Preservation of Genomic Integrity in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 695)


Embryonic stem (ES) cells and germ cells have the potential to give rise to an entire organism. A common requirement is that both must have very robust mechanisms to preserve the integrity of their genomes. This is particularly true since somatic cells have very high mutation frequencies approaching 10-4 in vivo that would lead to unacceptable levels of fetal lethality and congenital defects. Notably, between 70% and 80% of mutational events monitored at a heterozygous endogenous selectable marker were loss of heterozygosity due to mitotic recombination, a mechanism that affects multiple heterozygous loci between the reporter gene and the site of crossing over. This chapter examines three mechanisms by which mouse embryonic stem cells preserve their genomic integrity. The first entails suppression of mutation and recombination between chromosome homologues by two orders of magnitude when compared with isogenic mouse embryo fibroblasts which had a mutation frequency similar to that seen in adult somatic cells. The second renders mouse ES cells hypersensitive to environmental challenge and eliminates damaged cells from the self-renewing population. Mouse ES cells lack a G1 checkpoint so that cells damaged by exogenous insult such as ionizing radiation do not arrest at the G1/S phase checkpoint but progress into the S phase where the damaged DNA is replicated, the damage exacerbated and the cells driven to apoptosis. The third mechanism examines how mouse ES cells repair double strand DNA breaks. Somatic cells predominantly utilize error prone nonhomologous end joining which, from a teleological perspective, would be disadvantageous for ES cells since it would promote accumulation of mutations. When ES cells were tested for the preferred pathway of double strand DNA break repair, they predominantly utilized the high fidelity homology-mediated repair pathway, thereby minimizing the incurrence of mutations during the repair process. When mouse ES cells are induced to differentiate, the predominant repair pathway switches from homology-mediated repair to nonhomologous end joining that is characteristic of somatic cells.


Embryonic Stem Cell Somatic Cell Mutation Frequency Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ebert JD. Cell interactions: the roots of a century of research. Biol Bull 1985; 168:80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hämmerling J. “Nucleo-cytoplasmic relationships in the development of Acetabularia”. J Intern Rev Cytol 1953; 2:475–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briggs R, King TJ. Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs’ eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1952; 38:455–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs R, King TJ. Nuclear transplantation studies on the early gastrula (Rana pipiens). Develop Biol 1960; 2:252–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gurdon JB. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1962; 10:622–640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans M, Kaufman M. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 1981; 292:154–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin G. Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981; 78:7634–7638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doetschman T, Gregg RG, Maeda N et al. Targeted correction of a mutant HPRT gene in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature 1987; 330:576–578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas KR, Capecchi MR. Site-directed mutagenesis by gene targeting in mouse embryo-derived stem cells. Cell 1987; 51:503–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koller BH, Hagemann LJ, Doetschman T et al. Germ-line transmission of a planned alteration made in a hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase gene by homologous recombination in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86:8927–8931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zijlstra M, Li E, Sajjadi F et al. Germ-line transmission of a disrupted beta 2-microglobulin gene produced by homologous recombination in embryonic stem cells. Nature 1989; 342:435–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomas KR, Capecchi MR. Targeted disruption of the murine int-1 protooncogene resulting in severe abnormalities in midbrain and cerebellar development. Nature 1990; 346:847–850.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J et al. “Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells”. Nature 1997; 385:810–813.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell KHS, Fisher P, Chen WC et al. Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives. Theriogenology 2007; 68(Suppl 1):S214–S231.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rideout III WM, Hochedlinger K, Kyba M et al. Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell 2002; 109:17–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006; 126:663–676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131(5):861–872.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007; 318:1917–1920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szilard L. On the nature of the aging process. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1959; 45:30–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirkwood TB, Proctor CJ. Somatic mutations and ageing in silico. Mech Ageing Dev 2003; 124:85–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suh Y, Vijg J. Maintaining Genetic integrity in aging: a zero sum game. Antioxid Redox Signal 2006; 8:559–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stambrook PJ. Do embryonic stem cells protect their genomes? Mech Ageing Dev 2007; 329:313–326.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weil JC, Radman M. How good is our genome? Philos Trans R Soc London B 2004; 359:95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shao C, Deng L, Henegariu O et al. Mitotic recombination produces the majority of recessive fibroblast variants in heterozygous mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96:9230–9235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    Stambrook PJ, Shao C, Stockelman M et al. High frequency in vivo loss of heterozygosity is primarily a consequence of mitotic recombination. Cancer Res 1997; 157:1188–1193.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Stambrook PJ, Shao C, Stockelman M et al. Tischfield JA.APRT: a versatile in vivo resident reporter of local mutation and loss of heterozygosity. Environ Mol Mutagen 1996; 28:471–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    Kohler SW, Provost GS, Fieck A et al. Analysis of spontaneous and induced mutations in transgenic mice using a lambda ZAP/lacI shuttle vector. Environ Mol Mutagen 1991; 18:316–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 27.
    Van Sloun PP, Wijnhoven SW, Kool HJ et al. Determination of spontaneous loss of heterozygosity mutations in Aprt heterozygous mice. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26:4888–4894.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 28.
    Gossen J, de Leeuw WJ, Verwest A et al. High somatic mutation frequencies in a LacZ transgene integrated on the mouse X-chromosome, Mutat Res 1991; 250:423–429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    Nohmi T, Katoh M, Suzuki H et al. A new transgenic mouse mutagenesis test system using spi-and 6-thioguanine selections, Environ Mol Mutagen 1996; 28:465–470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 30.
    Jakubczak JL, Merlino G, French JE et al. Analysis of genetic instability during mammary tumor progression using a novel selection-based assay for in vivo mutations in a bacteriophage lambda transgene target. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:9073–9078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    Cervantes RB, Stringer JR, Shao C et al. Embryonic stem cells and somatic cells differ in mutation frequency and type. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99:3586–3590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 32.
    Liu X, Wu H, Loring J et al. Trisomy eight in ES cells is a common potential problem in gene targeting and interferes with germ line transmission. Dev Dyn 1997; 209:85–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Larson JS, Yin M, Fischer JM et al. Expression and loss of alleles in cultured mouse embryonic fibroblasts and stem cells carrying allelic fluorescent protein genes. BMC Mol Biol 2006; 7:36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    Yusa K, Horie K, Condo G et al. Genome-wide phenotype analysis in ES cells by regulated disruption of Bloom’s syndrome gene. Nature 2004; 429:896–899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 35.
    Luo G, Santoro IM, McDaniel LD et al. Cancer predisposition caused by elevated mitotic recombination in Bloom mice. Nat Genet 2000; 26:424–429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Fischer JM, Stringer JR. Visualizing loss of heterozygosity in living mouse cells and tissues. Mutat Res 2008; 645:1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    Vulic M, Lenski RE, Radman M. Mutation, recombination and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96:7348–7351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Matic I, Taddei F, Radman M. No genetic barriers between Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium and Escherichia coli in SOS-induced mismatch repair-deficient cells. J Bacteriol 2000; 182:5922–5924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Manivasakam P, Rosenberg SM, Hastings PJ. Poorly repaired mismatches in heteroduplex DNA are hyperrecombinagenic in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 1996; 142:407–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Lin DP, Wang Y, Scherer SJ et al. An Msh2 point mutation uncouples DNA mismatch repair and apoptosis. Cancer Res 2004; 64:517–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Van Sloun PPH, Jansen JG, Weeda G et al. The role of nucleotide excision repair in protecting embryonic stem cells from genotoxic effects of UV-induced DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:3276–3282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Roos WP, Christmann M, Fraser ST et al. Mouse embryonic stem cells are hypersensitive to apoptosis triggered by the DNA damage O6-methylguanine due to high E2F1 regulated mismatch repair. Oncogene 2007; 26:186–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Saretzki G, Armstrong L, Leake A et al. Stress defense in murine embryonic stem cells is superior to that of various differentiated murine cells. Stem Cells 2004; 22:962–971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Aladjem MI, Spike BT, Rodewald LW et al. ES cells do not activate p53-dependent stress responses and undergo p53-independent apoptosis in response to DNA damage. Curr Biol 1998; 8:145–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.
    Hong Y, Stambrook PJ. Restoration of an absent G1 arrest and protection from apoptosis in embryonic stem cells after ionizing radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101:14443–14448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 46.
    Ferguson LR, Baguley BC. Topoisomerase II enzymes and mutagenicity. Environ Molec Mutagenesis 1994; 24:245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    Mclendon AK, Osheroff N. Topoisomerase II, genotoxicity and cancer. Mutat Res 2007; 623:83–97.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Mao Z, Bozzella M, Seluanov A et al. Comparison of nonhomologous end joining and homologous recombination in human cells. DNA Repair 2008; 7:1765–1771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Pierce AJ, Johnson RD, Thompson LH et al. XRC3 promotes homology-directed repair of DNA damage in mammalian cells. Genes Dev 1999; 13:2633–2638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Seluanov A, Mittelman D, Pereira-Smith OM et al. DNA end joining becomes less efficient and more error-prone during cellular senescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101:7624–7629.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    Guirouilh-Barbat J, Huck S, Bertrand P et al. Impact of the KU80 Pathway on NHEJ-Induced Genome Rearrangements in Mammalian Cells. Molec Cell 2004; 14:611–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    Maynard S, Swistowska AM, Lee JW et al. Human embryonic stem cells have enhanced repair of multiple forms of DNA damage. Stem Cells 2008; 26:2266–2274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    Saretzki G, Walter T, Atkinson S et al. Downregulation of multiple stress defense mechanisms during differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 2008; 26:455–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 54.
    Brinkworth MH, Weinbauer GF, Schlatt S et al. Identification of male germ cells undergoing apoptosis in adult rats. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 1995; 105:25–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    Richburg JH. The relevance of spontaneous-and chemically induced alterations in testicular germ cell apoptosis to toxicology. Toxicol Let 2000; 112–113:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    Rodriguez I, Ody C, Araki K et al. An early and massive wave of germinal cell apoptosis is required for the development of functional spermatogenesis. EMBO J 1997; 16:2262–2270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 57.
    Hasegawa M, Zhang Y, Niibe H et al. Resistance of differentiating spermatogonia to radiation-induced apoptosis and loss in p53-deficient mice. Radiat Res 1998; 149:263–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 58.
    Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene Oxford University Press 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry and MicrobiologyUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations