Chromosoma

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 37–56 | Cite as

The Feulgen banded karyotype of the mouse: analysis of the mechanisms of banding

  • Toby C. Rodman
  • Shobha Tahiliani
Article
Received:

Abstract

The chromosomes of the mouse have been identified by specific banding patterns revealed by the Feulgen stain. Comparison of the patterns of the Feulgen-stained karyotype with those of acetic-saline-Giemsa stain and quinacrinemustard-fluorescence demonstrates a high order of similarity among the three, with the localization of Feulgen dense bands and regions closely paralleling that of Giemsa dark and fluorescence bright bands. Since the stained substrate of the Feulgen reaction is known to be DNA, it is suggested that all three banding methods reveal the distribution of DNA or of some moiety that closely follows DNA distribution in metaphase chromosomes. The preparative procedure of the Feulgen banding method consists of a 15 to 20 minute exposure to PO4 buffer at pH 10 and a prolonged (60–72 hrs) exposure to 12xSSC. Omission or curtailment of either step results in preparations with chromosome sets that are not karyotypable, although some stain differentiation is produced. HCl extraction prior to the preparative treatment blocks banding, but acid extraction following the preparative treatment, either that of the HCl hydrolysis of the Feulgen reaction of that of an almost fourfold extension of the standard hydrolysis time, does not obliterate bands already formed. By extrapolation from biochemical studies of chromatin, it is postulated that the localization of Feulgen dark and light stain, representing relative DNA densities, reflects the regional protein association of the DNA; the Feulgen dense regions may result from aggregation of a specific class of histones by the alkaline buffer with consequent condensation of the DNA bound to those histones; the Feulgen pale or negative regions may represent those in which non-aggregated proteins, histone and non-histone, have been solubilized in the saline incubation, rendering the DNA of those regions subject to diffusion or vulnerable to fragmentation in the Feulgen hydrolysis.

Keywords

Metaphase Chromosome Hydrolysis Time Bright Band Alkaline Buffer Preparative Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, G. K. A., Kjellstrand, P. T. T.: Influence of acid concentration and temperature on fixed chromatin during Feulgen hydrolysis. Histochemie 30, 108–114 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. Beermann, W.: Chromomerenkonstanz und spezifische Modifikationen der Chromosomenstruktur in der Entwicklung und Organdifferenzierung von Chironomus tentans. Chromosoma (Berl.) 5, 139–198 (1952).Google Scholar
  3. Beermann, W.: Cytological aspects of information transfer in cellular differentiation. Amer. Zool. 3, 23–32 (1963).Google Scholar
  4. Bekhor, I., Kung, G. M., Bonner, J.: Sequence-specific interaction of DNA and chromosomal protein. J. molec. Biol. 39, 351–364 (1969).Google Scholar
  5. Berendes, H. D.: Factors involved in the expression of gene activity in polytene chromosomes. Chromosoma (Berl.) 24, 418–437 (1968).Google Scholar
  6. Boothroyd, E. R.: The reaction of Trillium pollen tube chromosomes to cold treatment during meiosis. J. Hered. 44, 2–9 (1953).Google Scholar
  7. Buckland, R. A., Evans, H. J., Summer, A. T.: Identifying mouse chromosomes with the ASG technique. Exp. Cell Res. 69, 231–236 (1971).Google Scholar
  8. Caspersson, T., de la Chapelle, A., Schröder, J., Zech, L.: Quinacrine fluorescence of metaphase chromosomes. Identical patterns in different tissues. Exp. Cell Res. 72, 56–59 (1972).Google Scholar
  9. Caspersson, T., Zech, L., Modest, E. J., Foley, G. E., Wagh, U., Simonsson, E.: Chemical differentiation with fluorescent alkylating agents in vicia faba metaphase chromosomes. Exp. Cell Res. 58, 128–140 (1969).Google Scholar
  10. Committee non Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice: Standard karyotype of the mouse, Mus musculus. J. Hered. 63, 69–72 (1972).Google Scholar
  11. Darlington, C. D.: The chromosome as a physico-chemical entity. Nature (Lond.) 176, 1139–1144 (1955).Google Scholar
  12. Dev, V. G., Grewal, M. S., Miller, D. A., Kouri, R. E., Hutton, J. J., Miller, O. J.: The quinacrine fluorescence karyotype of Mus musculus and demonstration of strain differences in secondary constrictions. Cytogenetics 10, 436–451 (1971).Google Scholar
  13. Drets, M. E., Shaw, M. W.: Specific banding patterns of human chromosomes. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 68, 2073–2077 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. DuPraw, E. J.: DNA and chromosomes, p. 224–230, 247–249. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. 1970.Google Scholar
  15. Feulgen, R., Rossenbeck, H.: Mikroskopisch-chemischer Nachweis einer Nuclein säure von Typus der Thymonucleinsäure und die darauf beruhende elektive Färbung von Zellkernen in mikroskopischen Präparaten. Hoppe-Seylers Z. physiol. Chem. 135, 203–249 (1924).Google Scholar
  16. Gall, J. G., Pardue, M. L.: Formation and detection of RNA-DNA hybrid molecules in cytological preparations. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 63, 378–383 (1969).Google Scholar
  17. Hardonk, M. J., van Duijn, P.: The mechanism of the Schiff reaction as studied with histochemical model systems. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 12, 748–751 (1964).Google Scholar
  18. Hnilica, L. S.: Proteins of the cell nucleus. Progr. Nucl. Acid Res. molec. Biol. 7, 25–106 (1967).Google Scholar
  19. Lessler, M. A.: Specificity in the aldehyde-coupling reactivity of nucleated erythrocytes. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 4, 36–85 (1954).Google Scholar
  20. McClure, M. E., Hnilica, L. S.: Nuclear proteins in genetic regulation. III. The cell cycle. Sub-cell. Biochemistry 1, 311–332 (1972).Google Scholar
  21. Ohlenbusch, H. H., Olivera, B. M., Tuan, D., Davidson, N.: Selective dissociation of histones from calf thymus nucleoprotein. J. molec. Biol. 25, 299–315 (1967).Google Scholar
  22. Richards, B. M., Walker, P. M. B., Deeley, E. M.: Changes in nuclear DNA in normal and ascites tumor cells. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 63, 831–848 (1956).Google Scholar
  23. Rodman, T. C., Tahiliani, S.: Feulgen banding patterns of mouse chromosomes. J. Cell Biol. 55, 219a (1972).Google Scholar
  24. Sandritter, W. K., Jobst, K., Rakow, L., Bosselman, K.: Zur Kinetik der Feulgen-reaktion bei verlängerter Hydrolysezeit. Cytophotometrische Messungen in sichtbarem und Ultraviolettlicht. Histochemie 4, 420–437 (1965).Google Scholar
  25. Sasaki, M.: Observations on the modification in size and shape of chromosomes due to technical procedure. Chromosoma (Berl.) 11, 514–522 (1962).Google Scholar
  26. Schnedl, W.: The karyotype of the mouse. Chromosoma (Berl.) 35, 111–116 (1971).Google Scholar
  27. Seabright, M.: Rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lancet 1971II, 971–972.Google Scholar
  28. Shiraishi, Y., Yosida, T. H.: Banding pattern analysis of human chromosomes by use of a urea treatment technique. Chromosoma (Berl.) 37, 75–83 (1972).Google Scholar
  29. Sumner, A. T., Evans, H. J., Buckland, R. A.: New technique for distinguishing between human chromosomes. Nature (Lond.) New Biol. 232, 31 (1971).Google Scholar
  30. Tonkelaar, E. M., van Duijn, P.: Photographic colorimetry as a quantitative cytochemical method. Histochemie 4, 16–19 (1964).Google Scholar
  31. Woods, P. S.: A Chromatographic study of hydrolysis in the Feulgen nucleal reaction. J. biophys. biochem. Cytol. 3, 71 (1957).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toby C. Rodman
    • 1
  • Shobha Tahiliani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyCornell University Medical CollegeNew York

Personalised recommendations