|
|
|
| Optimizing Protocol for the Preparation of Transgenic Mice (Mus musculus) by Pronuclear Injection |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The production of transgenic animals is an important tool for experimental and applied biology. Over the years, many approaches for the production of transgenic animals have been tried, including pronuclear microinjection, sperm-mediated gene transfer, transfection of male germ cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer and the use of lentiviral vectors. At present, the most effective method for the production of transgenic mice is the pronuclear injection technology. Microinjection of DNA into the pronuclei of zygotes is the simplest and most widely used method for generating transgenic (Tg) mice (Mus musculus). However, it is always associated with random integration of multiple copies of the transgene, resulting in unstable, low, or no transgene expression due to positional effects and/or repeat-induced gene silencing. The main disadvantage of this technique is that the efficiency is not high. In this paper, the injection needle diameter, concentration of exogenous gene, single-/double-pronuclear microinjection, embryo transfer and other major steps were optimized. The results showed that different concentrations of exogenous gene had a great impact on the positive rate of transgenic mice. When the injection of exogenous gene concentration in 1.00, 2.50, 3.00 and 4.00 μg/mL, the positive rates of transgenic mice were 0.67%, 14.9%, 30.6% and 21.4%, respectively. Among them, the exogenous gene concentration at 3.00 μg/mL was significantly higher than that of other groups (P＜0.01). In the single-/double-pronuclear microinjection test, the concentration of exogenous gene was 3.00 μg/mL. The positive rate of the double nucleus injection group was significantly higher than that of the single injection group (24.3% vs. 18.3%, P＜0.01). After micro-injection, the 2 cell stage embryo transplantation of 0.5 d, 1.5 and 2.5 d, to the pseudopregnant females through the fallopian tube. The birth rates were 68.6%, 67.6% and 40.1%, respectively, and the positive rate were 17.4%, 22.5% and 10.1% respectively. In comparison, the birth rate had no difference in 0.5 d and 1.5 d surrogate mothers group, but the transgenic positive rate (22.5%) in the 1.5 d group was significantly higher than that in the other groups. The results indicated that the fine as much as possible of the injection needle; 2~4 μg/mL exogenous gene concentration; double-pronuclear microinjection; 1.5 days pseudopregnant were the key to obtaining high efficiency of transgenic mice. This study may provide some useful reference for the research of transgenic animal technology.
|
|
Received: 01 February 2016
Published: 01 July 2016
|
|
|
|
| Bedell, V.M., Wang, Y., Campbell, J.M., et al., 2012. In vivo genome editing using a high-efficiency TALEN system. Nature 491, 114-118.Gaj, T., Gersbach, C.A., Barbas, C.F., 2013. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends in biotechnology 31, 397-405.Gordon, J.W., Ruddle, F.H., 1981. Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei. Science 214, 1244-1246.Gordon, J.W., Scangos, G.A., Plotkin, D.J., et al., 1980. Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77, 7380-7384.Hogan, B., Beddington, R., Costantini, F., et al., 1994. Manipulating the mouse embryo.Ittner, L.M., Gotz, J., 2007. Pronuclear injection for the production of transgenic mice. Nature protocols 2, 1206-1215.Marh, J., Stoytcheva, Z., Urschitz, J., et al., 2012. Hyperactive self-inactivating piggyBac for transposase-enhanced pronuclear microinjection transgenesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 19184-19189.Ohtsuka, M., Ogiwara, S., Miura, H., et al., 2010. Pronuclear injection-based mouse targeted transgenesis for reproducible and highly efficient transgene expression. Nucleic acids research 38, e198.Palmiter, R.D., Brinster, R.L., 1986. Germ-line transformation of mice. Annual review of genetics 20, 465-499.Palpant, N.J., Dudzinski, D., 2013. Zinc finger nucleases: looking toward translation. Gene therapy 20, 121-127.Shen, B., Zhang, J., Wu, H., et al., 2013. Generation of gene-modified mice via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting. Cell research 23, 720-723. |
| [1] |
HUANG Xing, YAN Ai-Fen, DENG Ting-Xian, OUYANG Hong-Jia, LIU Lian, FENG Juan, ZHU Xiang-Xing, NIE Qing-Hua, TANG Dong-Sheng, ZHANG Xi-Quan. Construction of Zinc Finger Nuclease-induced Targeting Vector of Luchuan Pig (Sus scrofa) Fat1 Gene and Transgenic Study In vitro[J]. 农业生物技术学报, 2019, 27(8): 1369-1381. |
|
|
|
|
