Advertisement

Gene Silencing in Chicken Brain Development

  • Georgia Tsapara
  • Irwin Andermatt
  • Esther T. StoeckliEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2047)

Abstract

Despite the development of brain organoids and neural cultures derived from iPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells), brain development can only be studied in an animal. The mouse is the most commonly used vertebrate model for the analysis of gene function because of the well-established genetic tools that are available for loss-of-function studies. However, studies of gene function during development can be problematic in mammals. Many genes are active during different stages of development. Absence of gene function during early development may cause aberrant neurogenesis or even embryonic lethality and thus prevent analysis of later stages of development. To avoid these problems, precise temporal control of gene silencing is required.

In contrast to mammals, oviparous animals are accessible for experimental manipulations during embryonic development. The combination of accessibility and RNAi- or Crispr/Cas9-based gene silencing makes the chicken embryo a powerful model for developmental studies. Depending on the time window during which gene silencing is attempted, chicken embryos can be used in ovo or ex ovo in a domed dish for easier access during later stages of development. Both techniques allow for precise temporal control of gene silencing during embryonic development.

Keywords

Neural development Cerebellum Chicken embryo Artificial miRNA RNA interference Electroporation Gene silencing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Evelyn Avilés and Nicole Wilson for their help in Figs. 2 and 4. Work in the laboratory of E.S. is supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Pekarik V, Bourikas D, Miglino N et al (2003) Screening for gene function in chicken embryo using RNAi and electroporation. Nat Biotechnol 21:93–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesnutt C, Niswander L (2004) Plasmid-based short-hairpin RNA interference in the chicken embryo. Genesis 39:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/gene.20028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baeriswyl T, Stoeckli ET (2008) Axonin-1/TAG-1 is required for pathfinding of granule cell axons in the developing cerebellum. Neural Dev 3:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8104-3-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson NH, Stoeckli ET (2011) Cell type specific, traceable gene silencing for functional gene analysis during vertebrate neural development. Nucleic Acids Res 39:e133.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr628CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abu-Bonsrah KD, Zhang D, Newgreen DF (2016) CRISPR/Cas9 Targets Chicken Embryonic Somatic Cells In Vitro and In Vivo and generates Phenotypic Abnormalities. Sci Rep 6:34524.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morin V, Véron N, Marcelle C (2017) CRISPR/Cas9 in the Chicken Embryo. Methods Mol Biol 1650:113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7216-6_7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baeriswyl T, Mauti O, Stoeckli ET (2008) Temporal control of gene silencing by in ovo electroporation. Methods Mol Biol 442:231–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-191-8_16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alther TA, Domanitskaya E, Stoeckli ET (2016) Calsyntenin 1-mediated trafficking of axon guidance receptors regulates the switch in axonal responsiveness at a choice point. Development 143:994–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.127449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo J, Redies C (2005) Ex ovo electroporation for gene transfer into older chicken embryos. Dev Dyn 233:1470–1477.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.20454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mauti O, Sadhu R, Gemayel J et al (2006) Expression patterns of plexins and neuropilins are consistent with cooperative and separate functions during neural development. BMC Dev Biol 6:32.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-6-32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bourikas D, Pekarik V, Baeriswyl T et al (2005) Sonic hedgehog guides commissural axons along the longitudinal axis of the spinal cord. Nat Neurosci 8:297–304.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Domanitskaya E, Wacker A, Mauti O et al (2010) Sonic hedgehog guides post-crossing commissural axons both directly and indirectly by regulating Wnt activity. J Neurosci 30:11167–11176.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1488-10.2010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson NH, Stoeckli ET (2013) Sonic hedgehog regulates its own receptor on postcrossing commissural axons in a glypican1-dependent manner. Neuron 79:478–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.05.025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Avilés EC, Stoeckli ET (2016) Canonical wnt signaling is required for commissural axon guidance. Dev Neurobiol 76:190–208.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dneu.22307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avilés EC, Wilson NH, Stoeckli ET (2013) Sonic hedgehog and Wnt: Antagonists in morphogenesis but collaborators in axon guidance. Front Cell Neurosci 7:86.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2013.00086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gouti M, Metzis V, Briscoe J (2015) The route to spinal cord cell types: A tale of signals and switches. Trends Genet 31:282–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briscoe J, Small S (2015) Morphogen rules: Design principles of gradient-mediated embryo patterning. Development 142:3996–4009.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.129452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sokol SY (2015) Spatial and temporal aspects of Wnt signaling and planar cell polarity during vertebrate embryonic development. Semin Cell Dev Biol 42:78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2015.05.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamburger V, Hamilton HL (1992) A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. 1951. Dev Dyn 195:231–272.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001950404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao M, Baraban JH, Rajaii F et al (2004) In vivo comparative study of RNAi methodologies by in ovo electroporation in the chick embryo. Dev Dyn 231:592–600.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.20161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katahira T, Nakamura H (2003) Gene silencing in chick embryos with a vector-based small interfering RNA system. Develop Growth Differ 45:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dai F, Yusuf F, Farjah GH et al (2005) RNAi-induced targeted silencing of developmental control genes during chicken embryogenesis. Dev Biol 285:80–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.06.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sato F, Nakagawa T, Ito M et al (2004) Application of RNA interference to chicken embryos using small interfering RNA. J Exp Zool A Comp Exp Biol 301:820–827.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.a.99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgia Tsapara
    • 1
  • Irwin Andermatt
    • 1
  • Esther T. Stoeckli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Neuroscience Center Zurich, Institute of Molecular Life SciencesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations