Advertisement

Culture and Host Transfer of Xenopus Oocytes for Maternal mRNA Depletion and Genome Editing Experiments

  • Douglas W. HoustonEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1920)

Abstract

The early development of Xenopus critically depends on maternal components stored in the egg. Because important events such as axis formation are triggered immediately after fertilization, it is often desirable to perturb gene function before this occurs. Oocytes can be experimentally manipulated in vitro, prior to maturation, and subsequently fertilized or otherwise activated to develop, and then observed for any embryological defects. Available methods for fertilizing cultured oocytes include in vitro fertilization following oocyte vitelline envelope removal, nuclear transplantation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and transferring oocytes to the body cavity of ovulating host females (host transfer). This chapter outlines this host transfer method, which has been used to elucidate basic mechanisms of axis formation, germ-layer induction, and primordial germ cell specification. Methods for obtaining, culturing, transferring, and fertilizing Xenopus oocytes are described. This method has typically been used to alter maternal gene function by antisense oligonucleotide-mediated mRNA knockdown, but is also useful for mRNA or protein overexpression, including the expression of genome-editing reagents prior to fertilization.

Key words

Xenopus Maternal genes Antisense Host-transfer Oocytes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIH grant GM083999 (DWH) and the University of Iowa (DWH).

References

  1. 1.
    Houston DW (2013) Regulation of cell polarity and RNA localization in vertebrate oocytes. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol 306:127–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407694-5.00004-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Houston DW (2017) Vertebrate axial patterning: from egg to asymmetry. Adv Exp Med Biol 953:209–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46095-6_6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    St Johnston D (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Rev Genet 3:176–188.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jorgensen EM, Mango SE (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Rev Genet 3:356–369.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dosch R, Wagner DS, Mintzer KA et al (2004) Maternal control of vertebrate development before the midblastula transition: mutants from the zebrafish I. Dev Cell 6:771–780.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2004.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner DS, Dosch R, Mintzer KA et al (2004) Maternal control of development at the midblastula transition and beyond: mutants from the zebrafish II. Dev Cell 6:781–790.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2004.04.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hellsten U, Harland RM, Gilchrist MJ et al (2010) The genome of the Western clawed frog Xenopus tropicalis. Science 328:633–636.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Session AM, Uno Y, Kwon T et al (2016) Genome evolution in the allotetraploid frog Xenopus laevis. Nature 538:336–343.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19840CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tandon P, Conlon F, Furlow JD, Horb ME (2016) Expanding the genetic toolkit in Xenopus: approaches and opportunities for human disease modeling. Dev Biol 426(2):325–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.04.009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bachvarova R, Davidson E (1966) Nuclear activation at the onset of amphibian gastrulation. J Exp Zool 163:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newport J, Kirschner M (1982) A major developmental transition in early Xenopus embryos: I. characterization and timing of cellular changes at the midblastula stage. Cell 30:675–686.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(82)90272-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newport J, Kirschner M (1982) A major developmental transition in early Xenopus embryos: II. Control of the onset of transcription. Cell 30:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heasman J (2002) Morpholino oligos: making sense of antisense? Dev Biol 243:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peshkin L, Wühr M, Pearl E et al (2015) On the relationship of protein and mRNA dynamics in vertebrate embryonic development. Dev Cell 35:383–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2015.10.010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dash P, Lotan I, Knapp M et al (1987) Selective elimination of mRNAs in vivo: complementary oligodeoxynucleotides promote RNA degradation by an RNase H-like activity. PNAS 84:7896–7900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cazenave C, Chevrier M, Nguyen TT, Hélène C (1987) Rate of degradation of [alpha]- and [beta]-oligodeoxynucleotides in Xenopus oocytes. Implications for anti-messenger strategies. Nucleic Acids Res 15:10507–10521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shuttleworth J, Colman A (1988) Antisense oligonucleotide-directed cleavage of mRNA in Xenopus oocytes and eggs. EMBO J 7:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shuttleworth J, Matthews G, Dale L et al (1988) Antisense oligodeoxyribonucleotide-directed cleavage of maternal mRNA in Xenopus oocytes and embryos. Gene 72:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woolf TM, Jennings CG, Rebagliati M, Melton DA (1990) The stability, toxicity and effectiveness of unmodified and phosphorothioate antisense oligodeoxynucleotides in Xenopus oocytes and embryos. Nucleic Acids Res 18:1763–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabel JL (2006) Characterization of modified antisense oligonucleotides in Xenopus laevis embryos. Oligonucleotides 16:26–42.  https://doi.org/10.1089/oli.2006.16.26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rugh R (1935) Ovulation in the frog. II. Follicular rupture to fertilization. J Exp Zool 71:163–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rugh R (1962) Experimental embryology: techniques and procedures. Burgess, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heasman J, Holwill S, Wylie CC (1991) Fertilization of cultured Xenopus oocytes and use in studies of maternally inherited molecules. Methods Mol Biol 36:213–230Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holwill S, Heasman J, Crawley C, Wylie CC (1987) Axis and germ line deficiencies caused by UV irradiation of Xenopus oocytes cultured in vitro. Development 100:735–743Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torpey N, Wylie CC, Heasman J (1992) Function of maternal cytokeratin in Xenopus development. Nature 357:413–415.  https://doi.org/10.1038/357413a0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heasman J, Crawford A, Goldstone K et al (1994) Overexpression of cadherins and underexpression of beta-catenin inhibit dorsal mesoderm induction in early Xenopus embryos. Cell 79:791–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang J, Houston DW, King ML et al (1998) The role of maternal VegT in establishing the primary germ layers in Xenopus embryos. Cell 94:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Houston DW, King ML (2000) A critical role for Xdazl, a germ plasm-localized RNA, in the differentiation of primordial germ cells in Xenopus. Development 127:447–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cuykendall TN, Houston DW (2009) Vegetally localized Xenopus trim36 regulates cortical rotation and dorsal axis formation. Development 136:3057–3065.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.036855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mei W, Jin Z, Lai F et al (2013) Maternal Dead-End1 is required for vegetal cortical microtubule assembly during Xenopus axis specification. Development 140:2334–2344.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.094748CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horvay K, Claussen M, Katzer M et al (2006) Xenopus Dead end mRNA is a localized maternal determinant that serves a conserved function in germ cell development. Dev Biol 291:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.06.013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yoshigai E, Kawamura S, Kuhara S, Tashiro K (2009) Trim36/Haprin plays a critical role in the arrangement of somites during Xenopus embryogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 378:428–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.11.069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Houston DW, Kofron M, Resnik E et al (2002) Repression of organizer genes in dorsal and ventral Xenopus cells mediated by maternal XTcf3. Development 129:4015–4025PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu F, van den Broek O, Destrée O, Hoppler S (2005) Distinct roles for Xenopus Tcf/Lef genes in mediating specific responses to Wnt/beta-catenin signalling in mesoderm development. Development 132:5375–5385.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.02152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ishibashi H, Matsumura N, Hanafusa H et al (2008) Expression of Siamois and Twin in the blastula Chordin/Noggin signaling center is required for brain formation in Xenopus laevis embryos. Mech Dev 125:58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2007.10.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Humphries A (1956) A study of meiosis in coelomic and oviductal oocytes of Triturus viridescens, with particular emphasis on the origin of spontaneous polyploidy and the effects of heat shock on the first meiotic division. J Morphol 99:97–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aplington H (1957) The insemination of body cavity and oviductal eggs of Amphibia. Ohio J Sci 57:91–99Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arnold J, Shaver J (1962) Interfemale transfer of eggs and ovaries in the frog. Exp Cell Res 27:150–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lavin L (1964) The transfer of coelomic eggs between frogs. J Embryol Exp Morphol 12:457–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith LD, Ecker RE, Subtelny S (1968) In vitro induction of physiological maturation in Rana pipiens oocytes removed from their ovarian follicles. Dev Biol 17:627–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brun RB (1975) Oocyte maturation in vitro: contribution of the oviduct to total maturation in Xenopus laevis. Experientia 31:1275–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Elinson R (1973) Fertilization of frog body cavity eggs enhanced by treatments affecting the vitelline coat. J Exp Zool 183:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Katagiri C (1974) A high frequency of fertilization in premature and mature coelomic toad eggs after enzymic removal of vitelline membrane. Development 31:573–587Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kloc M, Miller M, Carrasco AE et al (1989) The maternal store of the xlgv7 mRNA in full-grown oocytes is not required for normal development in Xenopus. Development 107:899–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Subtelny S, Bradt C (1960) Transplantations of blastula nuclei into activated eggs from the body cavity and from the uterus of Rana pipiens. 1. Evidence for fusion between the transferred nucleus and the female nucleus of the recipient eggs. Dev Biol 2:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Subtelny S, Bradt C (1961) Transplantations of blastula nuclei into activated eggs from the body cavity and from the uterus of Rana pipiens: II. Development of the recipient body cavity eggs. Dev Biol 3(1):96–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith LD, Ecker RE (1969) Role of the oocyte nucleus in physiological maturation in Rana pipiens. Dev Biol 19:281–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Drury KC, Schorderet-Slatkine S (1975) Effects of cycloheximide on the “autocatalytic” nature of the maturation promoting factor (MPF) in oocytes of Xenopus laevis. Cell 4:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brun RB (1974) Studies on fertilization in Xenopus laevis. Biol Reprod 11:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Amaya E, Kroll KL (1999) A method for generating transgenic frog embryos. Methods Mol Biol 97:393–414.  https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-270-8:393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miyamoto K, Teperek M, Yusa K et al (2013) Nuclear Wave1 is required for reprogramming transcription in oocytes and for normal development. Science 341:1002–1005.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miyamoto K, Simpson D, Gurdon JB (2015) Manipulation and in vitro maturation of Xenopus laevis oocytes, followed by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, to study embryonic development. J Vis Exp e52496. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3791/52496
  53. 53.
    Miyamoto K, Suzuki K-IT, Suzuki M et al (2015) The expression of TALEN before fertilization provides a rapid Knock-out phenotype in Xenopus laevis founder embryos. PLoS One 10:e0142946.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142946CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hulstrand AM, Schneider PN, Houston DW (2010) The use of antisense oligonucleotides in Xenopus oocytes. Methods 51:75–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.12.015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Olson DJ, Hulstrand AM, Houston DW (2012) Maternal mRNA Knock-down studies: antisense experiments using the host-transfer technique in Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis. Methods Mol Biol 917:167–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-992-1_10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nakajima K, Yaoita Y (2015) Highly efficient gene knockout by injection of TALEN mRNAs into oocytes and host transfer in Xenopus laevis. Biol Open 4:180–185.  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.201410009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ratzan W, Falco R, Salanga C et al (2017) Generation of a Xenopus laevis F1 albino J strain by genome editing and oocyte host-transfer. Dev Biol 426:188–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.03.006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Aslan Y, Tadjuidje E, Zorn AM, Cha S-W (2017) High-efficiency non-mosaic CRISPR-mediated knock-in and indel mutation in F0 Xenopus. Development 144:2852–2858.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.152967CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rasar MA, Hammes SR (2006) The physiology of the Xenopus laevis ovary. Methods Mol Biol 322:17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-000-3_2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schneider P, Hulstrand A, Houston D (2010) Fertilization of Xenopus oocytes using the host transfer method. J Vis Exp e1864.  https://doi.org/10.3791/1864
  61. 61.
    Smith LD, Xu WL, Varnold RL (1991) Oogenesis and oocyte isolation. Methods Cell Biol 36:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Manual Defolliculation of Xenopus Oocytes (2009). YouTube video posted by “uiowadblab” on March 31, 2009. www.youtube.com/watch?v=us8rDNG69Sk
  63. 63.
    Lindsay L, Peavy T, Lejano R, Hedrick J (2003) Cross-fertilization and structural comparison of egg extracellular matrix glycoproteins from Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 136:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sive HL, Grainger RM, Harland RM (2000) Early development of Xenopus laevis: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations