Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 59–69 | Cite as

Strain-Dependent Differences in the Efficiency of Transgenic Mouse Production

  • Anna B. Auerbach
  • Rada Norinsky
  • Weilan Ho
  • Kasia Losos
  • Qiuxia Guo
  • Samprit Chatterjee
  • Alexandra L. Joyner
Article

Abstract

Transgenic mouse production via pronuclear microinjection is a complex process consisting of a number of sequential steps. Many different factors contribute to the effectiveness of each step and thus influence the overall efficiency of transgenic mouse production. The response of egg donor females to superovulation, the fertilization rate, egg survival after injection, ability of manipulated embryos to implant and develop to term, and concentration and purity of the injected DNA all contribute to transgenic production efficiency. We evaluated and compared the efficiency of transgenic mouse production using four different egg donor mouse strains: B6D2/F1 hybrids, Swiss Webster (SW) outbred, and inbred FVB/N and C57BL/6. The data included experiments involving ∼350 DNA transgene constructs performed by a high capacity core transgenic mouse facility. Significant influences of particular genetic backgrounds on the efficiency of different steps of the production process were found. Except for egg production, FVB/N mice consistently produced the highest efficiency of transgenic mouse production at each step of the process. B6D2/F2 hybrid eggs are also quite efficient, but lyze more frequently than FVB/N eggs after DNA microinjection. SW eggs on the other hand block at the 1-cell stage more often than eggs from the other strains. Finally, using C57BL/6 eggs the main limiting factor is that the fetuses derived from injected eggs do not develop to term as often as the other strains. Based on our studies, the procedure for transgenic mouse production can be modified for each egg donor strain in order to overcome any deficiencies, and thus to increase the overall efficiency of transgenic mouse production.

egg donor mouse genetic backgrounds mouse strains pronuclear microinjection transgenesis transgenic mouse production 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bowes C, Li T, Frankel WN, Danciger M, Coffin JM, Applebury ML et al. (1993) Localization of a retroviral element within the rd gene coding for the beta subunit of cGMP phosphodiesterase. P Natl Acad Sci USA 90: 2955–2959.Google Scholar
  2. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Trumbauer ME, Yagle MK and Palmiter RD (1985) Factors affecting the efficiency of introducing foreign DNA into mice by microinjecting eggs. P Natl Acad Sci USA 82: 4438–4442.Google Scholar
  3. Canseco RS, Sparks AE, Page RL, Russell CG, Johnson JL, Velander WH et al. (1994) Gene transfer efficiency during gestation and the influence of co-transfer of non-manipulated embryos on production of transgenic mice. Transgenic Res 3: 20–25.Google Scholar
  4. Croy BA (2000) Custom-built mice: Unique discovery tools in biomedical research. Can Vet J 41: 201–206.Google Scholar
  5. Dandekar PV and Glass RH (1987) Development of mouse embryos in vitro is affected by strain and culture medium. Gamete Res 17: 279–285.Google Scholar
  6. Gimenez E and Montoliu L (2001) A simple polymerase chain reaction assay for genotyping the retinal degeneration mutation (Pdebrd1) in FVB/N-derived transgenic mice. Lab Animal 35: 153–156.Google Scholar
  7. Hammes A and Schedl A (2000) Generation of transgenic mice from plasmids, BACs and YACs. In: Jackson IJ and Abbott CM (eds), Mouse Genetics and Transgenics: A Practical Approach. (pp. 217–245) Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Hogan B, Costantini F and Lacy E (1986) Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: A Laboratory Manual. 2nd edn, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Hsiao KK, Borchelt DR, Olson K, Johannsdottir R, Kitt C, Yunis W et al. (1995) Age-related CNS disorder and early death in transgenic FVB/N mice overexpressing Alzheimer amyloid precursor proteins. Neuron 15: 1203–1218.Google Scholar
  10. Mann JR and McMahon AP (1993) Factors influencing frequency production of transgenic mice. In: Wassarman PM and DePamphilis ML (eds), Methods in Enzymology. Guide to Techniques in Mouse Development. Vol. 225. (pp. 771–781) Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  11. Montoliu L, Bock CT, Schütz G and Zentgraf H (1995) Visualization of large DNA molecules by electron microscopy with polyamines: Application to the analysis of yeast endogenous and artificial chromosomes. J Mol Biol 246: 486–492.Google Scholar
  12. Osman GE, Jacobson DP, Li SW, Hood LE, Liggitt HD and Ladiges WC (1997) SWR: An inbred strain suitable for generating transgenic mice. Lab Anim Sci 47: 167–171.Google Scholar
  13. Paris D, Toyama PM, Sinet PM, Kamoun P and London J (1995) A comparison between an inbred strain and hybrid lines to generate transgenic mice. Mouse Genome 93: 21–23.Google Scholar
  14. Pinkert CA (1994) Transgenic Animal Technology: A Laboratory Handbook. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  15. Roudebush WE and 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: 239–240.Google Scholar
  16. Scott L and Whittingham DG (1996) Influence of genetic background and media components on the development of mouse embryos in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev 43: 336–346.Google Scholar
  17. Sztein JM, Farley JS and Mobraaten LE (2000) In vitro fertilization with cryopreserved inbred mouse sperm. Biol Reprod 63: 1774–1780.Google Scholar
  18. Taketo M, Schroeder AC, Mobraaten LE, Gunning KB, Hanten G, Fox RR et al. (1991) FVB/N: An inbred mouse strain preferable for transgenic analyses. P Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 2065–2069.Google Scholar
  19. Ward JM, Anver MR, Mahler JF and Devor-Henneman DE (2000) Pathology of mice commonly used in genetic engineering (C57BL/6; 129; B6, 129; and FVB/N). In: Ward JM, Mahler JF, Maronpot RR and Sundberg JP (eds), Pathology of Genetically Engineered Mice. (pp. 161–179) Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna B. Auerbach
    • 1
  • Rada Norinsky
    • 1
  • Weilan Ho
    • 1
  • Kasia Losos
    • 1
  • Qiuxia Guo
    • 1
  • Samprit Chatterjee
    • 2
  • Alexandra L. Joyner
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Developmental Genetics ProgramSkirball Institute of Biomolecular MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Stern School of Business, NYU, Management Education CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Cell BiologyNYU School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations