Skip to main content
Log in

Early Phase Karyotype Analysis of Chromosome Segregation After Formation of Mouse–Mouse Hybridomas with Chromosome Painting Probes

  • Published:
Chromosome Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

FISH analysis with chromosome painting probes allows, better than karyotyping after Giemsa banding, the study of chromosome segregation after hybridoma formation. FISH is particularly useful for intraspecies hybrids and allows visualization of small chromosome fragments. Cell hybrids were constructed between P3 × 63Ag8.653 mouse myeloma cells and lymphocytes from BALB/c mice by PEG fusion and by selection in hypoxanthine–azaserine medium. Three hybridomas (A4, D8, F10) were selected and, after cloning, the cells were cultivated in vitro over a period of 28 days. During this time in culture, air-dried metaphase spreads were prepared by standard methods. For FISH chromosome painting, digoxigenin- and biotin-labeled mouse chromosome painting probes and rhodamine–antidigoxigenin antibodies and fluorescein–avidin were used for dual color detection. Total chromosome numbers and the numbers of mouse chromosomes 1, X, 6 and 12 were estimated as function of days in culture. Mean chromosome numbers of 78 (D8), 82 (F10) and 150 (A4) were observed. The major rearrangements of chromosome numbers occured in the first 28 days in culture and did not change significantly between day 28 and day 56. Mouse chromosome #12, which had the largest chromosome fragments in the parent myeloma, remained stable while the number of X chromosomes, which were significantly fragmented already in the parent myeloma, decreased by approximately 50%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott C, Povey S (1995) Somatic Cell Hybrids. Oxford: IRL Press, p 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter NP (1994) Cytogenetic analysis by chromosome painting. Cytometry 18: 2–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castillo FJ, Mullen LJ, Grant BC et al. (1994) Hybridoma stability. Dev Biol Stand 83: 55–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen TR (1979) Cytogenetics of somatic cell hybrids. I. Progression of stemlines in continuous uncloned cultures of man-mouse cell hybrids. Cytogenet Cell Genet 23: 221–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cieplinski W, Reardon P, Testa MA (1983) Non-random human chromosome distribution in human-mouse myeloma somatic cell hybrids. Cytogenet Cell Genet 35: 93–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell JK (1984) A photographic representation of the variability in the G-banded structure of the chromosomes in the mouse karyotype. A guide to the identification of the individual chromosomes. Chromosoma 89: 294–320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cremer T, Lichter P, Borden J, Ward DC, Manuelidis L (1988) Detection of chromosome aberrations in metaphase and interphase tumor cells by in situ hybridization using chromosome-specific library probes. Hum Genet 80: 235–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Croce CM, Shander M, Martinis J, Cicurel L, D'Ancona GG, Koprowski H (1980) Preferential retention of human chromosome 14 in mouse 3 human B cell hybrids. Eur J Immunol 10: 486–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekong R, Wolfe J (1998) Advances in fluorescent in situ hybridisation. Curr Opin Biotech 9: 19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner JS, Chiu AL, Maki NE, Harris JF (1985) A quantitative stability analysis of human monoclonal antibody production by heteromyeloma hybridomas, using an immunofluorescent technique. J Immunol Meth 85: 335–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney JF, Radbruch A, Liesegang B, Rajewsky K (1978) A new mouse myeloma cell line that has lost immunoglobulin expression but permits the construction of antibody-secreting hybrid cell lines. J Immunol 123: 1548–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler G (1980) Immunoglobulin chain loss in hybridoma lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77: 2197–2199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kontsek P, Novak M, Kontsekova E (1988) Karyotype analysis of hybridomas producing monoclonal antibodies against different antigens. Folia Bio (Praha) 34: 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichter P (1997) Multicolor FISHing: what's the catch? Trends Genet 13: 475–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter P, Cremer T, Borden J Manuelidis L, Ward DC (1988) Delineation of individual human chromosomes in metaphase cells by in situ suppression hybridization using recombinant DNA libraries. Hum Genet 80: 224–234.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanage M, Coleman A, du Manoir S et al. (1996) Multicolour spectral karyotyping of mouse chromosomes. Natl Genet 14: 312–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuta Y, Chapman VM (1995) Application of fluorescence in situ hybridization in genome analysis of the mouse. Electrophoresis 16: 261–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller OJ, Miller DA, Dev VG, Tantravahi R, Croce CM (1976) Expression of human and suppression of mouse nucleolus organizer activity in mouse-human somatic cell hybrids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73: 4531–4535.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norum RA, Migeon BR (1974) Non-random loss of human markers from man-mouse somatic cell hybrids. Nature 251: 72–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak JS (1985) Loss of antibody production accompanied by chromosome loss in a cloned hybrid line secreting antibodies to sheep red blood cells. Experientia 41: 88–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkel D Straume T, Gray JW (1986) Cytogenetic analysis using quantitative, high-sensitivity, fluorescence hybridization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83: 2934–2938.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Potter M (1983) Immunoglobulin and immunoglobulin genes. In Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG, eds. The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp 347–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ried T, Schröck E, Ning Y, Wienberg J (1998) Chromosome painting: a useful art. Hum Mol Genet 7: 1619–1626.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodova MA, Tsoi LA, Kushch AA, Novokhatskii AS (1985) Karyological analysis of hybridoma lines producing monoclonal antibodies to viral antigens. Tsitol Genet 19: 425–428.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton AR (1976) Quantitative analysis of human chromosome segregation in man-mouse somatic cell hybrids. Cytogenet Cell Genet 17: 243–253.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder J, Autio K, Jarvis JM, Milstein C (1980) Chromosome segregation and expression of rat immunoglobulins in rat/mouse hybrid myelomas. Immunogenetics 10: 125–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder J, Sutinen ML, Suomalainen HA (1981) Chromosome segregation in lymphocyte hybrids. Hereditas 94: 77–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shi YP, Mohapatra G, Miller J et al. (1997) FISH probes for mouse chromosome identification. Genomics 45: 42–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volgareva GM (1985) Karyologic research on murine B-cell hybridomas. Tsitologiia 27: 1394–1403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wollweber L, Fritzke H, Ozegowski J-H, Gerlach D, Köhler W (1994) Production and partial characterization of monoclonal antibodies against erythrogenic toxins type A and C from Streptococcus pyogenes. Hybridoma 13: 403–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhil'tsova MA, Trofimova MN, Novikov VV (1989) Karyological analysis of hybridoma cells after prolonged cultivation. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 6: 99–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wollweber, L., Münster, H., Hoffmann, S. et al. Early Phase Karyotype Analysis of Chromosome Segregation After Formation of Mouse–Mouse Hybridomas with Chromosome Painting Probes. Chromosome Res 8, 37–44 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009223102068

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009223102068

Navigation