Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization on Early Porcine Embryos

  • Helen A. Foster
  • Roger G. Sturmey
  • Paula J. Stokes
  • Henry J. Leese
  • Joanna M. Bridger
  • Darren K. GriffinEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 659)


Insight into the normal and abnormal function of an interphase nucleus can be revealed by using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to determine chromosome copy number and/or the nuclear position of loci or chromosome territories. FISH has been used extensively in studies of mouse and human early embryos, however, translation of such methods to domestic species have been hindered by the presence of high levels of intracytoplasmic lipid in these embryos which can impede the efficiency of FISH. This chapter describes in detail a FISH protocol for overcoming this problem. Following extensive technical development, the protocol was derived and optimized for IVF porcine embryos to enable investigation of whole chromosome and subchromosomal regions by FISH during these early stages of development. Porcine embryos can be generated in-vitro using semen samples from commercial companies and oocytes retrieved from discarded abattoir material. According to our method, porcine embryos are lyzed and immobilized on slides using Hydrochloric acid and “Tween 20” detergent, prior to pretreatment with RNase A and pepsin before FISH. The method described has been optimized for subsequent analysis of FISH in two dimensions since organic solvents, which are necessary to remove the lipid, have the effect of flattening the nuclear structure. The work in this chapter has focussed on the pig; however, such methods could be applied to bovine, ovine, and canine embryos, all of which are rich in lipid.

Key words

Fluorescence in situ hybridisation Porcine embryos Genome organisation Lipid 


  1. 1.
    Hanel ML, Wevrick R (2001). The role of genomic imprinting in human developmental disorders: lessons from Prader-Willi syndrome. Clin Genet, 59, 156–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKenzie LJ, Carson SA, Marcelli S, Rooney E, Cisneros P, Torskey S, Buster J, Simpson JL, Bischoff FZ. (2004). Nuclear chromosomal localization in human preimplantation embryos: correlation with aneuploidy and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod, 19, 2231–2237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diblík J, Macek M Sr, Magli MC, Krejcí R, Gianaroli L. (2007) Chromosome topology in normal and aneuploid blastomeres from human embryos. Prenat Diagn, 27, 1091–1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finch KA, Fonseka G, Ioannou D, Hickson N, Barclay Z, Chatzimeletiou K, Mantzouratou A, Handyside A, Delhanty J, Griffin DK. (2008). Nuclear organisation in totipotent human nuclei and its relationship to chromosomal abnormality. J Cell Sci, 121, 655–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lanctôt C, Kaspar C, Cremer T. (2007). Positioning of the mouse Hox gene clusters in the nuclei of developing embryos and differentiating embryoid bodies. Exp Cell Res, 313, 1449–1459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koehler D, Zakhartchenko V, Froenicke L, Stone G, Stanyon R, Wolf E, Cremer T, Brero A. (2009). Changes of higher order chromatin arrangements during major genome activation in bovine preimplantation embryos. Exp Cell Res, 315, 2053–2063.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lunney JK. (2007) Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. Int J Biolol Sci, 3, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss RA. (1998) Transgenic pigs and virus adaptation. Nature, 391; 327–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guan TY, Holley RA (2003) Pathogen Survival in Swine Manure Environments and Transmission of Human Enteric Illness-A Review Sponsoring organizations: Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative and Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council. In.: Am Soc Agronom, 383–392.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rettenberger G, Klett C, Zechner U, Kunz J, Vogel W, Hameister H. (1995) Visualization of the conservation of synteny between humans and pigs by heterologous chromosomal painting. Genomics, 26, 372–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim D, Cho YM, Lee KT, Kang Y, Sung S, Nam J, Park EW, Oh SJ, Im SK, Kim H. (2009). The Pig Genome Database (PiGenome): an integrated database for pig genome research. Mamm Genome, 20, 60–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abeydeera LR, Day BN. (1997) Fertilization and subsequent development in vitro of pig oocytes inseminated in a modified tris-buffered medium with frozen-thawed ejaculated spermatozoa. Biol Reprod, 57, 729–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petters RM, Reed ML. (1991) Addition of taurine or hypotaurine to culture medium improves development of one and two cell pig embryos in vitro. Theriogenology, 35, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sturmey RG, Leese HJ. (2003) Energy metabolism in pig oocytes and early embryos. Reproduction, 126, 197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rooney DE, Czepulkowski BH. (1986) Human Cytogenetics: A Practical Approach. Oxford, IRL Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abeydeera LR, Wang WH, Cantley TC, Rieke A, Murphy CN, Prather RS, Day BN. (2000) Development and viability of pig oocytes matured in a protein-free medium containing epidermal growth factor. Theriogenology, 54, 787–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeong BS, Yang X. (2001) Cysteine, glutathione, and Percoll treatments improve porcine oocyte maturation and fertilization in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev, 59, 330–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petters RM, Johnson BH, Reed ML, Archibong AE. (1990) Glucose, glutamine and inorganic phosphate in early development of the pig embryo in vitro. J Reprod Fertil, 89, 269–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coonen E, Dumoulin JC, Ramaekers FC, Hopman AH. (1994) Optimal preparation of preimplantation embryo interphase nuclei for analysis by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation. Hum Reprod, 9, 533–537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harper JC, Dawson K, Delhanty JD, Winston RM. (1995) The use of fluorescent in-situ hybridisation (FISH) for the analysis of in-vitro fertilization embryos: a diagnostic tool for the infertile couple. Hum Reprod, 10, 3255–3258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu K, Huang T, Liu T, Shi Z, Rosenwaks Z. (1998) Improving the fixation method for preimplantation genetic diagnosis by fluorescent in situ hybridisation. J Assist Reprod Genet, 15, 570–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daphnis DD, Delhanty JD, Jerkovic S, Geyer J, Craft I, Harper JC. (2005) Detailed FISH analysis of day 5 human embryos reveals the mechanisms leading to mosaic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod, 20, 129–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Minnen J, van Kesteren RE. (1999) Methods towards detection of protein synthesis in dendrites and axons. In: Modern Techniques in Neuroscience Research (Windhorst U, Johansson H, eds.), Chapter 3, pp. 57–88. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen A. Foster
    • 1
  • Roger G. Sturmey
    • 2
  • Paula J. Stokes
    • 2
  • Henry J. Leese
    • 2
  • Joanna M. Bridger
    • 3
  • Darren K. Griffin
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of BiosciencesBrunel UniversityMiddlesexUK
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Laboratory of Nuclear and Genomic Health, Centre for Cell and Chromosome Biology, Division of Biosciences, School of Health Sciences and Social CareBrunel UniversityMiddlesexUK
  4. 4.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations