Note from the Deputy Editor

Susan Glueck, Deputy Editor

Physiological Genomics

In this issue of Physiological Genomics appear the first articles associated with our journal’s Special Call for Papers in large-scale ethylnitrosourea (ENU) mouse mutagenesis. This important methodology enables researchers to explore the genetics and physiology of the mouse in the same manner already successfully utilized by Drosophila, zebrafish, and C. elegans researchers. The fruits of such studies will include the identification of novel genes and pathways responsible for aberrant physiology, as well as further clues into the workings of already characterized pathways.

An editorial by David Beier (1) describes the successes and challenges of ENU mutagenesis detailed in a recent workshop on the subject. In a research article, Peters et al. (3) describe their method for high-throughput screening of hematologic and coagulation phenotypes in mice. By modifying equipment and protocols originally intended for human blood analysis, the authors have developed a tool for large-scale characterization of a variety of blood factors, including prothrombin, fibrinogen, and antithrombin III. This methodology would be useful for either inbred or ENU-mutagenized strains of mice. Two review articles, one by Bockamp et al. (2) and one by van der Weyden et al. (4), evaluate methodologies including ENU and beyond which can be used to engineer the mouse genome. As evinced by these reviews, ENU mutagenesis is one weapon in an armamentarium of methods for producing mutations with specific characteristics. Bockamp et al. focus on conditional mouse knockout technologies, especially those reliant upon tetracycline-inducible vectors. Such constructs allow researchers to study the effects of particular gene products in particular tissues or at precise points in animal development. The authors provide a comprehensive list of currently available mouse strains engineered with particular "tet on/tet off" effectors and reporters. Van der Weyden et al. provide an exhaustive overview of the world of mouse genomic tools currently available, covering not only mutagenesis, but also site-specific recombination, homologous recombination, and gene trapping. These reviews are certain to be helpful for researchers planning their own mouse research programs or searching for specificity in their research strategy. In addition, they provide a snapshot of the current state of the art in the field. In the future, it is to be hoped that articles detailing ground-breaking research using these technologies will find their place in the pages of this journal.

REFERENCES

  1. Beier, DR. ENU mutagenesis: a work in progress. Physiol Genomics 11: 111–113, 2002; 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00140.2002.[Free Full Text]
  2. Bockamp E, Maringer M, Spangenberg C, Fees S, Fraser S, Eshkind L, Oesch F, and Zabel B. Of mice and models: improved animal models for biomedical research. Physiol Genomics 11: 115–132, 2002; 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00067.2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Peters LL, Cheever EM, Ellis HR, Magnani PA, Svenson KL, Von Smith R, and Bogue MA. Large-scale, high-throughput screening for coagulation and hematologic phenotypes in mice. Physiol Genomics 11: 185–193, 2002. First published November 5, 2002; 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00077.2002.
  4. van der Weyden L, Adams DJ, and Bradley A. Tools for targeted manipulation of the mouse genome. Physiol Genomics 11: 133–164, 2002; 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00074.2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Glueck, S.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Glueck, S.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online