Advertisement

Pronuclear Microinjection of Mouse Zygotes

Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 254)

Abstract

The most important tools to investigate the genome of an organism are spontaneous or induced mutations. In mammals, with the exception of humans, the mouse is genetically the most thoroughly analyzed species. Hundreds of different mutant mouse strains are being bred in laboratories and stored as frozen embryos or germ cells in repositories around the world. Because spontaneous mutations are very rare events, different methods to increase the incidence of mutagenesis were developed several decades ago. One example is the alkylating agent N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea, a powerful tool for producing random point mutations in premeiotic spermatogonia. This “phenotype driven” approach is most helpful to identify unknown genes and their function. Complementary to this large-scale random mutagenesis technique are the so called “gene-driven” approaches, which involve selective manipulation of the mouse genome with the objective of creating transgenic mice. In contrast to chemical mutagenesis, where phenotypic changes are a prerequisite to identify the induced mutation (forward genetics), transgenic technology is based on the reintroduction of a previously isolated and in vitro recombined DNA sequence (reverse genetics).

Keywords

Transgenic Line Genetic Modifier Embryo Transfer Inbred Strain Foster Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Gordon, J. W. and Ruddle, F. H. (1981) Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei. Science 214, 1244–1246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rulicke, T. (1996) Transgenic technology: an introduction. Int. J. Exp. Pathol. 77, 243–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan, A. W., Homan, E. J., Ballou, L. U., Burns, J. C., and Bremel, R. D. (1998) Transgenic cattle produced by reverse-transcribed gene transfer in oocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14,028–14,0233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagano, M., Brinster, C. J., Orwig, K. E., Ryu, B. Y., Avarbock, M. R., and Brinster, R. L. (2001) Transgenic mice produced by retroviral transduction of male germ-line stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 13,090–13,905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaenisch, R. (1976) Germ line integration and Mendelian transmission of the exogenous Moloney leukemia virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 73, 1260–1264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon, J. W., Scangos, G. A., Plotkin, D. J., Barbosa, J. A., and Ruddle, F. H. (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 7380–7384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mansour, S. L., Thomas, K. R., Deng, C. X., and Capecchi, M. R. (1990) Introduction of a lacZ reporter gene into the mouse int-2 locus by homologous recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7688–7692.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, T. P. (1966) Microinjection of mouse eggs. Science 151, 333–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taketo, M., Schroeder, A. C., Mobraaten, L. E., Gunning, K. B., Hanten, G., Fox, R. R., et al. (1991) FVB/N: an inbred mouse strain preferable for transgenic analyses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 2065–2069.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mouse Genome Database (MGD), Mouse Genome Informatix Web Site. The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine, http://www.informatics.jax.org.
  11. 11.
    Whitten, W. K. (1956) Modifications of the oestrous cycle of the mouse by external stimuli associated with the male. J. Endocr. 13, 399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Behrens, A., Genoud, N., Naumann, H., Rülicke, T., Janett, F., Heppner, F., et al. (2002) Absence of the prion protein homologue Doppel causes male sterility. EMBO J. 21, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arras, M., Autenried, P., Rettich, A., Spaeni, D., and Rülicke, T. (2001) Optimization of intraperetonial injection anesthesia in mice: drugs, dosages adverse effects, and anesthesia depth. Comparative Medi. 51, 443–456.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruce, H. M. (1959) An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature Lond. 184, 109.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wong, E. A. and Capecchi, M. R. (1985) Effect of cell cycle position on transformation by microinjection. Somat. Cell Mol. Genet. 11, 43–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roth, D. B. and Wilson, J. H. (1985) Relative rates of homologous and nonhomologous recombination in transfected DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 3355–3359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brinster, R. L., Chen, H. Y., Trumbauer, M. E., Yagle, M. K., and Palmiter, R. D. (1985) Factors affecting the efficiency of introducing foreign DNA into mice by microinjecting eggs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 4438–4442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koetsier, P. A., Mangel, L., Schmitz, B., and Doerfler, W. (1996) Stability of transgene methylation patterns in mice: position effects, strain specificity and cellular mosaicism. Transgenic Res. 5, 235–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schedl, A., Larin, Z., Montoliu, L., Thies, E., Kelsey, G., Lehrach, H., and Schutz, G. (1993) A method for the generation of YAC transgenic mice by pronuclear microinjection. Nucleic Acids Res. 21, 4783–4787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mrkic, B., Pavlovic, J., Rulicke, T., Volpe, P., Buchholz, C. J., Hourcade, D., et al. (1998) Measles virus spread and pathogenesis in genetically modified mice. J. Virol. 72, 7420–7427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zirkin, B. R., Perreault, S. D., and Naish, S. J. Formation and function of the paternal pronucleus during mammalian fertilization, in Molecular Biology of Fertilization (Schatten, H. S. and Schatten, G., ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rulicke, T. and Autenried, P. (1995) Potential of two-cell mouse embryos to develop to term despite partial damage after cryopreservation. Lab Anim 29(3), 320–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Meer, M., Costa, P., Baumans, V., Olivier, B., and van Zutphen, B. (1999) Welfare assessment of transgenic animals: Behavioural responses and morphological development of newborn mice. ATLA 27, 857–868.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice (2000) Mouse Nomenclature Home Page. Rules and Guidelines for Gene, Allele, and Mutation Nomenclature. The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine. http://www.informatics.jax.org.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hogan, B., Beddington, R., Costantini, F., and Lacy, E. Manipulating the Mouse Embryo. A laboratory manual. 2nd edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henneberger, C., Grantyn, R., and Rothe, T. (2000) Rapid genotyping of newborn gene mutant mice. J. Neurosci. Methods 100(1–2), 123–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ren, S., Li, M., Cai, H., Hudgins, S., and Furth, P. A. (2001) A simplified method to prepare PCR template DNA for screening of transgenic and knockout mice. Contemp. Top. Lab. Anim. Sci. 40, 27–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Malumbres, M., Mangues, R., Ferrer, N., Lu, S., and Pellicer, A. (1997) Isolation of high molecular weight DNA for reliable genotyping of transgenic mice. Biotechniques 22, 1114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Campbell, D. B. and Hess, E. J. (1997) Rapid genotyping of mutant mice using dried blood spots for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Brain Res. Brain Res. Protoc. 1, 117–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Broome, R. L., Feng, L., Zhou, Q., Smith, A., Hahn, N., Matsui, S. M., and Omary, M. B. (1999) Non-invasive transgenic mouse genotyping using stool analysis. FEBS Lett. 462(1–2), 159–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lahm, H., Hoeflich, A., Rieger, N., Wanke, R., and Wolf, E. (1998) Identification of transgenic mice by direct PCR analysis of lysates of epithelial cells obtained from the inner surface of the rectum. Transgenic Res. 7, 131–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zimmermann, K., Schwarz, H. P., and Turecek, P. L. (2000) Deoxyribonucleic acid preparation in polymerase chain reaction genotyping of transgenic mice. Comp. Med. 50, 314–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Irwin, M. H., Moffatt, R. J., and Pinkert, C. A. (1996) Identification of transgenic mice by PCR analysis of saliva. Nat. Biotechnol. 14, 1146–1148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmitteckert, E. M., Prokop, C. M., and Hedrich, H. J. (1999) DNA detection in hair of transgenic mice114-a simple technique minimizing the distress on the animals. Lab. Anim. 33, 385–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cousens, C., Carver, A. S., Wilmut, I., Colman, A., Garner, I., and O’Neill, G. T. (1994) Use of PCR-based methods for selection of integrated transgenes in preimplantation embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 39, 384–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bishop, J. O. and Smith, P. (1989) Mechanism of chromosomal integration of microinjected DNA. Mol. Biol. Med. 6, 283–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aigner, B. and Brem, G. (1995) Detection of homozygous individuals in gene transfer experiments by semiquantitative PCR. Biotechniques 18, 754–756, 758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Linder, C. C. (2001) The influence of genetic background on spontaneous and genetically engineered mouse models of complex diseases. Lab. Anim. 30, 34–39.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gerlai, R. (1996) Gene-targeting studies of mammalian behavior: is it the mutation or the background genotype? Trends Neurosci. 19, 177–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wolfer, D. P., Muller, U., Stagliar, M., and Lipp, H. P. (1997) Assessing the effects of the 129/Sv genetic background on swimming navigation learning in transgenic mutants: a study using mice with a modified beta-amyloid precursor protein gene. Brain Res. 771, 1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nadeau, J. H. (2001) Modifier genes in mice and humans. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Festing, M. F. W. Inbred Strains in Biomedical Research. Medical Research Council Laboratory Animals Centre Carshalton, Surrey, UK, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London and Basingsoke, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Markel, P., Shu, P., Ebeling, C., Carlson, G. A., Nagle, D. L., Smutko, J. S., and Moore, K. J. (1997) Theoretical and empirical issues for marker-assisted breeding of congenic mouse strains. Nat. Genet. 17, 280–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Behringer, R. (1998) Supersonic congenics? Nat. Genet. 18, 108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mutant mice and neuroscience: recommendations concerning genetic background. Banbury Conference on genetic background in mice. (1997) Neuron 19, 755–759.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ward, J. M., Mahler, J. F., Maronpot, R. R., Sundberg, J. P., Frederickson, R. M. Pathology of genetically engineered mice. 1st edition, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 2000.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Emerman, M. and Temin, H. M. (1984) Genes with promoters in retrovirus vectors can be independently suppressed by an epigenetic mechanism. Cell 39(3 Pt 2), 449–467.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bahramian, M. B. and Zarbl, H. (1999) Transcriptional and posttranscriptional silencing of rodent alpha1(I) collagen by a homologous transcriptionally self-silenced transgene. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 274–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mertens, C. and Rulicke, T. (1999) Score sheets for the monitoring of transgenic mice. Animal Welfare 8, 433–438.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mertens, C. and Rulicke, T. (2000) Phenotype characterization and welfare assessment of transgenic rodents (mice) J. Appl. Animal Welfare Sci. 3, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Crabbe, J. C., Wahlsten, D., and Dudek, B. C. (1999) Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. Science 284, 1670–1672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rampon, C., Tang, Y. P., Goodhouse, J., Shimizu, E., Kyin, M., and Tsien, J. Z. (2000) Enrichment induces structural changes and recovery from nonspatial memory deficits in CA1 NMDAR1-knockout mice. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 238–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rulicke, T. and Hubscher, U. (2000) Germ line transformation of mammals by pronuclear microinjection. Exp. Physiol. 85, 589–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garrick, D., Fiering, S., Martin, D. I., and Whitelaw, E. (1998) Repeat-induced gene silencing in mammals. Nat. Genet. 18, 56–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Laboratory Animal ScienceUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations

Cite protocol

Buy options