epigenetic reprogramming. In Prdm14 mutants, the failure of these two events manifests even in the presence of Prdm1 (also known as Blimp1), a key transcriptional regulator for PGC specification. Our combined evidence demonstrates that Prdm14 defines a previously unknown genetic pathway, initiating independently from Prdm1, for ensuring the launching of the mammalian germ cell lineage.

Specification of germ cell fate is fundamental in development. With a highly representative single-cell microarray and rigorous quantitative PCR analysis, we defined the genome-wide transcription dynamics that create primordial germ cells (PGCs) from the epiblast, a process that exclusively segregates them from their somatic neighbors. We also analyzed the effect of the loss of Blimp1, a key transcriptional regulator, on these dynamics. Our analysis revealed that PGC specification involves complex, yet highly ordered regulation of a large number of genes, proceeding under the strong influence of mesoderm induction but specifically avoiding developmental programs such as the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, Hox cluster activation, cell cycle progression, and DNA methyltransferase machinery. Remarkably, Blimp1 is essential for repressing nearly all the genes normally down-regulated in PGCs relative to their somatic neighbors. In contrast, it is dispensable for the activation of approximately half of the genes up-regulated in PGCs, uncovering the Blimp1-independent events for PGC specification. Notably, however, highly PGC-specific genes exhibited distinct correlations to Blimp1 in wild-type embryos, and these correlations faithfully predicted their expression impairments in Blimp1 mutants. Moreover, their expression overlaps within single cells were severely damaged without Blimp1, demonstrating that Blimp1 exerts positive influence on their concerted activation. Thus, Blimp1 is not a single initiator but a dominant coordinator of the transcriptional program for the establishment of the germ cell fate in mice.[Keywords: Primordial germ cells; Blimp1/Prdm1; cell fate specification; single-cell analysis; genome-wide gene expression profiling] Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org.

Specification of the germ cell lineage is vital to development and heredity. In mice, the germ cell fate is induced in pluripotent epiblast cells by signaling molecules, yet the underlying mechanism remains unknown. Here we demonstrate that germ cell fate in the epiblast is a direct consequence of Bmp4 signaling from the extraembryonic ectoderm (ExE), which is antagonized by the anterior visceral endoderm (AVE). Strikingly, Bmp8b from the ExE restricts AVE development, thereby contributing to Bmp4 signaling. Furthermore, Wnt3 in the epiblast ensures its responsiveness to Bmp4. Serum-free, defined cultures revealed that, in response to Bmp4, competent epiblast cells uniformly expressed key transcriptional regulators Blimp1 and Prdm14 and acquired germ-cell properties, including genome-wide epigenetic reprogramming, in an orderly fashion. Notably, the induced cells contributed to both spermatogenesis and fertility of offspring. By identifying a signaling principle in germ cell specification, our study establishes a robust strategy for reconstituting the mammalian germ cell lineage in vitro.

These preliminary data suggest that patterns of brain activation during the Sternberg working memory task at the rested baseline and the sleep-deprivation state, differ across individuals as a function of their sleep-deprivation vulnerability.