Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T00:17:55.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in chimera formation and germline transmission between E14 and C2J embryonic stem cells in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2012

Yan Zhu ,
Dun-Gao Li ,
Zhao-Gui Sun ,
Xue-Jin Chen  and
Man-Xi Jiang
Yan Zhu
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices of National Population and Family Planning Committee, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, Shanghai 200032, China.
Dun-Gao Li
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China. College of Wildlife Resource, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China.
Zhao-Gui Sun
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices of National Population and Family Planning Committee, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, Shanghai 200032, China.
Xue-Jin Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Man-Xi Jiang*
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
*
All correspondence to: Man-Xi Jiang. Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China Tel: +86 21 63846590 ext. 776638. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The goal of this project was to determine whether the originating strain of mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells affects the maintenance of their pluripotency under uniform culture conditions. ES cells from two strains of mice, E14 and C2J, were tested. Both ES cell lines were cultured in KOSR + 2i medium and then injected into C57BL/6J blastocysts. Our results demonstrate that this medium could support both E14 and C2J ES cells to keep their pluripotency, though E14 ES cells were found to have a higher chimeric rate than C2J ES cells. However, analysis by backcrossing revealed that C2J and E14 ES cells have the same ability for germline transmission. Our results demonstrate that ES cells derived from E14 and C2J cells have the same capacity for germline transmission when injected into C57BL/6J blastocysts; however, due to the limitation of mixed genetic background between E14 cells and host C57BL/6J embryos, C2J ES cells are preferable to E14 ES cells for use in gene-targeting and should become the cell line of choice for the generation of genetically engineered mutant mouse lines.

Keywords

Chimera formationEmbryonic stem cellGermline transmissionMouse
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 182 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akiyama, T.E., Sakai, S., Lambert, G., Nicol, C.J., Matsusue, K., Pimprale, S., Lee, Y.H., Ricote, M., Glass, C.K., Brewer, H.B. Jr & Gonzalez, F.J. (2002). Conditional disruption of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma gene in mice results in lowered expression of ABCA1, ABCG1, and apoE in macrophages and reduced cholesterol efflux. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 2607–19.Google Scholar
Auerbach, W., Dunmore, J.H., Fairchild-Huntress, V., Fang, Q., Auerbach, A.B., Huszar, D. & Joyner, A.L. (2000). Establishment and chimera analysis of 129/SvEv- and C57BL/6-derived mouse embryonic stem cell lines. Biotechniques 29, 1024–32.Google Scholar
Brook, F.A. & Gardner, R.L. (1997). The origin and efficient derivation of embryonic stem cells in the mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 5709–12.Google Scholar
Brown, D.G., Willington, M.A., Findlay, I. & Muggleton-Harris, A.L. (1992). Criteria that optimize the potential of murine embryonic stem cells for in vitro and in vivo developmental studies. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 28A, 773–8.Google Scholar
Chen, S., Hilcove, S. & Ding, S. (2006). Exploring stem cell biology with small molecules. Mol. Biosyst. 2, 18–24.Google Scholar
Elder, R.H., Jansen, J.G., Weeks, R.J., Willington, M.A., Deans, B., Watson, A.J., Mynett, K.J., Bailey, J.A., Cooper, D.P., Rafferty, J.A., Heeran, M.C., Wijnhoven, S.W., van Zeeland, A.A. & Margison, G.P. (1998). Alkylpurine-DNA-N-glycosylase knockout mice show increased susceptibility to induction of mutations by methyl methanesulfonate. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 5828–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gertsenstein, M., Nutter, L.M., Reid, T., Pereira, M., Stanford, W.L., Rossant, J. & Nagy, A. (2010). Efficient generation of germ line transmitting chimeras from C57BL/6N ES cells by aggregation with outbred host embryos. PLoS One 5, e11260.Google Scholar
Hansen, G.M., Markesich, D.C., Burnett, M.B., Zhu, Q., Dionne, K.M., Richter, L.J., Finnell, R.H., Sands, A.T., Zambrowicz, B.P. & Abuin, A. (2008). Large-scale gene trapping in C57BL/6N mouse embryonic stem cells. Genome Res. 18, 1670–9.Google Scholar
Harris, S.P., Bartley, C.R., Hacker, T.A., McDonald, K.S., Douglas, P.S., Greaser, M.L., Powers, P.A. & Moss, R.L. (2002). Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in cardiac myosin binding protein-C knockout mice. Circ. Res. 90, 594–601.Google Scholar
Kawase, E., Suemori, H., Takahashi, N., Okazaki, K., Hashimoto, K. & Nakatsuji, N. (1994). Strain difference in establishment of mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell lines. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 38, 385–90.Google Scholar
Keskintepe, L., Norris, K., Pacholczyk, G., Dederscheck, S.M. & Eroglu, A. (2007). Derivation and comparison of C57BL/6 embryonic stem cells to a widely used 129 embryonic stem cell line. Transgenic Res. 16, 751–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiyonari, H., Kaneko, M., Abe, S. & Aizawa, S. (2010). Three inhibitors of FGF receptor, ERK and GSK3 establish germline-competent embryonic stem cells of C57BL/6N mouse strain with high efficiency and stability. Genesis 48, 317–27.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Wu, H., Loring, J., Hormuzdi, S., Disteche, C.M., Bornstein, P. & Jaenischm, R. (1997). Trisomy eight in ES cells is a common potential problem in gene targeting and interferes with germline transmission. Dev. Dyn. 209, 85–91.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papaioannou, V.E. & Johnson, R. (2000). Production of chimeras by blastocyst and morula injection of targeted ES cells. In Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach (ed. Joyner, A.L.), pp. 133–75 New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
Sharova, L.V., Sharov, A.A., Piao, Y., Shaik, N., Sullivan, T., Stewart, C.L., Hogan, B.L. & Ko, M.S. (2007). Global gene expression profiling reveals similarities and differences among mouse pluripotent stem cells of different origins and strains. Dev. Biol. 307, 446–59.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., Clarke, A.R., Pow, A.M., Hooper, M.L. & Melton, D/W. (1989). Germ line transmission and expression of a corrected HPRT gene produced by gene targeting in embryonic stem cells. Cell 56, 313–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, C.M., Stern, P., Willington, M.A. & Flenniken, A.M. (2002). Efficient germline transmission of mouse embryonic stem cells grown in synthetic serum in the absence of a fibroblast feeder layer. Lab. Invest. 82, 1765–7.Google Scholar
Ward, C.M., Barrow, K.M. & Stern, P.L. (2004). Significant variations in differentiation properties between independent mouse ES cell lines cultured under defined conditions. Exp. Cell. Res. 293, 229–38.Google Scholar
Ware, C.B., Siverts, L.A., Nelson, A.M., Morton, J.F. & Ladiges, W.C. (2003). Utility of a C57BL/6 ES line versus 129 ES lines for targeted mutations in mice. Transgenic Res. 12, 743–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ying, Q.L., Wray, J., Nichols, J., Batlle-Morera, L., Doble, B., Woodgett, J., Cohen, P. & Smith, A. (2008). The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453, 519–23.Google Scholar