Targeted Mutations in the Mouse via Embryonic Stem Cells

  • Marina GertsensteinEmail author
  • Joffrey Mianné
  • Lydia Teboul
  • Lauryl M. J. Nutter
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2066)


Genetic modification of mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells is a powerful technology that enabled the generation of a plethora of mutant mouse lines to study gene function and mammalian biology. Here we describe ES cell culture and transfection techniques used to manipulate the ES cell genome to obtain targeted ES cell clones. We include the standard gene targeting approach as well as the application of the CRISPR/Cas9 system that can improve the efficiency of homologous recombination in ES cells by introducing a double-strand DNA break at the target site.

Key words

Mouse Embryonic stem (ES) cells Gene targeting Electroporation Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) CRISPR associated protein (Cas9) 


  1. 1.
    Bradley A, Evans M, Kaufman MH, Robertson E (1984) Formation of germ-line chimaeras from embryo-derived teratocarcinoma cell lines. Nature 309(5965):255–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capecchi MR (1989) Altering the genome by homologous recombination. Science 244(4910):1288–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smih F, Rouet P, Romanienko PJ, Jasin M (1995) Double-strand breaks at the target locus stimulate gene targeting in embryonic stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res 23(24):5012–5019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bibikova M, Carroll D, Segal DJ, Trautman JK, Smith J, Kim YG et al (2001) Stimulation of homologous recombination through targeted cleavage by chimeric nucleases. Mol Cell Biol 21(1):289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hockemeyer D, Wang H, Kiani S, Lai CS, Gao Q, Cassady JP et al (2011) Genetic engineering of human pluripotent cells using TALE nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 29(8):731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337(6096):816–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang H, Yang H, Shivalila CS, Dawlaty MM, Cheng AW, Zhang F et al (2013) One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 153(4):910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrne SM, Ortiz L, Mali P, Aach J, Church GM (2015) Multi-kilobase homozygous targeted gene replacement in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nucleic Acids Res 43(3):e21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Longo L, Bygrave A, Grosveld FG, Pandolfi PP (1997) The chromosome make-up of mouse embryonic stem cells is predictive of somatic and germ cell chimaerism. Transgenic Res 6(5):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu X, Wu H, Loring J, Hormuzdi S, Disteche CM, Bornstein P et al (1997) Trisomy eight in ES cells is a common potential problem in gene targeting and interferes with germ line transmission. Dev Dyn 209(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Codner GF, Lindner L, Caulder A, Wattenhofer-Donze M, Radage A, Mertz A et al (2016) Aneuploidy screening of embryonic stem cell clones by metaphase karyotyping and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. BMC Cell Biol 17(1):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang Q, Conte N, Skarnes WC, Bradley A (2008) Extensive genomic copy number variation in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(45):17453–17456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bryja V, Bonilla S, Cajanek L, Parish CL, Schwartz CM, Luo Y et al (2006) An efficient method for the derivation of mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 24(4):844–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ying QL, Wray J, Nichols J, Batlle-Morera L, Doble B, Woodgett J et al (2008) The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453(7194):519–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Auerbach W, Dunmore JH, Fairchild-Huntress V, Fang Q, Auerbach AB, Huszar D et al (2000) Establishment and chimera analysis of 129/SvEv- and C57BL/6-derived mouse embryonic stem cell lines. Biotechniques 29(5):1024–8, 30, 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen GM, Markesich DC, Burnett MB, Zhu Q, Dionne KM, Richter LJ et al (2008) Large-scale gene trapping in C57BL/6N mouse embryonic stem cells. Genome Res 18(10):1670–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seong E, Saunders TL, Stewart CL, Burmeister M (2004) To knockout in 129 or in C57BL/6: that is the question. Trends Genet 20(2):59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ward CM, Barrow KM, Stern PL (2004) Significant variations in differentiation properties between independent mouse ES cell lines cultured under defined conditions. Exp Cell Res 293(2):229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ware CB, Siverts LA, Nelson AM, Morton JF, Ladiges WC (2003) Utility of a C57BL/6 ES line versus 129 ES lines for targeted mutations in mice. Transgenic Res 12(6):743–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong ES, Ban KH, Mutalif R, Jenkins NA, Copeland NG, Stewart CL (2010) A simple procedure for the efficient derivation of mouse ES cells. Methods Enzymol 476:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poueymirou WT, Auerbach W, Frendewey D, Hickey JF, Escaravage JM, Esau L et al (2007) F0 generation mice fully derived from gene-targeted embryonic stem cells allowing immediate phenotypic analyses. Nat Biotechnol 25(1):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagy A, Gocza E, Diaz EM, Prideaux VR, Ivanyi E, Markkula M et al (1990) Embryonic stem cells alone are able to support fetal development in the mouse. Development 110(3):815–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gertsenstein M, Nutter LM, Reid T, Pereira M, Stanford WL, Rossant J et al (2010) Efficient generation of germ line transmitting chimeras from C57BL/6N ES cells by aggregation with outbred host embryos. PLoS One 5(6):e11260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Behringer R, Gertsenstein M, Nagy K, Nagy A (2014) Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual, 4th edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kondoh G, Yamamoto Y, Yoshida K, Suzuki Y, Osuka S, Nakano Y et al (1999) Easy assessment of ES cell clone potency for chimeric development and germ-line competency by an optimized aggregation method. J Biochem Biophys Methods 39(3):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Gertsenstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joffrey Mianné
    • 2
  • Lydia Teboul
    • 2
  • Lauryl M. J. Nutter
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.The Centre for Phenogenomics (TCP)TorontoCanada
  2. 2.The Mary Lyon CentreMRC Harwell InstituteDidcotUK
  3. 3.Genetics and Genome BiologyThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations