Transgenic Research

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 587–594 | Cite as

Fertility comparison between wild type and transgenic mice by in vitro fertilization

  • Kuzhalini Vasudevan
  • James Raber
  • Jorge SzteinEmail author
Original Paper


Transgenic mice are increasingly used as animal models for studies of gene function and regulation of mammalian genes. Although there has been continuous and remarkable progress in the development of transgenic technology over several decades, many aspects of the resulting transgenic model’s phenotype cannot be completely predicted. For example, it is well known that as a consequence of the random insertion of the injected DNA construct, several founder mice of the new line need to be analyzed for possible differences in phenotype secondary to different insertion sites. The Knock out technique for transgenic production disrupts a specific gene by insertion or homologous recombination creating a null expression or replacement of the gene with a marker to localize it expression. This modification could result in pleiotropic phenotype if the gene is also expressed in tissues other than the target organs. Although the future breeding performance of the newly created model is critical to many studies, it is rarely anticipated that the new integrations could modify the reproductive profile of the new transgenic line. To date, few studies have demonstrated the difference between the parent strain’s reproductive performance and the newly developed transgenic model. This study was designed to determine whether a genetic modification, knock out (KO) or transgenics, not anticipated to affect reproductive performance could affect the resulting reproductive profile of the newly developed transgenic mouse. More specifically, this study is designed to study the impact of the genetic modification on the ability of gametes to be fertilized in vitro. We analyzed the reproductive performance of mice with different background strains: FVB/N, C57BL/6 (129Sv/J × C57Bl/6)F1 and outbred CD1® and compared them to mice of the same strain carrying a transgene or KO which was not anticipated to affect fertility. In vitro Fertilization was used to analyze the fertility of the mice. Oocytes from superovulated females were inseminated with sperm of same background. Fertility rate was considered as the percentage of two cell embryos scored 24 h after insemination. The data collected from this study shows that the fertilization rate is affected (reduced to half fold) in some of the transgenic mice compared to the respective Wild Type (WT) mice. For the WT the average fertility rate ranged from 80% (C57BL/6), 90% (FVB/N), 45% (129Sv/J × C57Bl/6)F1 and 43% (CD1). For transgenic mice it was 52% (C57BL/6), 65% (FVB/N), 22% (129Sv/J × C57Bl/6)F1 and 25% (CD1).


Transgenic mice IVF Superovulation Cryopreservation 



The authors thank Christine Force for technical assistance. This study was funded by National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health.


  1. Baker SM, Bronner CE, Zhang L, Plug AW, Robatzek M, Warren G, Elliott EA, Yu J, Ashley T, Arnheim N, Flavell RA, Liskay RM (1995) Male mice defective in the DNA mismatch repair gene PMS2 exhibit abnormal chromosome synapses in meiosis. Cell 82(2):309–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouxsein ML, Myers KS, Shultz KL, Donahue LR, Rosen CJ, Beamer WG (2005) Ovariectomy induced bone loss varies among inbred strains of mice. J Bone Miner Res 20(7):1085–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Trumbauer ME, Yagle MK, Palmiter RD (1985) Factors affecting the efficiency of introducing foreign DNA into mice by microinjecting eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82(13):4438–4442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Byers SL, Payson SJ, Taft RA (2006) Performance of ten inbred mouse strains following assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Theriogenology 65(9):1716–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi YH, Seng S, Toyoda Y (2000) Comparison of capacitation and fertilizing ability of BALB/c and ICR mice epididymal spermatozoa: analysis by in vitro fertilization with cumulus intact and zona-free mouse eggs. J Mamm Ova Res 17(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortes LM, Mattapallil MJ, Silver PB, Donoso LA, Liou GI, Zhu W, Chan CC, Caspi RR (2008) Repertoire analysis and new pathogenic epitopes of IRBP in C57BL/6 (H-2b) and B10.RIII (H-2r) mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(5):1946–1956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Covarrubias L, Nishida Y, Terao M, D’Eustachio P, Mintz B (1987) Cellular DNA rearrangements and early developmental arrest caused by DNA insertion in transgenic mouse embryos. Mol Cell Biol 7(6):2243–2247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dandekar PV, Glass RH (1987) Development of mouse embryos in vitro is affected by strain and culture medium. Gamete Res 17(4):279–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dinnyes A, Wallace GA, Rall WF (1995) Effect of genotype on the efficiency of mouse embryo cryopreservation by vitrification or slow freezing methods. Mol Reprod Dev 40(4):429–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser LR (1977) Differing requirements for capacitation in vitro of mouse spermatozoa from two strains. J Reprod Fertil 49(1):83–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser LR, Drury LM (1976) Mouse sperm genotype and the rate of egg penetration in vitro. J Exp Zool 197(1):13–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon JW, Scangos GA, Plotkin DJ, Barbosa JA, Ruddle FH (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77(12):7380–7384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hochholzer P, Lipford GB, Wagner H, Pfeffer K, Heeg K (2000) Role of interleukin-18(IL-18) during lethal shock: decreased lipopolysaccharide sensitivity but normal superantigen reaction in IL-18 deficient mice. Infect Immun 68(6):3502–3508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogan B (1986) Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Iwamatsu T, Chang MC (1971) Factors involved in the fertilization of mouse eggs in vitro. J Reprod Fert 26:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaleta E (1977) Influence of genetic factors on the fertilization of mouse ova in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 51(2):375–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kothary R, Clapoff S, Brown A, Campbell R, Peterson A, Rossant J (1988) A transgene containing lacZ inserted into the dystonia locus is expressed in neural tube. Nature 335(6189):435–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer R, Bucay N, Kane DJ, Martin LE, Tarpley JE, Theill LE (1996) Neuregulins with an Ig-like domain are essential for mouse myocardial and neuronal development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93(10):4833–4838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Krulewski TF, Neumann PE, Gordon JW (1989) Insertional mutation in a transgenic mouse allelic with Purkinje cell degeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(10):3709–3712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lai JC, Fukushima A, Wawrousek EF, Lobanoff MC, Charukamnoetkanok P, Smith-Gill SJ, Vistica BP, Lee RS, Egwuagu CE, Whitcup SM, Gery I (1998) Immunotolerance against a foreign antigen transgenically expressed in the lens. IOVS 39(11):2049–2057Google Scholar
  21. Lu B, Rutledge BJ, Gu L, Fiorillo J, Lukacs NW, Kunkel SL, North R, Gerard C, Rollins BJ (1998) Abnormalities in monocyte recruitment and cyotokine expression in monocyte chemoattractant protein 1-deficient mice. J Exp Med 187(4):601–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Magram J, Bishop JM (1991) Dominant male sterility in mice caused by insertion of a transgene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88(22):10327–10331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mark WH, Signorelli K, Lacy E (1985) An insertional mutation in a transgenic mouse line results in developmental arrest at day 5 of gestation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 50:453–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McNeish JD, Scott WJ Jr, Potter SS (1988) Legless, a novel mutation found in PHT1–1 transgenic mice. Science 241(4867):837–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Niwa K, Araki M, Iritani I (1980) Fertilization in vitro of eggs and first cleavage of embryos in different strains of mice. Biol Reprod 22(5):1155–1159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Overbeek PA, Lai SP, Van Quill KR, Westphal H (1986) Tissue-specific expression in transgenic mice of a fused gene containing RSV terminal sequesnces. Science 231(4745):1574–1577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmiter RD, Brinster RL (1986) Germ-line transformation of mice. Annu Rev Genet 20:465–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmiter RD, Wilkie TM, Chen HY, Brinster RL (1984) Transmission distortion and mosaicism in an unusual transgenic mouse pedigree. Cell 36(4):869–877Google Scholar
  29. Parkening TA, Chang MC (1976) Strain differences in the in vitro fertilizing capacity of mouse spermatozoa as tested in various media. Biol Reprod 15(5):647–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pomp D, Eisen EJ (1990) Genetic control of survival of frozen mouse embryos. Biol Reprod 42(5–6):775–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Redmond TM, Yu S, Lee E, Bok D, Hamasaki D, Chen N, Goletz P, Ma JX, Crouch RK, Pfeifer K (1998) Rpe65 is necessary for production of 11-cis-vitamin A in the retinal visual cycle. Nat Genet 20(4):344–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roudebush WE, Duralia DR (1996) Superovulation, fertilization, and in vitro embryo development in BALB/cByJ, BALB/cJ, B6D2F1/J, and CFW mouse strains. Lab Anim Sci 46(2):239–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt PM, Hansen CT, Wildt DE (1985) Viability of frozen-thawed mouse embryos is affected by genotype. Biol Reprod 32(3):507–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott L, Whittingham DG (1996) Influence of genetic background and media components on the development of mouse embryos in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev 43(3):336–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Silver LM (1995) Mouse genetics: concept and applications. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Soriano P, Gridley T, Jaenisch R (1987) Retroviruses and insertional mutagenesis in mice: proviral integration at the Mov 34 locus leads to early embryonic death. Genes Dev 1(4):366–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Spearow JL, Barkley M (1999) Genetic control of hormone-induced ovulation rate in mice. Biol Reprod 61(4):851–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Styrna J, Krzanowska H (1995) Sperm select penetration test reveals differences in sperm quality in strains with different Y chromosome genotype in mice. Arch Androl 35(2):111–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sztein JM, Farley JS, Mobraaten LE (2000) In vitro fertilization with cryopreserved inbred mouse sperm. Biol Reprod 63(6):1774–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sztein JM, Noble MK, Farley JS, Mobraaten LE (2001) Comparison of permeating and nonpermeating cryoprotectants for mouse sperm cryopreservation. Cryobiology 42(1):28–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornton CE, Brown SD, Glenister P (1999) Large numbers of mice established by in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved spermatozoa: implications and applications for genetic resource banks, mutagenesis screens, and mouse backcrosses. Mamm Genome 10(10):987–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tidcombe H, Jackson-Fisher A, Mathers K, Stern DF, Gassmann M, Golding JP (2003) Neural and mammary gland defects in ErbB4 knockout mice genetically rescued from embryonic lethality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8281–8286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Toshimori K, Ito C, Maekawa M, Toyama Y, Suzuki-Toyota F, Saxena DK (2004) Impairment of spermatogenesis leading to infertility. Anat Sci Int 79(3):101–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner EF, Covarrubias L, Stewart TA, Mintz B (1983) Prenatal lethalities in mice homozygous for human growth hormone sequences integrated in the germ line. Cell 35(3 pt 2):647–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeller R, Jackson-Grusby L, Leder P (1989) The limb deformity gene is required for apical ectodermal ridge differentiation and anteroposterior limb pattern formation. Genes Dev 3(10):1481–1492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuzhalini Vasudevan
    • 1
    • 2
  • James Raber
    • 1
  • Jorge Sztein
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.NEI Genetic Engineering Core FacilityNational Institutes of HealthRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.ARTiCS, CMB, NIAIDNational Institutes of HealthRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations