Advertisement

Mammalian Genome

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 549–558 | Cite as

Genetic variation in C57BL/6 ES cell lines and genetic instability in the Bruce4 C57BL/6 ES cell line

  • Elizabeth D. Hughes
  • Yun Yan Qu
  • Suzanne J. Genik
  • Robert H. Lyons
  • Christopher D. Pacheco
  • Andrew P. Lieberman
  • Linda C. Samuelson
  • Igor O. Nasonkin
  • Sally A. Camper
  • Margaret L. Van Keuren
  • Thomas L. Saunders
Article

Abstract

Genetically modified mouse strains derived from embryonic stem (ES) cells are powerful tools for gene function analysis. ES cells from the C57BL/6 mouse strain are not widely used to generate mouse models despite the advantage of a defined genetic background. We assessed genetic variation in six such ES cell lines with 275 SSLP markers. Compared to C57BL/6, Bruce4 differed at 34 SSLP markers and had significant heterozygosity on three chromosomes. BL/6#3 and Dale1 ES cell lines differed at only 3 SSLP makers. The C2 and WB6d ES cell lines differed at 6 SSLP markers. It is important to compare the efficiency of producing mouse models with available C57BL/6 ES cells relative to standard 129 mouse strain ES cells. We assessed genetic stability (the tendency of cells to become aneuploid) in 110 gene-targeted ES cell clones from the most widely used C57BL/6 ES cell line, Bruce4, and 710 targeted 129 ES cell clones. Bruce4 clones were more likely to be aneuploid and unsuitable for ES cell-mouse chimera production. Despite their tendency to aneuploidy and consequent inefficiency, use of Bruce4 ES cells can be valuable for models requiring behavioral studies and other mouse models that benefit from a defined C57BL/6 background.

Keywords

Embryonic Stem Cell Mouse Strain Chromosome Count Embryonic Stem Cell Line Embryonic Stem Cell Clone 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Keith Childs, Tina Jones, Eric Sweeney, and Corey Ziebell for assistance with chromosome counts. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) University of Michigan Transgenic Core NIH grants (CA46592, AR20557, AG13283, DK034933), The University of Michigan Center for Organogenesis, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, and the Michigan Technology Tri-Corridor (Michigan Animal Models Consortium Grant 085P1000815), and by NIH grants R01HD034283 and R37HD030428 (SAC).

Supplementary material

References

  1. Armstrong NJ, Brodnicki TC, Speed TP (2006) Mind the gap, analysis of marker-assisted breeding strategies for inbred mouse strains. Mamm Genome 17:273–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach AB, Norinsky R, Ho W, Losos K, Guo Q, et al. (2003) Strain-dependent differences in the efficiency of transgenic mouse production. Transgenic Res 12:59–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auerbach W, Dunmore JH, Fairchild-Huntress V, Fang Q, Auerbach AB, et al. (2000) Establishment and chimera analysis of 129/SvEv- and C57BL/6-derived mouse embryonic stem cell lines. Biotechniques 29:1024–1032PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin CP, Battey JF, Bradley A, Bucan M, Capecchi M, et al. (2004) The knockout mouse project. Nat Genet 36:921–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auwerx J, Avner P, Baldock R, Ballabio A, Balling R, et al. (2004) The European dimension for the mouse genome mutagenesis program. Nat Genet 36:925–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauler TJ, Hughes ED, Arimura Y, Mustelin T, Saunders TL, et al. (2007) Normal TCR signal transduction in mice that lack catalytically active PTPN3 protein tyrosine phosphatase. J Immunol 178:3680–3687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Black BL, Croom J, Eisen EJ, Petro AE, Edwards CL, et al. (1998) Differential effects of fat and sucrose on body composition in A/J and C57BL/6 mice. Metabolism 47:1354–1359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blier P, Bothwell AL (1998) The immune response to the hapten NP in C57BL/6 mice, insights into the structure of the B-cell repertoire. Immunol Rev 105:27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Trumbauer ME, Senear AW, Warren R, et al. (1985) Factors affecting the efficiency of introduction foreign DNA into mice by microinjecting eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 82:4438–4442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang S, Mohan C (2005) Identification of novel VH1/J558 immunoglobulin germline genes of C57BL/6 (Igh b) allotype. Mol Immunol 24:1293–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley JN (1996) Unusual behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains. Trends Neurosci 19:181–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domino SE, Zhang L, Gillespie PJ, Saunders TL, Lowe JB (2001) Deficiency of reproductive tract (1,2)fucosylated glycans and normal fertility in mice with targeted deletions of the FUT1 or FUT2 (1,2)fucosyltransferase locus. Mol Cell Biol 21:8336–8345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eppig JT, Bult CJ, Kadin JA, Richardson JE, Blake JA, the members of the Mouse Genome Database Group (2005) The Mouse Genome Database (MGD), from genes to mice—a community resource for mouse biology. Nucleic Acids Res 33:D471–D475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fedorov LM, Haegel-Kronenberger H, Hirchenhain J (1997) A comparison of the germline potential of differently aged ES cell lines and their transfected descendants. Transgenic Res 6:223–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlai R (1996) Gene-targeting studies of mammalian behavior, is it the mutation or the background genotype? Trends Neurosci 19:177–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kato T, Suzuki S, Sasakawa H, Masuko K, Ikeda Y, et al. (1994) Comparison of the J beta gene usage among different T cell receptor V beta families in spleens of C57BL/6 mice. Eur J Immunol 24:410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly MA, Low MJ, Phillips TJ, Wakeland EK, Yanagisawa M (2003) The mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying strain differences in locomotor activity between 129S6 and C57BL/6J mice. Mamm Genome 14:692–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kontgen F, Suss G, Stewart C, Steinmetz M, Bluethmann H (1993) Targeted disruption of the MHC class II Aa gene in C57BL/6 mice. Int Immunol 5:957–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Fur N, Kelsall SR, Mintz B (1996) Base substitution at different alternative splice donor sites of the tyrosinase gene in murine albinism. Genomics 37:245–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ledermann B, Burki K (1991) Establishment of a germ-line competent C57BL/6 embryonic stem cell line. Exp Cell Res 197:254–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemckert FA, Sedgwick JD, Korner H (1997) Gene targeting in C57BL/6 ES cells Successful germ line transmission using recipient BALB/c blastocysts developmentally matured in vitro. Nucleic Acids Res 25:917–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linder CC (2006) Genetic variables that influence phenotype. ILAR J 47:132–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu P, Jenkins NA, Copeland NG (2003) A highly efficient recombineering-based method for generating conditional knockout mutations. Genome Res 13:476–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Longo L, Bygrave A, Grosveld FG, Pandolfi PP (1997) The chromosome make-up of mouse embryonic stem cells is predictive of somatic and germ cell chimaerism. Transgenic Res 6:321–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molnar J, Yu S, Mzhavia N, Pau C, Chereshnev I, et al. (2005) Diabetes induces endothelial dysfunction but does not increase neointimal formation in high-fat diet fed C57BL/6J mice. Circ Res 96:1178–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mroz K, Carrel L, Hunt PA (1999) Germ cell development in the XXY mouse, evidence that X chromosome reactivation is independent of sexual differentiation. Dev Biol 207:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagy A, Rossant J, Nagy R, Abramow-Newerly W, Roder JC (1993) Derivation of completely cell culture-derived mice from early-passage embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:8424–8428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagy A, Gertsenstein M, Vintersten K, Behringer R (2003) Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: A Laboratory Manual, 3rd ed. (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press)Google Scholar
  29. Nasonkin IO, Ward RD, Raetzman LT, Seasholtz AF, Saunders TL, et al. (2004) Pituitary hypoplasia and respiratory distress syndrome in Prop1 knockout mice. Human Mol Gen 13:2727–2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nguyen PV, Abel T, Kandel ER, Bourtchouladze R (2000) Strain-dependent differences in LTP and hippocampus-dependent memory in inbred mice. Learn Mem 7:170–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohl F, Roedel A, Binder E, Holsboer F (2003) Impact of high and low anxiety on cognitive performance in a modified hole board test in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice. Eur J Neurosci 178:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osoegawa K, Tateno M, Woon PY, Frengen E, Mammoser AG, et al. (2000) Bacterial artificial chromosome libraries for mouse sequencing and functional analysis. Genome Res 10:116–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pease S, Williams RL (1990) Formation of germ-line chimeras from embryonic stem cells maintained with recombinant leukemia inhibitory factor. Exp Cell Res 190:209–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petro AE, Cotter J, Cooper DA, Peters JC, Surwit SJ, et al. (2004) Fat, carbohydrate, and calories in the development of diabetes and obesity in the C57BL/6J mouse. Metabolism 53:454–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rolink AG, Andersson J, Melchers F (2004) Molecular mechanisms guiding late stages of B-cell development. Immunol Rev 197:41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schuster-Gossler K, Lee AW, Lerner CP, Parker HJ, Dyer VW, et al. (2001) Use of coisogenic host blastocysts for efficient establishment of germline chimeras with C57BL/6J ES cell lines. Biotechniques 31:1022–1026PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartzberg PL, Goff SP, Robertson EJ (1989) Germ-line transmission of a c-abl mutation produced by targeted gene disruption in ES cells. Science 246:799–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz K, Storni T, Manolova V, Didierlaurent A, Sirard JC, et al. (2003) Role of Toll-like receptors in costimulating cytotoxic T cell responses. Eur J Immunol 33:1465–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seong E, Saunders TL, Stewart CL, Burmeister M (2004) To knockout in 129 or in C57BL/6, that is the question. Trends Genet 20:59–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sibelia M, Wagner EF (1995) Strain-dependent epithelial defects in mice lacking the EGF receptor. Science 269:234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silva AJ, Simpson EM, Takahashi JS, Lipp H-P, Nakanishi S, et al. (1997) Mutant mice and neuroscience, recommendations concerning genetic background. Neuron 19:755–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson EM, Linder CC, Sargent EE, Davisson MT, Mobraaten LE, et al. (1997) Genetic variation among 129 substrains and its importance for targeted mutagenesis in mice. Nat Genet 16:19–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skarnes WC (2000) Gene trapping methods for the identification and functional analysis of cell surface proteins in mice. Methods Enzymol 328:592–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swiatek PJ, Gridley T (1993) Perinatal lethality and defects in hindbrain development in mice homozygous for a targeted mutation of the zinc finger gene Krox20. Genes Dev 7:2071–2084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Threadgill DW, Dlugosz AA, Hansen LA, Tennenbaum T, Lichti U, et al. (1995) Targeted disruption of mouse EGF receptor, effect of genetic background on mutant phenotype. Science 269:230–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Threadgill DW, Yee D, Matin A, Nadeau JH, Magnuson T (1997) Genealogy of the 129 inbred strains, 129/SvJ is a contaminated inbred strain. Mamm Genome 8:390–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wheeler DL, Barrett T, Benson DA, Bryant SH, Canese K, et al. (2006) Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 34:D173–D180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yilmaz OH, Valdez R, Theisen BK, Guo W, Ferguson DO, et al. (2006) Pten dependence distinguishes haematopoietic stem cells from leukaemia-initiating cells. Nature 441:475–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth D. Hughes
    • 1
  • Yun Yan Qu
    • 1
  • Suzanne J. Genik
    • 2
  • Robert H. Lyons
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christopher D. Pacheco
    • 4
  • Andrew P. Lieberman
    • 4
  • Linda C. Samuelson
    • 1
    • 5
  • Igor O. Nasonkin
    • 6
    • 9
  • Sally A. Camper
    • 1
    • 6
    • 7
  • Margaret L. Van Keuren
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Saunders
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Transgenic Animal Model CoreUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.DNA Sequencing CoreUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological ChemistryUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of Molecular and Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Department of Human GeneticsUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  7. 7.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Molecular Medicine and GeneticsUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  8. 8.University of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  9. 9.Department of Pathology, Division of NeuropathologyJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations