Tools for targeted manipulation of the mouse genome
Louise van der Weyden,
David J. Adams and
Allan Bradley
The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambs CB10 1SA, United Kingdom
 |
ABSTRACT
|
---|
In the postgenomic era the mouse will be central to the challenge of ascribing a function to the 40,000 or so genes that constitute our genome. In this review, we summarize some of the classic and modern approaches that have fueled the recent dramatic explosion in mouse genetics. Together with the sequencing of the mouse genome, these tools will have a profound effect on our ability to generate new and more accurate mouse models and thus provide a powerful insight into the function of human genes during the processes of both normal development and disease.
gene targeting; homologous recombination; embryonic stem cell; mutagenesis; gene trap; mouse genome project
 |
1) BACKGROUND
|
---|
1.1) Why the Mouse?
The Human Genome Project has revealed the sequence information of many of the genes that make us what we are. However, although at least 35,000 human genes have been sequenced and mapped, adequate expression or functional information is available for only 15% of them (230). Therefore, a significant challenge for scientists over the next few decades is to annotate the human genome with functional information. This effort will enable us to gain an understanding of the molecular mechanisms and pathways underlying normal development, as well as those responsible for pathogenesis. However, to do this we need an experimental model. The mouse is an excellent experimental model for defining human gene function because of its anatomic, physiologic, and genetic similarity to humans. The mouse is also a popular model because of its relatively short life cycle and because its genome can be readily manipulated by molecular means. For example, mouse geneticists can eliminate or overexpress genes in the whole animal or in a specific tissue, introduce large pieces of self or foreign DNA into the genome, and engineer whole chromosomes. Furthermore, inbred strains of mice also provide the opportunity to study a disease trait in a defined genetic background, allowing distinction between the phenotypes conferred by a single mutation vs. the contributions of other genetic modifiers. A large genetic reservoir of potential models of human disease has been generated through the identification of spontaneous, radiation-, or chemical-induced mutant loci in mice 100 mouse models of human disease where the homologous gene has been shown to be mutated in both human and mouse (19)], indicating the validity of using mice to model human disease.
In the last few years, a number of significant technological advances have dramatically increased our ability to create mouse models of human disease. These technological advances have been greatly aided by the sequencing of the mouse genome and the subsequent mouse genomic resources that have been developed.
1.2) The Mouse Genome Sequencing Project
The C57BL/6J strain has been selected as the reference strain for the production of a finished genome sequence (17). The mouse genome sequencing project has two main aims; the first is to generate a finished sequence of the mouse genome that is freely accessible to the public, and the second is to create a richly annotated information resource consisting of a database containing information about the underlying genomic sequence (reviewed in Ref. 129). Mouse genomic resources include mapping resources [such as dense genetic maps (51, 168), sequence tagged site (STS)-based physical maps (168), radiation hybrid (gene-based) maps (11, 88, 250), and simple sequence length polymorphism (SSLP) marker-anchored bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) framework maps (33)]; DNA resources [such as the generation of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) (144), cDNAs (109, 233) and BAC libraries (175, 283)]; and database resources, which help to provide community access to this information (see below for URLs).
1.2.1) How is the mouse genome being sequenced?
The sequencing of the mouse genome involves two parts: a genome-wide program, and a targeted program (summarized in Ref. 129). The genome-wide sequencing program is being undertaken by the Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium (MGSC), which is an international collaboration between four centers [the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute; The Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research; The Washington University Genome Sequencing Center; and Ensembl (a joint project between the Sanger Institute and the European Bioinformatics Institute)]. Incorporated into the genome-wide sequence will be the sequence of regions targeted by specific projects. These include the Trans-NIH BAC sequencing program (funding sequencing of specific BACs/regions of biological interest by sequencing facilities at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine), the UK-MRC Mouse Sequencing Programme (adopting a regional and functional approach to target four "core regions" on chromosomes 4, 13, 2, and X), and the Joint Genome Institute (performing comparative sequencing of mouse chromosomal regions syntenic with human chromosome 19). The annotation of the mouse genome will be facilitated by cDNA sequencing programs, including that carried out by the RIKEN Institute (who collect data on most, if not all, full-length cDNAs, their primary structures, and expression sites) and the Mammalian Gene Collection [MGC; who provide a complete set of full-length (open reading frame) sequences and cDNA clones of human and mouse genes (233)]. In addition, the MGSC will do clone-by-clone BAC sequencing to a high standard.
There are several components to the genome-wide sequencing effort. First, there is the development of a BAC map, consisting of overlapping BAC clones covering the vast majority of the mouse genome. For this, two BAC libraries have been selected: RPCI-23 (female) and RPCI-24 (male) (175). Although previously characterized by sequencing both ends of the cloned inserts ("BAC-end sequencing") (283), as part of the MGSC they are being characterized by restriction-digest fingerprint of each clone ("fingerprinting"), which can be used to assemble the BACs into overlapping clone "contigs" (continuous stretches of assembled sequences) covering the mouse genome. The BAC map and BAC end-sequences provide a crucial scaffold for assembling the sequence of the mouse genome. The second component uses paired-end whole-genome shotgun reads to generate light (
2.5-fold) and deeper (5- to 6-fold) coverage of the mouse genome; the sequence is obtained by preparing plasmid libraries (with inserts of 210 kb) and sequencing both ends of the inserts ("paired-end sequencing"). By combining the BAC map and the shotgun coverage, a "hybrid" genome assembly can be constructed, consisting of sequence contigs, linked into "supercontigs" (neighboring contigs that have been properly organized and orientated), which are further linked into "ultracontigs" (neighboring supercontigs that have been properly organized and orientated). In addition, comparative sequence information from other strains of mice, such as 129S1/SvImJ, BALB/cByJ, and C3H/HeJ will also be obtained, as such analysis is important for identifying sequence variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
As of April 2002, two assemblies of the complete whole genome data set for the mouse genome have been generated: one by the Whitehead group using the ARACHNE program (18), and the other by the Sanger Institute using the PHUSION program. Both assemblies used the February 2002 freeze of data, and were done using the same set of files (each assembly included about 33 million reads, corresponding to x7 coverage of the genome). Although both assemblies were evenly matched by many criteria, the ARACHNE assembly was chosen by the MGSC as the one with which to proceed for further analysis. This assembly provides 96% coverage of the euchromatic mouse genome and predicts with high confidence 22,444 genes across the genome, of which
75% have a firm human genome counterpart. This "MGSC Version 3" assembly can be downloaded (ftp://ftp.ensembl.org/pub/assembly/mouse/mgsc_assembly_3) or searched using SSAHA (http://www.ensembl.org/Mus_musculus/ssahaview) or BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/MmBlast.html). In addition, the BAC map resource has been aligned to the sequence, and an initial functional annotation of these genes has been added, as well as a comparison to the human genome (at the DNA level). The final phase of the MGSCs work is to now fill in the "gaps" and correct any errors or misassemblies (for a completed genome sequence to be available within the next 3 yr).
All information generated by the MGSC is rapidly released to the scientific community; a constantly updated and comprehensive view of the projects data is provided at a central MGSC server (http://mouse.ensembl.org/). In addition, MGSC data is incorporated into other key genome servers, including mouse genome resources at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/index.html), the MRC UK mouse sequencing program (http://mrcseq.har.mrc.ac.uk), and the mouse genomic sequence reads aligned against the human draft sequence at the University of California at Santa Cruz (http://genome.cse.ucsc.edu).
1.3) Basic Genetic Technologies for Mining the Mouse Genome
With the exponential increase in the number of genes identified by the genome sequencing projects, it has become imperative that efficient methods be developed for determining gene function. It has now become possible to make essentially any mutation in the germ line of mice by utilizing homologous recombination (the recombining of an exogenous piece of DNA with its endogenous homologous sequence in vivo) and embryonic stem (ES) cells (the pluripotent derivatives of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst) (34). Gene targeting (using homologous recombination to alter specific endogenous genes) provides the highest level of control over producing mutations. The combination of gene targeting techniques in mouse ES cells and the Cre-loxP recombination system has resulted in the emergence of chromosomal engineering technology in mice. This advance has opened up new opportunities for modeling new diseases that are associated with chromosomal rearrangements [in humans, chromosomal abnormalities are a principle cause of fetal loss and developmental disorders (214), and chromosomal translocations are involved in the genesis of many types of human tumor (189)]. Mutagenesis studies in the mouse have emphasized modeling human diseases through phenotype-driven assays. The chromosome engineering strategy for generating mice with precise chromosomal rearrangements, in combination with mutagenesis approaches, provides an invaluable tool for deciphering gene function using phenotype-based methods. In addition, gene trap approaches in ES cells also offer a route to gene discovery by providing information on gene sequence, expression, and mutant phenotype.
 |
2) GENE TARGETING
|
---|
2.1) Gene Targeting Strategies
Genetically modified mice can be generated either by direct pronuclear injection of exogenous DNA into fertilized zygotes (177) or injection of genetically modified mouse ES cells into a blastocyst (115). Direct pronuclear injection results in random integration of the injected DNA into the genome and relies on the overexpression of the transgene to produce a phenotype. In contrast, ES cells have the advantage in that they can be genetically modified by means of homologous recombination (a process by which a fragment of genomic DNA introduced into a mammalian cell can locate and recombine with the endogenous homologous sequence) prior to being injected into the blastocyst. This process is known as "gene targeting" and was first reported in mammalian cells in 1985 in erythroleukemia cells (226) and a fibroblast cell line (127). The first examples of gene targeting by homologous recombination in ES cells targeted the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) gene (a selectable locus on the X chromosome) (52, 239). The first reports of germ-line transmission of a targeted allele in ES cells also occurred at the HPRT locus (241), as well as the c-abl locus (212). Since then, gene targeting has been widely used in ES cells to make a variety of genetic mutations in many different loci, allowing the phenotypic consequences of the modifications to be assessed.
The procedure for the generation of mice that have been genetically modified using gene targeting strategies is essentially the same regardless of the specific targeting strategy used and is outlined in Fig. 1. Briefly, the targeting construct (containing sequence homologous to the targeted gene and a selectable marker) is electroporated into ES cells. These cells are then cultured in the presence of a selection agent to remove any cells that have not stably integrated the construct into their genome. The surviving ES cell colonies are then isolated and examined for the presence of the targeted allele (to ensure the desired recombination event has occurred) by PCR amplification or Southern blot analysis. Those containing the targeted allele are then injected into blastocysts (embryonic day 3.5) and transferred to the uterus of a foster mother. The resulting pups are then examined for their degree of chimerism (percentage of the genetic makeup of the mouse that was contributed by the ES cell). Male mice showing a high percentage of chimerism are then mated with wild-type mice to check for germ-line transmission of the targeted allele in the F1 offspring. The F1 heterozygotes may then be intercrossed to breed to homozygosity.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Procedure for the generation of genetically modified mice generated by gene targeting strategies. A: a targeting vector containing a positive (+) selection cassette and sequences of homology with the target locus (gray line) is generated. B: the vector is then linearized prior to electroporation into embryonic stem (ES) cells. C: the ES cells are then cultured in the presence of the selectant (for example, G418 drug if a neomycin resistance cassette was present in the targeting vector). D: ES cell clones that carry the desired chromosomal rearrangements are identified and genetically characterized (such as by PCR or Southern blot analysis). E: the selected ES cells are injected into mouse blastocysts, and the embryos are transferred into the uteri of pseudopregnant foster mothers. F: chimeras that are generated from the blastocyst injections are mated with wild-type mice to establish germ-line transmission of the modified gene. G: the progeny derived from the chimeras are characterized, and a mutant mouse line that carries the desired targeting event is established.
|
|
Important aspects of any gene targeting experiments include the vector design (which can determine the efficiency of recombination), the type of mutation generated at the target locus, selection cassettes (detailed in Table 1), and screening strategies used to identify clones of ES cells with the desired targeted modification (detailed in Ref. 38). The different types of mutations, and the vectors needed to generate such mutations, are discussed below in more detail.
2.1.1) Generating "knockout" mice: the null allele.
The most common experimental strategy is to ablate the function of a target gene (generating a null allele) by introducing a selectable marker gene (for a review see Ref. 38). A targeting vector is designed to recombine with and mutate a specific chromosomal locus. The minimal components of such a vector are sequences of DNA homologous with the desired chromosomal integration site, a selection cassette, and a plasmid backbone. Two basic types of vectors can be used for targeting in mammalian cells, namely, replacement and insertion vectors. The fundamental aspects of a replacement vector are sequences of isogenic DNA with homology to the target locus (58 kb), a positive selectable marker (see Table 1), bacterial plasmid sequences, and a linearization site outside of the homologous sequences of the vector. The final postrecombination product is a replacement of the chromosomal homology with all components of the vector flanked on both sides by homologous sequences (see Fig. 2, A and B) (reviewed in Refs. 38, 82). The basic elements of an insertion vector are the same as those in a replacement vector. However, the major difference between the two vector types is that the linearization site of an insertion vector is made within the homologous sequences. An insertion vector undergoes single reciprocal recombination (vector insertion) with its homologous chromosomal target, which is stimulated by the double-strand break (or gap) in the vector. Insertion vectors have been reported to target at a 5- to 20-fold higher efficiency than replacement vectors given the same homologous sequences (81). Since the entire insertion vector is integrated into the target site, including the homologous sequences of the vector, the recombinant allele becomes a duplication of the target homology separated by the heterologous sequences in the vector backbone (see Fig. 2C).

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Replacement and insertion type vectors. A and B: replacement vectors target the locus by double reciprocal recombination, and they insert only the genetic sequences contained inside the homologous region (green). The positive (+) selection cassette can be used to replace an exon (represented by a box) as shown in A, or to disrupt an exon, as shown in B. C: insertion vectors target the locus by single reciprocal recombination and insert the whole vector sequence. The vector (black line) contains regions of DNA (green line) homologous to the target locus (gray line) and a positive (+) selection cassette. X represents recombination between the vector and the genome.
|
|
2.1.2) Generating subtle mutations.
Although major disruptions of a locus represent a valuable starting point for genetic analysis, a series of changes at the nucleotide level in both coding and control regions of the gene are important for the full understanding of a genes function. Thus there are techniques to allow the inclusion of small mutations in the genome, such as the "hit-and-run" and "double replacement" strategies. Hit-and-run vectors are essentially insertion vectors containing both positive and negative selectable markers outside the region of homology and the desired mutation in the region of homology (Fig. 3). This strategy requires two rounds of homologous recombination: homologous recombination and positive selection are used to generate a duplication at the target locus (via insertion of the targeting vector), followed by resolution of the duplication (excision) via a second homologous recombination event between the duplicated homologous sequences (Fig. 3). This results in removal of the plasmid sequences, selection markers, and one complement of the duplication from the target locus. Hit-and-run targeting procedures have been successfully used to generate mutations in ES cells in the HPRT locus (247), the Hox-2.6 locus (80), the ß-amyloid precursor protein locus (73), the Gi2
locus (202), and the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (Cftr) locus (49) (with germ-line transmission of the mutated allele being demonstrated in the latter two examples). Although hit-and-run targeting procedures are typically performed in ES cells in vitro, with the modified ES cells subsequently being injected into blastocysts to generate mice carrying the mutation, one group has modified this technique to generate mice carrying a subtle mutation in the K-ras gene, whereby the targeted insertion allele was created in cultured ES cells, and the excision was performed in mice in vivo (95).

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. "Hit-and-run" targeting procedure. The two-step "hit-and-run" targeting strategy requires an insertion type vector, containing a piece of DNA (green line; exons shown as boxes) homologous to the target locus (gray line; exons shown as boxes), which has been modified with the desired small, nonselectable mutation (red star). It also contains positive (+) and negative (-) selectable markers. In the first step, homologous recombination (X) and positive selection are used to generate a duplication at the target locus via insertion of the targeting vector. The second step is based on the resolution of the duplication by recombination (pop-out) between the duplicated homologous sequences [via single reciprocal intrachromosomal recombination or uneven sister chromatid exchange (25)], resulting in removal of the plasmid sequences, selection markers, and one complement of the duplication from the target locus. Since the negative selection marker is excised, clones undergoing this event can be selected with drugs used against the negative selection cassette.
|
|
The "double replacement" (or "tag-and-exchange") technique also relies on two rounds of homologous recombination, although the second round of recombination is also a gene targeting event (i.e., vector-chromosome recombination rather than chromosome-chromosome recombination). Double replacement vectors are replacement vectors containing both positive and negative selectable markers inside the region of homology (Fig. 4).1
Using this strategy, the targeted gene is first replaced with a selectable marker to inactivate the allele ("tagging"), followed by retargeting with a second vector to reconstruct the inactivated allele, and introduce the engineered mutation ("exchanging"). This strategy has been used to introduce subtle mutations in mouse ES cells in the Col1a-1 gene (269),
2 Na,K-ATPase gene (7), and the Huntingtons disease homolog (Hdh) gene (36) (with germ-line transmission of the mutated allele demonstrated in the latter example). A modified approach, termed "stable tag exchange," incorporates an additional positive selection cassette to circumvent the problem of high levels of nonhomologous recombinants, which survive selection due to loss of tag gene expression (266). The advantage of this technique is that any number of different vectors can be used in the second step to generate an array of mutations at the same locus, as has been used in ES cells to generate a series of different targeted alterations to the prion protein gene (153). However, as with the hit-and-run method, a limitation of this procedure is the spontaneous loss of sensitivity to the negative selection agent due to events other than homologous recombination, such as mutation of the negative selectable marker (82).

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. "Double replacement" targeting. "Double replacement" vectors are replacement vectors, containing a piece of DNA (green line; exons shown as boxes) homologous to the target locus (gray line; exons shown as boxes), as well as positive (+) and negative (-) selectable markers. Replacement vectors are linearized outside the target homology prior to transfection. In the first step, replacement targeted clones are generated (identified by use of the positive selection marker). In the second step, a different targeting vector homologous to the same genomic locus (yellow line; exons shown as boxes), but devoid of any selectable markers, is used. This vector carries the desired mutation (red star), and targeted clones are identified by selection against the negative selectable marker (with resistant clones being screened for the presence of the desired mutation). X represents recombination between the vector and the genome.
|
|
In contrast to conventional targeting techniques, which generate ES cells with a selectable marker in the mutated (targeted) locus, both the hit-and-run and double replacement techniques generate ES cells with mutations, yet no selectable marker. This is important, as most of these cassettes contain a promoter/enhancer and polyadenylation signal, all of which have the potential to interfere with transcription of neighboring genes and hence generate a phenotype that is difficult to interpret (89, 182). Another way of eliminating the problem associated with the presence of the selectable marker in the targeted locus is to use a site-specific recombination system, such as loxP sites flanking the marker to allow its excision through the actions of Cre recombinase (discussed in more detail in Section 2.2).
2.1.3) Generating conditional mice.
Conditional activation ("gain-of-function") or inactivation ("loss-of-function") of gene expression in vivo can be used to control gene expression in a temporal-, spatial-, or tissue-specific manner. The tight regulation of gene expression offered by conditional gene targeting means avoidance of any potential embryonic lethality associated with the mutation and allows for a more accurate mouse model of human disease and sporadic cancer initiation and progression (reviewed in Ref. 97).
Such control can be achieved using binary transgenic systems, in which gene expression is regulated by the interaction of an effector protein product on a target transgene. These interactions can be controlled by crossing mouse lines or by adding/removing an exogenous inducer. Binary transgenic systems fall into two categories: transcriptional transactivation (used to activate transgenes in gain-of-function experiments) and site-specific DNA recombination (used to activate transgenes or to generate tissue-specific gene knockouts). Transcriptional transactivation is more widely used than DNA recombination to bring about transgene activation in mice, because the latter is irreversible, whereas the former occurs only when the transactivator is present (thus if an inducible system is used, then transgene activation can be reversed at a given time, providing greater control over transgene expression) (reviewed in Ref. 123).
2.1.3.1) transcriptional transactivation.
The most widely used binary transcription transactivation systems are the tetracycline-dependent regulatory systems ("Tet-on" and "Tet-off"; see http://www.clontech.com/tet/index.shtml or http://www.zmbh.uni-heidelberg.de/bujard/Homepage.html) (70). These systems use a chimeric transactivator to control transcription of the gene of interest from a silent promoter and are based on two regulatory elements derived from the E. coli tetracycline-resistance operon: the Tet repressor protein (TetR) and the Tet operator sequence (tetO). The Tet-off system uses a plasmid that expresses a fusion protein known as the tetracycline-controlled transactivator (tTA), composed of TetR and the VP16 activation domain of herpes simplex virus (Fig. 5A). tTA binds to the tetracycline response element (TRE) and activates transcription of the target gene in the absence of the inducer, doxycyclin (Dox).2
The Tet-on system uses a form of TetR containing four amino acid changes that result in altered binding characteristics and create the reverse TetR (rTetR). As shown in Fig. 5B, rTetR binds the TRE and activates transcription of the target gene in the presence of Dox. Recent examples of use of the Tet system in transgenic mice include the regulation of delta-FosB expression to control bone formation and bone mass (221), regulation of the SV40 T-antigen oncogene to control ß-cell autoimmunity and hyperplasia (21), and regulation of the endothelin receptor B (ednrb) to determine when ednrb signaling is required during embryogenesis (218). In addition, there are many variations on the basic Tet system, such as allowing two target transgenes to be coregulated (14), thereby enabling monitoring of transactivation in transgenic mice when one promoter drives a reporter gene [such as luciferase or ß-galactosidase (ß-gal)] (120). Other variations include modification of the DNA-binding specificity of the transactivator (15) and the generation of rtTA variants with increased Dox sensitivity, allowing a greater Dox responsiveness in mouse tissues to which Dox has limited access (such as the brain) (246).

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. The tetracycline-responsive regulatory system for transcriptional transactivation. A: the Tet-off system uses a plasmid expressing a fusion protein known as the tetracycline-controlled transactivator (tTA), composed of the wild-type repressor protein (tetR; box with gray spots) and the VP16 activation domain of herpes simplex virus (black box). tTA binds to the tetracycline response element (TRE) and activates transcription of the target gene in the absence of the inducer, doxycyclin (Dox). B: the Tet-on system uses a regulator plasmid expressing a fusion protein (rtTA) composed of an "altered" TetR, the reverse TetR (rTetR; box with gray stripes), and the VP16 activation domain of herpes simplex virus (black box). rtTA binds to the TRE and activates transcription of the target gene in the presence of Dox.
|
|
Another transcriptional transactivation system is the Gal4-based system, from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The transcriptional activator Gal4 directs the expression of responsive genes by binding to upstream activating sequences (UAS), such that UAS-linked target genes can be activated (174). The system can be made inducible if Gal4 is linked to ligand binding domain of progesterone receptor and VP16 activator (GLVP). GLVP can be activated by binding to synthetic steroids, such as RU-486 or ZK-98.734. However, the use of the GLVP system has generally been limited to controlling gene expression in adult mice (183, 260261), as the synthetic steroids have been shown to induce abortions.
2.1.3.2) site-specific dna recombination.
The most widely used site-specific DNA recombination system uses the Cre recombinase from bacteriophage P1, and more recently the Flp recombinase from S. cerevisiae has begun to show utility (discussed in more detail in Section 2.2). By using gene targeting techniques to produce mice with modified endogenous genes that can be acted on by Cre or Flp recombinases expressed under the control of tissue-specific promoters, site-specific recombination can be used to inactivate endogenous genes in a spatially controlled manner. Cre/Flp activity can also be controlled temporally by 1) delivering cre/FLP-encoding transgenes in viral vectors, 2) administering exogenous steroids to mice that carry a chimeric transgene consisting of the cre gene fused to a mutated ligand-binding domain, 3) using transcriptional transactivation to control cre/FLP expression, and 4) using soluble Cre. There are numerous examples of conditional mice that have been generated using the loxP/Cre recombinase system (19b).
2.1.4) Generating "knock-in" mice.
Knock-in experiments are used to place a transgene, such as a cDNA or a reporter construct contained in a targeting vector, under the transcriptional control of an endogenous gene. For example, the endogenous gene may be replaced with a homolog (to assess whether members of the same gene family have similar functions when expressed in the same spatial/temporal pattern); human cyclin E has been knocked into the murine cyclin D1 gene (which rescues all phenotypic manifestations of cyclin D1 deficiency and restores normal development in cyclin D1-dependent tissues) (67), and murine Otx1 has been knocked into the murine Otx2 locus (to demonstrate the functional equivalency between Otx2 and Otx1 in development of the rostral head) (236). The most widely used knock-in strategy is the replacement of a gene by a reporter gene such as LacZ or GFP, to monitor expression pattern of the gene during development and in the adult mouse, both in a spatial and temporal manner. For example, LacZ has been knocked into the Pax3 locus (to examine the role of Pax3 in the neuroepithelium and somites) (143). A knock-in allele usually results in the loss-of-function of the endogenous gene.
Although the early knock-in studies in mouse ES cells utilized the double replacement technique (Section 2.1.2) (69, 228), more recent knock-in experiments have been performed using conventional gene targeting approaches (Fig. 6A), often in combination with the Cre-loxP system to remove the selection cassette (detailed in Section 2.2; Fig. 6B) (76). As shown in Fig. 6, such knock-in vectors are essentially replacement targeting vectors containing the transgene and a positive selectable marker and are designed such that after homologous recombination, the transgene is transcriptionally regulated by the endogenous promoter of the locus. This method is based on the production of a fusion protein between the endogenous and knocked in products. However, if a fusion product is undesirable (such as in the case of secreted proteins), then 1) the transgene can be knocked into the untranslated region upstream of the endogenous translational start site (although splicing may occur around the inserted transgene) or 2) an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) element (181) can be used to generate a bicistronic mRNA [the encephalomyocarditis virus IRES is most commonly used in mammalian cells (110)] (113).

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. Knock-in strategies. A: knock-in of a transgene into the target locus in-frame with the target. The knock-in vector (black line) contains the transgene, polyadenylation signal (pA), a positive selection cassette (+), and DNA (green line; exons shown as boxes) that has homology to the target locus (gray line; exons shown as boxes). Using this vector, the transgene must be inserted in-frame with the upstream exon. B: knock-in of a transgene using a splice acceptor sequence and floxed selection cassette. The knock-in vector (black line) contains the splice acceptor signal (SA), transgene, polyadenylation signal (pA), a positive selection cassette (+) flanked by two loxP sites (black triangles), and DNA (green line; exons shown as boxes) that has homology to the target locus (gray line; exons shown as boxes). The use of a splice acceptor allows the transgene to be in-frame with the target locus irrespective of where it integrates within the locus. The use of loxP sites to flank ("flox") the selection cassette allows for excision of the cassette from the locus upon exposure to Cre recombinase. X represents recombination between the vector and the genome.
|
|
2.1.5) Generating mosaic mice.
As discussed above, the most widely used analysis of gene function in mice is through the generation of a null allele, which allows the generation of mice homozygous for the desired mutation. However, it is important to note that such a strategy can only be used to assess the earliest function of the gene, as mutational loss of a gene essential for embryogenesis can cause lethality and hence prevent examination of its role in adult mice. To overcome this limitation, conditional mice (see Section 2.1.3) or mosaic mice can be generated. Mosaics are individuals containing cells of more than one genotype. This allows for the generation of mice containing mutant homozygous cells (which would be lethal in a homozygous mouse) on an otherwise heterozygous background (i.e., the genetic composition of the vast majority of cells in the mouse is heterozygous; hence, the animal is viable). Conversely, mosaic mice have been used to study the function of c-src in osteoclasts and other cell types; Src-deficient mice (src-/-) crossed with transgenic mice expressing src under the control of tartrate resistant acid phosphatase promoter (a gene highly expressed in osteoclasts) allowed the generation of src-/- mice that express Src in osteoclasts, thereby allowing the analysis of Src function in other tissues in mice free from the morbidity of osteopetrosis (211).
Genetic mosaics can be generated when mitotic recombination between homologous chromosomes occurs during the G2 phase of the cell cycle and the recombinant chromatids segregate to different daughter cells (X segregation). Recombinant chromatids produced in G2 can also segregate to the same daughter cell, and the nonrecombinant chromatids to the other daughter cell (Z segregation). It is X segregation that is useful for genetic mosaic analysis, because it produces clones of homozygous mutant daughter cells from heterozygous mothers (whereas Z segregation produces daughter cells that are phenotypically indistinguishable from the parent cell or from cells produced by G1 recombination).
There are numerous approaches to generate mosaics in mice (see Fig. 7). The most common is the use of site-specific Cre/loxP technology (described in Section 2.2) in a conditional knockout strategy, in which mosaics are generated in specific tissues by the activity of Cre on a loxP-flanked allele (Fig. 7A) (74). Alternatively, homozygous mutant ES cells can be produced in culture, and these can be used to generate chimeras. For example, direct selection of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events in neo cassette-containing ES cells can be achieved using high concentrations of G418 (which causes chromosomal nondisjunction followed by reduplication of the remaining chromosome; Fig. 7B) (154). The mechanism that duplicates the targeted neo cassette (thereby providing enhanced G418 resistance) also allows mutations on the same chromosome to become homozygous. Homozygous clones can also be generated by repetitive neo targeting, followed by puro targeting of the second allele. Another strategy (Fig. 7C), based on the principles of the Flp-FRT site-specific recombination system in Drosophila (22), uses the spatial and temporal regulation of Cre expression, which can be used to trigger mitotic recombination (with recombination rates of 10-410-2 in ES cells transiently transfected with Cre) (134). Alternatively, Blooms mice can be used, as they possess a genetic background that displays increased rates of mitotic recombination (Fig. 7D). Blooms mice (Blm-/-) are deficient in the RecQ DNA helicase/Blm protein (140), analogous to the human condition, Blooms syndrome [a rare cancer-prone disorder in which the cells of affected persons have a high frequency of somatic mutation and genomic instability due to high frequency of sister chromatid exchange (68)]. Blooms mice and ES cells exhibit greatly elevated rates of mitotic recombination, allowing homozygous mutant daughter cells to be generated from heterozygous mothers both in vitro and in vivo. The rate of mitotic recombination in Blm-deficient cells is sufficient to enable homozygous mutant clones to be recovered for any gene, regardless of its location in the genome (140).

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7. Mechanisms for generating mosaics in vitro and in vivo. A: mosaics can be generated by the use of Cre/loxP technology in a conditional knockout strategy, in which mosaics are generated in vivo in specific tissues by the activity of Cre on a loxP-flanked allele. B: mosaics can be generated in vitro by using neomycin resistance cassette (neo)-containing embryonic stem (ES) cells that have been selected under high concentrations of G418. Homozygous mutant ES cells can result by direct selection of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events (causing chromosomal nondisjunction followed by reduplication of the remaining chromosome). These mutant ES cells can then be used to generate chimeras (which will possess homozygous mutant cells on a heterozygous background). C: the regulated expression of Cre recombinase can be used to induce mitotic recombination, during which time X segregation of the chromosomes can lead to the generation of mosaics in vitro. D: similarly, Blooms mice can be used to generate mosaics in vitro, as they possess a genetic background that displays increased rates of mitotic recombination.
|
|
2.2) Site-Specific Recombination
2.2.1) Recombinases: Cre and Flp.
The simplest site-specific recombination systems are those composed of a recombinase enzyme and its target sequence. These systems allow for the deletion, insertion, inversion, or translocation of specific regions of DNA. Two such recombinase systems (both members of the
-integrase superfamily) include the Cre-loxP system from the bacteriophage P1 and the Flp-FRT system from the budding yeast S. cerevisiae. Both Cre and Flp cleave DNA at a distinct target sequence (Fig. 8A) and ligate it to the cleaved DNA of a second identical site, to generate a contiguous strand. The orientation of these target sites relative to each other directs the type of modification catalyzed by the recombinase (detailed in Fig. 8B). When compared with one another, Cre appears more effective in recombining a transgene array in vitro and in vivo than Flp (198). However, mutated versions of Flp, such as the temperature-sensitive FlpL (30) and the enhanced Flp (Flpe) (31), show improved activity over wild-type Flp. Indeed, the generation of high-efficiency Flpe deleter mice [the ROSA26 locus was targeted to create a mouse strain with generalized expression of FLPe, termed the FLPeR ("flipper") strain (56)] show that Flpe is an alternative to Cre-loxP (199). In general, Cre and Flpe are used in situations requiring high-efficiency recombination (3031, 56, 245); Flp and FlpL are used when tight regulation is needed (255). Currently, the most widely used site-specific DNA recombinase system in both ES cells and mice is the Cre-loxP system.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8. A: recombinase target sites. Target sites contain inverted 13-bp symmetry elements (indicated by the bold arrows) flanking an 8-bp A:T-rich nonpalindromic core (indicated by the open arrow). One recombinase monomer binds each symmetry element, while the core sequence provides the site of strand cleavage, exchange, and ligation. The asymmetry of the core region (open arrow) imparts directionality on the reaction, such that directly orientated sites lead to excision of the intervening DNA, and inverted sites cause inversion of the intervening DNA (see B for more details). A-a: the target site recognized by Cre recombinase (causes recombination) is called loxP ["locus of crossover (x) in P1"]. A-b: the Flp recognition target sequence is designated FRT. B: recombinase reactions catalyzed by Cre recombinase. B-a: a cis recombination event between two loxP sites (triangles) in the same orientation will led to the excision of the flanked DNA sequence (green, red, yellow, and gray boxes). B-b: if loxP sites are orientated in opposite directions, then the loxP-flanking sequence will be inverted. B-c and B-d: recombination between two loxP sites in trans will lead to the reciprocal exchange of the regions that flank the loxP sites. The arrows between recombinase substrates and products indicate the reversible nature of reach reaction.
|
|
2.2.2) Cre: advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of the Cre recombinase system include its 1) simplicity (no cofactors required), 2) fidelity (recombination is carried out such that there is no loss or gain of nucleotides), 3) small 34-bp target site (which does not perturb the surrounding genes when positioned in chromosomal DNA), and 4) broad utility (acting on supercoiled, relaxed, or linear DNA substrates; functioning over large megabase distances; and functional in a wide range of cell types) (reviewed in Refs. 53, 163). Moreover, Cre functions in the mammalian germ line, such that it can be used to generate transmissible modifications of loxP-flanked ("floxed") DNA sequences (e.g., selection marker and/or essential gene segment). However, the disadvantages of Cre include recombination of DNA sequences naturally occurring in yeast and mammalian genomes, via "cryptic" loxP-like sites in vitro. Reports are also emerging that Cre recombinase can cause chromosomal rearrangements/aberrations and increased number of sister chromatid exchanges when expressed at very high levels (137, 210, 220), most likely by way of pseudo-loxP sites. High level of Cre expression has also been shown to reduce cell proliferation in mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) (48, 137, 220) and is speculated to be involved in causing cell-cycle arrest (1).
2.2.3) Systems for delivery of Cre in vitro and in vivo.
The methods used to introduce Cre into ES cells are numerous. The usual in vitro introduction method for transient expression or stable integration is calcium precipitation or electroporation [which can reach as high as 70% efficiency (163)]. Alternative methods of delivery include infection of ES cells with a recombinant Cre adenovirus (2, 5, 259). Adenoviral transfection of Cre results in transient Cre expression, but mosaic mice can be produced, which transmit the targeted allele to their offspring with high frequency (106). The method of introduction of Cre in vivo depends heavily upon the specific application. The simplest solution to achieve overall excision in the developing embryo is crossing of the floxed mice with transgenic mice carrying the Cre recombinase gene (a general Cre expresser transgenic line) (119, 206). Another variation of this approach is pronuclear injection of a Cre expression vector [with the resultant transient Cre expression inducing recombination during preimplantation development (8)] or injecting Cre RNA or protein.
2.2.4) Temporal- and tissue-specific expression of Cre.
As discussed above (Section 2.1.3), the Cre recombinase system can be used to conditionally activate ("gain-of-function") or inactivate ("loss-of-function") gene expression in a temporal-, spatial-, or tissue-specific manner, to allow for a more accurate mouse model of human disease and cancer initiation and progression. To create spatiotemporally controlled somatic mutations in the mouse, chemically inducible forms of Cre have also been used, such as Cre-ERT and Cre-ERT2, in which the ligand-binding domain of a mutated human estrogen receptor (ERT), which recognizes tamoxifen or its derivative 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT), has been added to Cre (29, 59, 65, 90). Accordingly, Cre-mediated recombination is 4-OHT dependent in mice bearing a CreT transgene. This approach has been used to selectively ablate expression of the retinoid X receptor-
(RXR
) in adult mouse keratinocytes, by putting expression of these recombinases under control of the bovine keratin-5 promoter (126). A mouse strain expressing Cre-ERT from the ubiquitously expressed ROSA26 locus has also been generated (256).
The main methodology for tissue-specific Cre-mediated excision is the use of established transgenic lines expressing Cre under the control of a promoter with the required specificity. For example, to create a mouse model for BRCA2-associated breast cancer [as inheritance of one defective BRCA2 allele predisposes humans to breast cancer (reviewed in Ref. 213)], mice conditional for the tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) Brca2 (floxed at exon 11) and/or p53 (floxed at exons 210) were mated with mice expressing Cre under control of the epithelial-specific K14 promoter; although no tumors arose in mice carrying conditional Brca2 alleles alone, mammary and skin tumors developed in females carrying conditional Brca2 and p53 alleles, showing that inactivation of both Brca2 and p53 combine to mediate mammary tumorigenesis (96). There are numerous more examples of the use of Cre-expressing mice (19a). In addition, a voluntary database of Cre-expressing mice has been established (see http://www.mshri.on.ca/nagy).
However, a stumbling block is simply the limited number of existing transgenic mouse lines that express recombinase in the appropriate cell type. To address this issue, recombinant Cre fusion proteins bearing hydrophobic peptides from the Kaposi fibroblast growth factor (FGF-4) (94) or basic peptides derived from HIV-TAT (98, 180) have been produced to promote cellular uptake of recombinant Cre. Recombination has been observed in a variety of cultured cell types and in specific tissues examined in mice following intraperitoneal administration. This new cell-permeable form of Cre will likely open up new opportunities for genetically manipulating cells both in vitro and in vivo (40).
In certain applications, the retroviral or adenoviral delivery systems have been used. For example, after intranasally administered adenoviral Cre, mice expressing a mutated K-ras oncogene gene placed downstream of a floxed transcriptional termination stop element developed lung tumors by 216 wk of age (due to Cre-mediated removal of the floxed stop element, and hence expression of the mutant K-ras) (95). An alternative is the combination of avian retrovirus with the TVA (EnvA receptor) delivery system, which provides the possibility of viral delivery of Cre in a tissue- or cell-specific manner, as there is a requirement for the expression of a special avian receptor (tv-a) in the mouse cells from a cell-type-specific transgene to make these cells susceptible to infection (85). More recently, an adeno-associated virus [used to transfer foreign genes into the adult and neonatal central nervous system in animals (23, 136, 146)] expressing Cre recombinase has been shown to mediate extensive in vivo recombination in neural cells of defined brain regions in the mouse (108).
2.3) Chromosome Engineering
2.3.1) Chromosomal rearrangements.
A large array of mice containing chromosomal rearrangements (deletions, inversion, duplications, and translocations) have been generated by exposure to chemical mutagens [cyclophosphamide, ethylene oxide, chlorambucil, and N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)] or radiation (X-rays) (47, 124, 192, 205, 234, 237). However, although these mutagens have generated some valuable mouse models for human diseases, such as the mouse model of trisomy 21 (47, 192), their usefulness for inducing rearrangements is limited by the fact that the endpoints of the induced rearrangements cannot be predetermined (see SECTION 3, below, for details on mutagenesis strategies). To this end, gene targeting-based strategies have been developed to introduce defined chromosomal rearrangements into the mouse genome by engineering them in ES cells using the Cre/loxP site-specific recombination system. This technology, known as "chromosome engineering," has successfully generated numerous mouse models that accurately recapitulate human chromosomal rearrangements, such as the chromosomal deletion within band 22q11 (del22q11) causing DiGeorge syndrome (130131), the paternal deficiency of chromosome 15q11-q13 causing Prader-Willi syndrome (244), the translocation between chromosomes 8 and 21 [t(8;21)] found in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (32), and the reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 11 [t(9;11)(p22;q23)] associated with acute leukemia (42).
2.3.2) Chromosome engineering technology.
2.3.2.1) selection of endpoints.
Generating chromosomal rearrangements in the mouse involves the sequential insertion of two targeting vectors into two separate loci in the ES cell genome. Thus an important decision is to define the two endpoints of the rearrangement. Endpoints can be chosen at any genomic region. For example, SSLP microsatellite markers make useful endpoints as they have been genetically mapped (see the Whitehead Institute STS Physical Map of the Mouse at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mouse/index). Numerous SSLP markers have been successfully used as the endpoints for engineering chromosomal deletions on mouse chromosome 11 (286). In addition, the high-resolution mapping information available for the mouse genome (see the MGSC Ensembl Mouse Genome Server at http://www.ensembl.org/Mus_musculus/) means that genes of known chromosomal location may also be used as endpoints. Genes used as endpoints have included the epidermal growth factor receptor (Egfr) gene (242), the amyloid precursor protein gene (125), the myeloperoxidase (MPO) gene (10), Wnt3, p53, and Hoxb9 (190, 286), p63 (149), and the HoxB cluster (148), to name a few.
2.3.2.2) generating the chromosomal rearrangement.
Once the endpoints have been selected, the first step involves the targeting of an insertion vector containing a loxP site, a positive selection cassette (e.g., neomycin), and one of two complementary, but nonfunctional, fragments of the Hprt gene into the desired locus (selected endpoint) of the ES cell genome (see Fig. 9A) (285). ES cell clones with a loxP site targeted to a first endpoint can be identified by positive selection and Southern blot analysis. The second step involves the targeting of a second insertion vector containing a loxP site, a different positive selection cassette (e.g., puromycin), and the complementary fragment of the Hprt gene into the second endpoint (see Fig. 9B). The generation of these targeting vectors is detailed below. The doubly targeted ES cell is then transiently transfected (electroporated) with a vector expressing Cre, which facilitates recombination between loxP sites such that the intervening DNA is deleted. Commonly used Cre-expression vectors include pOG231 (171), pTurboCre (GenBank accession no. AF334827), pCrePAC (238), and pBS185 (125). The type of chromosomal rearrangement derived from the double-targeted ES cells is determined by the loxP configuration (reviewed in Fig. 8B). As shown in Fig. 10A, loxP sites in the same orientation generate a chromosomal deletion (or duplication event; not shown). Alternatively, loxP sites in the opposite orientation generate a chromosomal inversion (Fig. 10B). The generation of chromosomal translocations is discussed below (in Section 2.3.4).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9. Gene targeting in ES cells. Insertional targeting vectors can be used to insert loxP sites, positive selectable markers, hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (Hprt) gene fragments, and coat-color markers to predetermined loci in the ES cell genome. The vector (black line) is linearized in the region of homology (green line) to stimulate targeted insertion into the locus (gray line). A: the 5'-Hprt vector contains the neomycin selectable marker (N; yellow box), the 5' end of the Hprt minigene, a loxP site (black triangle), and the Tyrosinase minigene (Ty; red box) coat-color marker. B: the 3'-Hprt vector contains the puromycin selectable marker (P; yellow box), the 3' end of the Hprt minigene, a loxP site (black triangle), and the K14-Agouti transgene (Ag; red box) coat-color marker. The Hprt gene is divided into two complementary, but nonfunctional, fragments [5'-Hprt contains exons 12, and 3'-Hprt contains the remaining exons 39 (190)] that are each linked to a loxP site. Cre-mediated recombination unites the 5' and 3' cassettes and restores Hprt activity (which is required for purine biosynthesis), thereby allowing the desired recombination events to be selected for in HAT (hypoxanthine, aminopterin, and thymidine) medium.
|
|

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 10. Generation of defined chromosome rearrangements. The endpoints (red stars, X and Y) selected for the interval of genomic DNA to be rearranged are modified using two consecutive steps of gene targeting in the same ES cell. Both steps involve a positive selection scheme using the Hprt minigene to identify clones containing rearrangements induced by Cre recombinase. The first step involves targeting of a linearized insertion vector containing a loxP site (black triangle), a nonfunctional 5'-Hprt cassette, and a neomycin resistance cassette (N), to endpoint X. The second step involves targeting of a linearized insertion vector containing a loxP site, a nonfunctional 3'-Hprt cassette, and a puromycin resistance cassette (P), to endpoint Y. The final step uses Cre recombinase to catalyze site-specific recombination between the loxP sites. A: if the loxP sites are in the same orientation, then the intervening region is deleted. B: if the loxP sites are in the opposite direction, then a chromosomal inversion occurs. Cre-mediated recombination to unite the 5' and 3' cassettes restores Hprt activity, making the ES cells resistant to HAT-containing medium (HATr).
|
|
This Cre-mediated recombination event can be selected for in culture because a functional Hprt cassette is reconstituted, which confers resistance to the drug hypoxanthine-aminopterin-thymidine (HAT).3
Thus, using selection in HAT, Southern blot analysis, and fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis (FISH), ES cell clones carrying the desired chromosomal rearrangement can be identified. As with traditional gene targeting strategies shown in Fig. 1, these ES cells are injected into mouse blastocysts to generate chimeras, from which the progeny that carry the engineered chromosomes are derived.
2.3.2.3) generation of gene targeting vectors for chromosome engineering.
Gene targeting vectors, such as those shown in Fig. 9, can be generated in the conventional way by sequentially inserting various genetic components into a plasmid construct (133, 190). However, the "two library" system (285) greatly reduces the number of cloning steps required for generating gene targeting vectors. This system is composed of two complementary libraries of pre-made gene targeting insertion vectors. The 5'-Hprt library was generated by cloning a genomic library into a vector backbone that contained the 5'-Hprt cassette, a loxP site, and neomycin (PGKneobpA) as a positive selectable marker. The complementary 3'-Hprt library was generated by cloning a genomic library into a vector backbone that contained the 3'-Hprt cassette, a loxP site, and puromycin (PGKpurobpA) as a positive selectable marker. In addition, both of these libraries are equipped with genes encoding visible coat color markers. The tyrosinase minigene (Ty) has been used to "tag" transgenes with a visible pigment marker in albino mice (176, 275), and the K14-Agouti transgene (Ag) uses the keratin-14 promoter to constitutively express agouti (114). Mice carrying the Ty transgene have a grayish coat on an otherwise albino background, and the Ag confers a "butterscotch" coat color in black agouti or non-agouti mice (285).
To make a defined rearrangement between any two desired loci, clones for each endpoint are first isolated from the appropriate library. Linearization of the construct within the genomic insert generates a gene targeting insertion vector that integrates at the target locus. Targeting can be assessed by Southern blot analysis using a DNA fragment that was removed from the genomic insert before gene targeting, by an external probe, or by PCR amplification using primers specific for the gap and vector. An additional feature of this gene targeting library system is that clones isolated from these libraries can also be used for analyzing single gene function via the knockout (null allele) approach, as demonstrated by targeted disruption of the p63 locus (149).
2.3.3) Chromosomal deletions.
2.3.3.1) uses for the engineering of chromosomal deletions.
The chromosomal engineering of deletions can be used to identify TSGs without prior knowledge of the gene function. For example, mice possessing a deletion encompassing a putative TSG should exhibit increased tumorigenesis, as they only possess a single copy of a TSG, and tumor-specific loss or inactivation of the remaining allele can be used to clone the causative gene. Chromosome engineering can also be used to generate mouse models of human microdeletion syndromes. For example, mice heterozygous for a 1.2-Mb deletion between Es2 and Ufd1l on mouse chromosome 16 show cardiovascular abnormalities resembling those found in DiGeorge syndrome patients (130). When these mice were crossed to a strain harboring a duplication of the same region, the mutant phenotype was functionally rescued, indicating that the defects seen in DiGeorge patients are due to haploinsufficiency (loss of one functional copy of a gene). Thus the potential embryonic lethality of a particular deletion can be functionally determined by assessing the ability of the duplicated allele to rescue the embryonic lethality of the deletion (as mice containing both the deleted and duplicated alleles are genetically balanced).
The major factor limiting the generation of deletions in ES cells is the size of the rearranged interval, with deletions >22 cM leading to ES cell lethality or severe growth disadvantage of the cells in culture (286). Although Cre/loxP recombination has been shown to occur over such large distances, clones can emerge from these experiments that have undergone a compensatory genetic change, such as a chromosomal duplication (286). X-ray- and UV-induced mutagenesis have also been successfully performed to generate deletion complexes in ES cells. Radiation-induced deletions can be localized and made selectable by targeting a vector that carries a negative selection cassette to a predetermined locus; for example, homologous recombination can be used to insert a herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (HSV-tk) gene into a specific locus, followed by irradiation and then selection for clones that have deleted the tk cassette (240, 276). In addition, deletion alleles in ES cells of several centimorgans have been successfully transmitted through the germ line (190, 276).
2.3.3.2) generation of nested chromosomal deletions.
An extension of the chromosome engineering strategy is the generation of nested chromosomal deletions, a series of variably sized, overlapping deletions surrounding a predetermined genomic locus. This strategy has been used to identify that haploinsufficiency of the Tbx1 gene contained within the 1.2-Mb deletion interval of DiGeorge mice was responsible for the aortic arch defects seen in these patients (131). Furthermore, if the genomic locations of the endpoints are known, then nested deletions can be extremely useful for mapping novel recessive mutations (278). However, to get around the task of having to generate targeting vectors for the nested endpoints, retroviral integration of a second loxP site and selection cassette can be used (235). More specifically, deletion complexes can be anchored to a predetermined location in the genome by targeting the 5'-Hprt-loxP cassette. The 3'-Hprt-loxP cassette is then randomly inserted into the ES cell genome by retrovirus-mediated integration, generating a library of ES cell clones with the same targeted endpoint and a collection of random endpoints (Fig. 11). This method has been used to generate nested deletions extending from a few kilobases to several megabases at the Hprt locus, also on chromosome 11 (235). Electroporation has also been used to randomly insert the second loxP site and selection cassette into the ES cell genome (122). However, insertion by electroporation increases the risk of genomic rearrangements occurring at the insertion site, and tandem repeats of a vector may be introduced into the insertion site (although these should be reduced to a single locus by the activity of Cre on a head-to-tail concentrate) (278). Endpoints generated by random insertion can be defined by cloning the genomic DNA that flanks the deletion endpoints and by mapping these junction fragments onto a physical map of the region. Nested deletions can also be efficiently generated by irradiation (116, 240, 276), although they require additional extensive characterization to define each deletion interval (278).

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 11. Nested chromosomal deletions induced with a retroviral vector. The first deletion endpoint is fixed by targeting the 5'-Hprt cassette, the neomycin resistance gene (N), and a loxP site (black triangle) to a predetermined locus. The second step involves the integration of the 3'-Hprt cassette, the puromycin resistance cassette (P), and a second loxP site into a random site in the ES cell genome, using a recombinant retroviral vector. Here is depicted G1 recombination events from retroviral orientations that result in nested deletions of the randomly targeted gene (the stars depict genetic markers within this gene). Cre catalyzes recombination between the loxP sites, resulting in the expression of the Hprt gene and hence survival in HAT medium, for ES cell clones carrying the recombinant chromosomes. The nested deletions can be identified from a pool of HAT-resistant clones on the basis of their sensitivity to G418 and puromycin. LTR, long terminal repeat.
|
|
2.3.4) Chromosomal translocations.
Chromosomal translocations are involved in the genesis of many types of human tumors, often as a result of the abnormal expression of cellular oncogenes or by creating novel fusion genes (152, 189). Although mouse models for several human leukemias have been established by tissue-specific expression of fusion proteins transgenes (138) and knock-in constructs expressing a fusion protein under the control of the appropriate endogenous promoter (44), they fail to recapitulate the situation found in human translocation-induced tumors. For example, in these mice the fusion gene is present from the inception of embryogenesis, whereas in humans the chromosomal translocation is believed to occur at later stages (172, 274). In addition, these mice possess only one fusion protein, whereas in balanced chromosomal translocations two fusion proteins are generated (186). Thus to accurately recapitulate chromosomal translocations found in human tumors, chromosome engineering is most effective (224, 249). Numerous mouse chromosomal translocations with predetermined breakpoints have been created using this strategy, including models of human leukemia-associated translocations such as t(8;21)(q22;q22) (32) and t(9;11)(p22;q23) (42).
Using the Cre-loxP system, chromosomal translocations are generated using the same techniques as for deletions, duplications and inversions (see Section 2.3.2), except the loxP sites, orientated in the same direction relative to their respective centromeres, are targeted to nonhomologous (different) chromosomes. If the loxP sites are in opposite directions, then recombination will result in acentric chromosomes (without a centromere) and dicentric chromosomes (containing two centromeres), which will be unable to survive. Thus, to prevent the generation of acentric and dicentric chromosomes, only pairs of genes with the same transcriptional orientations relative to their centromeres can be engineered to produce fusion proteins (278). To generate a fusion protein from a chromosomal translocation, the targeting vectors need to be designed to allow the two genes to be linked through their introns (with the loxP site embedded in the breakpoint), so RNA splicing will generate an in-frame fusion mRNA and protein (278). To induce the translocation, mice carrying both targeted endpoints can be crossed with transgenic mice expressing a tissue- and/or temporal-specific Cre. In addition, this strategy circumvents the problem of transmitting the translocation through the male germ line, as the presence of chromosomal translocations in male germ cells can cause infertility (141).
2.3.5) Balancer chromosomes.
A balancer chromosome is one containing an inverted region(s). Balancer chromosomes can be generated using chromosomal engineering technology, as chromosomal inversions can be generated in mouse ES cells by successive gene targeting of a loxP site to the two endpoints, followed by Cre-mediated recombination between the two loxP sites (Fig. 10B) (284). In addition, the inversion can be marked with a dominant marker (such as the dominant K14-Agouti coat-color gene) so that progeny carrying the balancer can be readily identified.
As inversions suppress crossing over during mitotic recombination (the genetic exchange of information between sister chromatids), balancer chromosomes are genetic reagents that can be used for stock maintenance (to maintain the integrity of mutagenized chromosomes). Balancer chromosomes can also be used for large-scale mutagenesis screens (see Section 3.1.2). For example, in intercrosses between siblings that have inherited the balancer chromosome and a mutagenized chromosome, absence of non-balancer-carrying progeny indicates the presence of one or more recessive lethal mutations on the mutagenized chromosome (284, 278). Indeed, the first mouse balancer chromosome was constructed on chromosome 11, to facilitate the isolation of ENU-induced recessive mutations on mouse chromosome 11 (http://www.mouse-genome.bcm.tmc.edu/ENU/ENUHome.asp) (284). This balancer chromosome is based on a 24-cM inversion between the Trp53 gene and the Wnt3 gene (in addition, a coat color marker, K14-Agouti, has been inserted into the mutated Wnt3 locus). Balancers will also be useful to facilitate analysis and maintenance of other types of knockouts.
2.3.6) Homologous recombination in E. coli.
To simplify the generation of knockout constructs, recombineering technologies have been developed. This form of DNA engineering utilizes methods based on homologous recombination in E. coli that enable large segments of genomic DNA in BACs or P1 artificial chromosomes (PACs) to be modified and subcloned, without the need for restriction enzymes or DNA ligase.
2.3.6.1) reca homologous recombination.
Several recombination pathways have been identified in E. coli, including the RecA pathway. A homologous recombination-based system allowing modification of BACs in recombination-deficient E. coli is the temperature-sensitive shuttle-vector-based system (75, 170). This temperature-sensitive plasmid replicates in cells growing at the permissive temperature (30°C) but is lost in cells growing at the restrictive temperature (4244°C) because its origin of replication cannot function (79). Introduction of the E. coli RecA gene into the temperature-sensitive shuttle vector allows the RecA- host E. coli strain containing the BAC to become competent to perform homologous recombination of the resident BAC in vivo (150, 272). Using this method, transgenic mice have been generated by pronuclear injection of the modified BAC, and germ-line transmission of the intact BAC obtained (272).
2.3.6.2) et recombination.
Another recombination pathway in E. coli is the RecBCD pathway involved in repairing double-strand breaks (225). RecBCD unwinds and degrades DNA to generate 3' single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) tails, which are used by RecA to initiate recombination. However, E. coli possessing wild-type RecBCD degrade the introduced linear DNA molecules before recombination has proceeded; therefore, to restore recombination activity, a suppressor mutation that activates expression of a nuclease that produces 3' overhangs may be used (117). RecBCD can be inactivated by 1) the sbcA mutation, which removes a repressor for the endogenous lamboid prophage, Rac, which in turn induces the expression of recE and recT [two Rac genes that encode homologous recombination functions (135)], or 2) the gam protein of
phage [in the presence of gam,
phage-encoded recombination function stimulates homologous recombination by the
red genes (156, 188)].
Engineering DNA by homologous recombination mechanisms involving the RecE/RecT and Red
/Redß proteins in E. coli is termed "ET recombination" (also known as Red recombination and lambda-mediated cloning). ET recombination was pioneered by Stewart and colleagues (280), who showed that a PCR-amplified fragment of linear dsDNA, flanked by short regions of homology (42 bp) to a plasmid or BAC can be efficiently targeted to a plasmid or BAC by electroporating the dsDNA into recBC sbcA strains (see http://www-db.embl-heidelberg.de/jss/servlet/de.embl.bk.wwwTools.GroupLeftEMBL/ExternalInfo/stewart/ETcloning-textonly.html) (280). As shown in Fig. 12, ET recombination involves two steps: first, the amplification of a fragment of DNA by PCR with flanking regions of homology, plus the introduction of phage recombination functions into a BAC-containing bacterial strain; and second, the transformation of the cassette into the bacterial cells that contain a BAC and recombinase functions (the bacterial cells generate a recombinant in vivo, and detection of the recombinant is done by selection, counter-selection, or by direct screening). ET recombination allows alterations such as point mutations, sequence insertions and/or deletions to be carried out at any position on a target DNA molecule and has greatly simplified the generation of transgenic and knockout constructs (reviewed in Refs. 43, 160).

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 12. Recombineering steps to generate a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) recombinant. The first step in recombineering is to amplify the cassette of interest (such as a selectable marker or reporter gene; gray box) by PCR, using primers containing 4050 bp of homology to the target site on the BAC (white box). The next step is to introduce phage recombination functions into a BAC-containing bacterial strain or introduce a BAC into a strain that carries recombination functions. The cassette can then be transformed into cells that contain the BAC and recombination functions, to allow generation of a recombinant clone [which are those containing the PCR-amplified DNA cassette inserted into the target gene (black box)]. Recombinants can be detected by selection, counterselection or by direct screening (colony hybridization).
|
|
Since its conception in 1998, many variations of phage-based E. coli homologous recombination (recombineering) systems have been developed (4, 121, 156, 158, 159, 161, 164, 277, 280, 281). Examples include the use of a temperature-dependent repressor that tightly controls prophage expression; recombination functions can thus be transiently supplied by shifting cultures to 42°C for 15 min (277). Another system, termed the univector plasmid-fusion system (UPS), uses Cre-lox site-specific recombination to catalyze plasmid fusion between the univector (a plasmid containing the gene of interest) and host vectors containing regulatory information (133). More recently, a new method termed "recombination cloning" (REC), uses as little as 80 bp of total sequence homology to screen for a specific gene from a genomic library (in plasmid or phage form) (282). The advances which REC has over existing recombineering technologies include: 1) improved vector design (
KO-1), 2) enhanced recombination using
red and gam (which together with recA show a 100-fold enhancement in recombination frequencies compared with those obtained using recBC mutants), and 3) the in vivo generation of recombination substrates (which also improves in the recombination efficiency) (282).
 |
3) MUTAGENESIS TECHNOLOGIES
|
---|
The low frequency at which spontaneous mouse mutants occur (5 x 10-6 per locus) makes them unfeasible for use in teasing out an entire genetic pathway (230). Furthermore, as spontaneous mutations may be caused by small base changes in coding sequences, retroviral insertions, or by other events such as deletions, it can be very hard to identify and characterize the molecular lesion. Many mouse mutagenesis strategies have therefore been developed, and each generates mutations of a different molecular nature and at varying frequencies.
3.1) Phenotype-Driven Mutagenesis
In gene targeting experiments, the gene is known at the beginning of the experiment, and a phenotype can sometimes be predicted. In contrast, phenotype-driven mutagenesis starts with a specific phenotype, and only at the end is the responsible gene identified. In phenotype-driven screens, the animal is exposed to a mutagen that acts randomly on the entire genome, and the resulting mutants are then subjected to a wide array of tests including those for blood chemistry, lipid profile, hematology, and for more obvious features such as physical deformities. A large number of animals are screened to identify individuals that display the specific phenotype of interest. Following the isolation of an animal with the desired trait, a candidate gene approach may be used to identify the mutated gene, which is confirmed to be heritable by test matings. There are several methodologies employed in phenotype-driven mutagenesis screens.
3.1.1) Irradiation.
X-rays induce mutations at a frequency of 1350 x 10-5 per locus and create chromosomal rearrangements ranging from simple deletions and inversions to complex translocations (35, 203, 230). Although X-ray mutagenesis causes chromosomal rearrangements, which can provide a molecular landmark for identifying the affected gene(s), several genes are often affected by these chromosomal rearrangements, and as a result it is difficult to dissect individual gene function.
3.1.2) Chemical mutagenesis.
3.1.2.1) enu-induced mutations.
ENU is the most potent mutagen in mice (204), with a mutagenesis frequency of 1.5 x 10-3 per locus (230). It is an alkylating agent that transfers its ethyl group to oxygen or nitrogen radicals in DNA, resulting in mispairing and base pair substitution if not repaired. In contrast to other chemical agents such as chlorambucil, which induces deletions, inversions, or translocations and often involves more than one gene (61, 205), ENU primarily produces point mutations (most commonly AT-to-TA transversions and AT-to-GC transitions) (187). ENU affects germ cells, particularly spermatogonial stem cells, and induces point mutations, leading to a wide range of missense, nonsense, and splice-site mutations (104). In addition to loss-of-function mutations, ENU mutagenesis can also result in gain-of-function mutations and hypomorphic alleles (179, 195196, 253).
3.1.2.2) enu mutagenesis strategies.
ENU mutagenesis is a powerful tool ("genetic reagent") for systematic analysis of the mouse genome (reviewed in Refs. 13, 104, 197). ENU mutagenesis in the mouse has been used to obtain multiallelic series of single genes at complex loci to further define function. For example, the five ENU-induced alleles of the quaking (qk) locus (qk11, qkkt1, qkk2, qkkt3/4, and qke5), each show different phenotypes, making them a valuable resource for fine structure/function studies (4546, 104, 217). ENU mutagenesis can also aid in dissecting biochemical or developmental pathways (24, 100102, 107, 195). ENU has also been used to generate new recessive mutations in a defined region of the mouse chromosome, such as saturation germ-line mutagenesis of the murine t region (216, 217).
3.1.2.3) genome-wide screens for dominant or recessive mutations.
A number of different strategies can be used in ENU-mutagenesis experiments to screen for phenotypically interesting mice, including genome-wide screens for dominant or recessive mutations, and sensitized screens (some examples are given in Table 2). Mutagenesis is initiated by injecting male mice with ENU, resulting in the generation of mutations in their spermatogonial stem cells. These mice then enter a latent period during which they are sterile as the gonads are repopulated with new mutant sperm. After recovery these mice are mated with wild-type females to produce a large number of F1 offspring. Each of the F1 animals carries a unique complement of altered alleles. The F1 animals are either examined directly (dominant screen) or enter various breeding regimes to generate recessive phenotypes. The heritability of a trait is confirmed by test breeding to ensure that it is dependent upon an ENU-induced genetic lesion.
Most of the ENU screens carried out in recent years have been dominant screens, due to the simplicity of the logistics of the mutagenesis and breeding protocols and the success in the recovery of mutants through this approach. However, dominant alleles are a unique type of mutation that covers the gamut from haploinsufficiency to neomorphs, and a dominant phenotype sometimes makes it difficult to relate the biological function of the mutated gene to its true physiological role. Furthermore, as many human genetic disorders are caused by recessive mutations, it is clear that dominant ENU screens will be unable to uncover all the important disease-causing genes. However, unlike dominant screens, recessive screens are very technically and logistically demanding. The genetic reagents generated by chromosomal engineering, such as deletions [see Section 2.3.2, above (Ref. 287)], can aid in mutation screening by exploiting the concept of segmental haploidy (197). For example, ENU-treated male mice (potentially carrying a recessive mutation) are mated to wild-type females to generate G1 males, who are then mated to females carrying deletions. The ENU-induced mutation can be identified in the second generation if it lies within the deletion interval. In addition, if the G1 males are mated to multiple females carrying contiguous deletions, then a large chromosomal region can be scanned for mutations (103). For regions of the genome where it is impossible to use deletions in region-specific screens because haploid insufficiency has a deleterious effect on cell liability or the fertility of the mice, balancer chromosomes (engineered inversions) can be used (see Section 2.3.5, above) (197). Balancer chromosomes carry both dominant and recessive markers, such that mice homozygous for the balancer will die, whereas heterozygous mice show visible characteristics such as coat coloration (284). When used in combination with chemically mutagenized mice, the balancer chromosome can be used to isolate and maintain a mutation, thus significantly reducing the time and effort involved in performing ENU screens (103, 104).
An interval of mouse chromosome 7 surrounding the albino (Tyr; c) locus, corresponding to a 6- to 11-cM Tyr deletion, has been the target of a large-scale ENU-induced mutagenesis screen (193, 194). A segment of chromosome 7, from a mutagenized genome bred from ENU-treated males, was made hemizygous opposite the deletion to allow for recognition and recovery of new recessive mutations that map within the albino deletion complex. This mutagenesis experiment has now been completed, the results of finalized complementation and deletion-mapping studies provide evidence for recovery of a total of 31 nonclustered mutations [including the 9 previously reported mutations (193)], representing 10 loci, and for allelic series of mutations, with differences in severity, at several loci (196). Another mutagenesis effort, designed to isolate recessive mutations of many phenotypic classes, is targeting mouse chromosome 11 (104). The goal of this effort is to saturate this chromosome with mutations to define gene function, then use linkage conservation between the mouse and human to predict gene function in the human. Two mutagenesis schemes have been undertaken, including a two-generation deletion pedigree (Fig. 13A) and a three-generation inversion pedigree (Fig. 13B). The deletion scheme can only be used for deletions (Df) whereby the heterozygous mouse (Df/-) is still viable. Although this limits the screen to certain regions, it allows mutations to be isolated in only two generations. In contrast, whereas the inversion scheme allows a larger portion of the chromosome to be screened for mutations, it requires three generations of breeding (103, 104).

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 13. N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)-induced mutagenesis screens for mouse chromosome 11 using chromosomal engineering technology. Using chromosomal engineering strategies (detailed in Section 2.3.2), the chromosomal deletions or inversions that are generated are tagged with a dominant yellow coat color marker, K14-Agouti (yellow). Both the deletion and inversion schemes utilize the dominant Rex (Re; indicated by the black chromosome) mutation on chromosome 11, which causes curly fur (gray). A: the deletion scheme. After regaining fertility, ENU-treated male mice are mated to homozygous Re/Re females. The Re mutation marks the nonmutagenized chromosome, with the caveat that recombination can occur between a new linked mutation and Re. G1 animals, heterozygous for ENU mutagenized chromosomes (red star) and Re are mated to mice hemizygous for a yellow-tagged deletion. The resulting classes of offspring can be readily identified: 1) the mutant class is yellow and straight-haired (yellow) and, if missing, indicates the likelihood of a lethal mutation; 2) the carrier class that is wild type (black) and can be used to recover any lethal mutations; 3) two curly-haired classes of mice (gray and brown) are uninformative and can be immediately discarded. B: the inversion scheme. The balancer chromosome contains an inversion that suppresses recombination over a reasonable interval, is marked with the dominant K14-Agouti transgene conferring yellow coat color, and is homozygous lethal due to disruption of one or more lethal genes at its endpoints. After regaining fertility, ENU-treated males are mated to females carrying the balancer chromosome (yellow). G1 animals that are yellow are mated with animals heterozygous for the balancer chromosome and Re (brown). Three classes of offspring can be identified in the second generation, and the fourth class, which is homozygous for the balancer chromosome, dies (yellow with two white arrows). The useful G2 animals are the yellow, straight-haired animals (yellow with one white arrow and one red star), which are brother-sister mated. The G3 offspring are easily classified as 1) the wild-type mutant class (black) and 2) a carrier class (yellow with one white arrow and one red star), which carries the balanced point mutation, making it useful for stock maintenance.
|
|
3.1.2.4) alternative screening strategies.
Obtaining mutants will not be possible for all genes, due to the redundancy of gene function and the wide range of compensatory mechanisms that exist in cellular pathways. This is important, as phenotype-based screens only allow for the identification of genes whose functions are not covered by redundancy (13). In an attempt to overcome this issue, "sensitized" screens can be performed, where "sensitization" occurs by changes in genetic background (such as the use of "modifiers") or environmental challenges (such as a salt challenge to detect susceptibility to hypertension). "Modifiers" are ENU-mutated mice that, when mated to a mouse carrying a dominant mutation with a specific phenotype, produce F1 offspring showing an increase or decrease (modification) in the severity of the phenotype. For example, Mom1 ("modifier of Min-1") mice (50), when mated to Min-1 mice [which carry a dominant mutation in the mouse homolog of the APC gene (155), responsible for intestinal adenoma formation in humans], produce offspring showing elevated levels of tumor formation. Another screening strategy is allele-specific screens, where ENU mutagenesis is used to produce point mutations in specific genes to generate additional alleles, and noncomplementation in compound heterozygotes is used as the screening endpoint (13). Point mutations leading to hypomorphic, hypermorphic, or neomorphic alleles can provide valuable information about the function of that gene [for an example, see the 5 ENU-induced alleles of the quaking (qk) locus mentioned above]. The generation of ENU-induced allelic series can be enhanced by using ES cells treated with an inhibitor of O6-alkylguanine-alkyltransferase [a DNA repair enzyme involved in removing various alkyl adducts from the O6 position of guanine bases (178)] prior to exposure to ENU, with the treated cells still retaining their germ-line competency (39).
3.1.2.5) generating resources for mutant mice.
Although ENU mutagenesis was pioneered nearly 25 years ago (204), only recently have major centers directed entire programs toward the purpose of generating hundreds of new ENU mouse mutants (see Table 2) (87, 167). Large amounts of phenotype data are accumulating on large numbers of these mutant mouse strains, creating the need for phenotype databases that can be linked with mapping and mutagenesis databases. The primary mouse database is the Mouse Genome Database housed at the Jackson Laboratory (http://www.informatics.jax.org), which includes a Mouse Locus Catalog describing existing mouse mutants and provides extensive mapping information on their locations. In addition, the International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR) has been developed (54) (http://www.jax.org/pub-cgi/imsrlist and http://imsr.har.mrc.ac.uk/), which simplifies the search for mutant mice. However, to provide a genetic resource to the scientific community, the mutant mice themselves must also be readily available. Many mutant stocks are available from commercial vendors and the Jackson Laboratory (plus several NIH-funded Mutant Mouse Resource Centers in various regions of the US). Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has a large collection of mouse stocks, most of which propagate mutations (single base-pair changes to rearrangements) induced by radiations or chemicals in various stages of male or female gametogenesis (http://bio.lsd.ornl.gov/mouse/). The European Mutant Mouse Archive (EMMA), with centers in Monteretondo (Roma, Italy), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS; Orleans, France), the Gulbenkian Institute (Lisbon, Portugal), and the Karolinska Institute (Huddings, Sweden) is a resource for the European efforts. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that, despite the important role played by each of these centers, chemical mutagenesis is equally suitable as a research tool for smaller laboratories. Smaller laboratories using chemical mutagenesis as a genetic approach to identify new genes involved in embryonic development include groups who screen for recessive, ENU-induced mutations that cause morphological abnormalities at midgestation (Kathryn Andersons group at the Sloan-Kettering Institute; http://www.ski.edu/project_summary.cfm?Lab=62&Project=161) and embryonic day 18.5 (David Beiers group at Brigham and Womens Hospital; http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/bbs/fac/beier.html).
3.1.3) Transposon-mediated mutagenesis.
Transposons are naturally occurring genetic elements that can move from one genomic locus to another. Transposons are flanked by terminal inverted repeats (IRs) that contain binding sites for the transposase, with transposition mediated by the transposase protein encoded by the transposon (118, 257). In contrast to large-scale ENU mutagenesis schemes where identification of the causative point mutation can be difficult and time-consuming, transposon-tagged mutagenesis has proven to be one of the most effective means in establishing a genotype-phenotype relationship in model organisms such as yeast (201, 251), C. elegans (184), Drosophila (6, 20, 268), and mice (in a few special situations) (3, 93, 169). The limited application of this approach in mice has primarily been due to the lack of an appropriate ("cut-and-paste" type) transposon.
The Tc1/mariner superfamily of transposons transpose by a "cut-and-paste" mechanism, whereby the transposase protein and the flanking IR sequences engage in a series of molecular events leading to excision of the element from its genomic locus and reintegration into a different locus (185). One such transposon system is Sleeping Beauty (SB), a synthetic transposable 1.6-kb element made from defective copies of an ancestral Tc1-like fish element (91), flanked by 250 bp terminal IRs and encoding a single protein, the Sleeping Beauty transposase, that catalyzes its transposition from one genomic loci to the next (reviewed in Ref. 92). Recently, SB has been shown to be capable of inserting foreign genes into the chromosomes of cultured mouse ES cells (139), as well as somatic integration of DNA into mouse chromosomes, resulting in long-term transgene expression in adult mice (273). Furthermore, the SB element, like many DNA transposons, has been shown to exhibit preferential integration (transposition) into linked loci (139). This is a useful feature for a mutagenic agent when used in combination with mice containing specific chromosomal deletions (segmental hemizygosity). Thus the SB element looks to be a promising basis for establishing a general transposon-tagged mutagenesis scheme in mice.
3.2) Gene-Trap Mutagenesis
Although ENU mutagenesis has many advantages (105), it provides no molecular landmarks with which to recover mutated genes. One mutagenesis system that does is gene trapping. Gene-trap vectors have evolved from enhancer-trap vectors, a molecular tool used to identify and characterize mammalian enhancer sequences from cell lines (263). Gene-trap mutagenesis is a technique that randomly generates loss-of-function mutations and reports the expression of many mouse genes (reviewed in Refs. 37, 230). Gene-trap strategies in mouse ES cells are increasingly being used for detecting patterns of gene expression (26, 64, 72, 219, 222, 258, 270, 272), identifying targets of signaling molecules and transcription factors (222, 232), and isolating and mutating endogenous genes (83, 223, 279).
3.2.1) Vectors.
3.2.1.1) basic trapping vectors.
The basic types of trap vector are promoter-trap and gene-trap vectors (enhancer-trap also exist, but are rarely used). As shown in Fig. 14A, promoter-trap vectors contain a promoterless reporter gene and selectable marker (64, 191, 254). Reporter expression and mutagenesis occur when the vector inserts into an exon to generate a fusion transcript that comprises upstream endogenous exonic sequence and the reporter gene. Promoter-trap vectors generally contain a selectable marker for drug resistance or for ß-gal or GFP. Several trap vectors have also been developed that are fusion proteins; ß-geo, a fusion between neo and LacZ, is the best known of these reporters (64). One disadvantage of promoter trapping is that only genes that are transcriptionally active in ES cells can be selected (although this is at least 50% of all genes). As shown in Fig. 14B, gene-trap vectors are characterized by splice acceptors proceeded by a promoterless reporter gene and function by generating a fusion transcript with the upstream coding sequence and the reporter gene, to generate a null allele. The fusion transcript generated by the trapping of a gene serves as a template for 5'-RACE, allowing the trapped gene to be cloned (222). However, a disadvantage of gene-trap vectors is that because the insertion occurs in an intron, alternative splicing can take place, leading to lower levels of wild-type transcripts and resulting in hypomorphic alleles (145).

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 14. The basic trap vectors. The promoter- and gene-trap vectors depicted all contain a lacZ reporter gene (yellow boxes) and a neomycin resistance gene (green boxes) driven by an autonomous promoter and are shown trapping an endogenous gene (gray boxes). Integration of the trapping vectors into the ES cell genome will lead to neomycin selection whether the insertion has occurred intergenically or intragenically. A: the promoter-trap vector needs to be inserted into the coding sequence of the endogenous gene to activate transcription of lacZ. On activation of the endogenous gene, a fusion transcript and protein between the upstream endogenous gene sequence and lacZ will be generated. B: the gene-trap vector contains a splice acceptor site (light gray box, indicated by label) immediately upstream of a promoterless lacZ gene. Its integration in an intron leads to a fusion transcript being generated from the upstream exon of the endogenous gene and lacZ upon transcriptional activation of the endogenous gene.Neo, neomycin resistance cassette; ß-gal, ß-galactosidase; pA, polyadenylation signal.
|
|
3.2.1.2) specific trapping vectors.
It is potentially possible to mutate every gene in the mouse genome by a combination of trapping vectors to reduce any bias (55). However, the bottleneck in gene trapping is isolation of the trapped genes. These vectors have been further developed to provide a tagged site in the genome in the form of loxP site, so that cassettes can be reintroduced into the cell line at the trapping site by recombinase-mediated cassette exchange (RMCE) (60). These vectors are known as postinsertional modification vectors. By combining homologous recombination and gene-trapping strategies, there will be the possibility to modify the trap site. Several groups have included recombination sites (loxP, FRT) in their vectors, allowing recombinase-mediated, postinsertional modifications of the gene-trap locus (9, 78). For example, it is possible to use these vectors to knock-in a transgene into the trapped site to ablate or immortalize cells expressing the trapped gene using a diphtheria toxin cDNA or an SV40 T-antigen, respectively (28, 265).
To trap genes not expressed in undifferentiated ES cells, polyadenylation (poly-A)-trap vectors have been developed, in which a constitutive promoter drives the expression of a selectable marker (such as neomycin) that lacks a poly-A signal but contains a splice donor signal (166, 207, 279). Therefore, a spliced poly-A signal from an endogenous gene is needed to generate neomycin-resistant (Neor) clones; only gene insertions will generate Neor clones, whereas intergenic insertions will be lost.
A secretory-trap vector has been developed, taking advantage of protein sorting and the fact that ß-gal activity is abolished in the endoplasmic reticulum, to specifically trap genes that encode secreted and transmembrane proteins and are expressed in ES cells (223). Containing a transmembrane (TM) domain immediately downstream of a splice acceptor (SA) site, this vector, pGT1.8TM, is able to prevent the ß-gal fusion protein produced when a secretory gene is trapped from entering the endoplasmic reticulum. Thus secreted proteins can be identified based on their ß-gal activity (223). More recently, modified secretory-trap vectors, which generate a bicistronic message encoding the trapped ß-geo product and human placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP), which stains axonal projections, have been used to identify and mutate the receptors and ligands that control axon guidance (121), with the idea being that ß-gal and PLAP would stain both the cell body and axon, respectively, thus providing markers to study axon guidance and growth (121).
3.2.2) Method of delivery.
The most commonly used methods of delivery of the trapping vector into the ES cells are retroviral infection and electroporation. Although retroviruses are reported to have a propensity to insert themselves at the 5' end of genes [particularly in the first intron and 5' untranslated region (77, 111, 227, 252)], plasmid-based vectors (electroporated into ES cells) show a more random spectrum of integration (41). The preference for inserting at the 5' end of genes makes retroviral vectors more likely to produce a null allele (230). One advantage of retroviral vectors is that they are known to insert an intact single copy of the trapping vector into a locus, whereas plasmid vectors are often multiple copy insertions. Plus, the infection efficiency of viruses can be 100%, thereby reducing the number of cells needing to be transfected (271). Achieving saturation mutagenesis will most probably require the use of both strategies (230).
3.2.3) Large-scale trapping screens.
3.2.3.1) phenotypic screens.
The first application of gene trapping to isolate lethal mutations generated 24 strains; heterozygous intercrosses showed that 9 of the 24 strains carried embryonic-lethal mutations (64). More recently, phenotypic analysis of 60 mouse ES cell lines with secretory gene-trap insertions reported that one-third of the generated mouse strains had recessive lethal phenotypes, with five additional strains showing visible adult phenotypes (151). To date, >100 gene-trap insertions have been described in the literature, with 60% of the insertions showing an obvious phenotype and with 40% being recessive lethal mutations, making the frequency of recessive lethal mutations and obvious phenotypes generated by gene-trap mutagenesis close to that generated by gene targeted mutagenesis (230). Phenotypic screens of gene-trap strains have not really begun, but will probably replace ENU in the years to come.
3.2.3.2) expression screens.
The in vitro differentiation of ES cells has been used to study the effects of targeted mutations on the hematopoietic, vascular, myoblast, and other early lineages (99, 165, 215, 264). Expression trapping and induction trapping exploit this use of ES cells to identify and mutate genes that are expressed in specific cell lineages or that respond to specific signals. Expression-trap screens have been performed to identify and mutate genes that are expressed in hematopoietic (84, 157, 229) and endothelial lineages (229), cardiomyocytes (12), chondrocytes (12), and neurons (219). Induction screens have identified and mutated genes regulated by retinoic acid (63, 66, 112, 208, 145), engrailed homeobox proteins (142), and irradiation (248). In addition, many groups use reporter gene expression as a way to assess whether a specific developmental pathway has been disrupted (by their trapping) (232, 270). More recently, a new method for fast and efficient trapping of genes whose transcription is regulated by exogenous stimuli has been developed; composed of a promoterless retroviral vector transducing a green fluorescent protein-nitroreductase fusion protein (GFP-NR) downstream from a splice acceptor site (147). The GFP expression allows for flow cytometric identification and sorting of cells in which the trap is integrated downstream of an active promoter, whereas the NR allows pharmacological selection against constitutive GFP-NR expression (147).
3.2.3.3) genotypic screens.
Sequence-based (genotypic) screens have been the most recent type of gene-trap screen to emerge, largely because 5'-RACE has only recently become amenable to high-throughput analysis (243). Using poly-A gene trapping (which permits 3'-RACE to identify the trapped gene), >100,000 trapped insertions in ES cells have been deposited into "OmniBank" (a branch of Lexicon Genetics) (279). With the use of the OmniBank database, clones harboring an insertion in a particular gene can be identified, and mice derived from the trapped cell lines can be purchased (at a minimum cost of US $25,000).
3.2.3.4) public resources.
The current direction of gene-trap mutagenesis is similar to that of chemical mutagenesis: a combination of large-scale mutagenesis centers carrying out high-throughput screens to generate a worldwide mutant resource and smaller, investigator-driven focused screens. Details of established large-scale screens that possess frozen libraries of mutagenized ES cells are given in Table 3. Each of these laboratories is allowing full access to the libraries of frozen ES cell clones. In a recent international workshop on gene-trap mutagenesis, a consortium of insertional mutagenesis laboratories was formed in association with the International Mutant Mouse Consortium (162) to promote the accessibility of gene-trap resources (for more details see Ref. 230).
 |
4) CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
|
---|
As a model organism, the mouse has much to offer, not the least of which is the similarity of its genome to ours. In this review we have discussed the many techniques and technologies that can be used to modify this genome and highlight the great advance that the mouse genome sequence will afford mouse geneticists. In an era where biologists are asking the question "how is this gene involved in this disease" rather than "which gene is involved in this disease" the mouse is more than ever the organism able to provide the answers. While much mechanistic information can be learned from lower order organisms such as yeast and Drosophila, these lack the anatomy and physiology to be frontline tools for drug discovery. Nothing could reinforce this view more than the massive investments being made in mouse facilities and infrastructure by major pharmaceutical firms, despite turbulent times in biotechnology.
As the future for mouse genetics seems bright, it is prudent to comment on how the field will progress in the years ahead. The most dramatic change to mouse genetics will be the increase in phenotype-driven screens. It is not inconceivable to expect that this mode of inquiry will overtake gene-driven approaches in the next decade. At this point the bottleneck in these studies is our ability to identify the specific mutation causing the phenotype of interest. Recently developed methods for finding mutations in human cancers, involving heteroduplex analysis, are likely to be employed in finding mutations in mutant mouse strains, further accelerating progress. Within the next decade is likely that a catalog of mouse mutations will become available. It will be possible to order a mouse harboring a mutation in your gene of interest and thus circumvent the time-consuming process of developing a knockout line. Despite this, people will continue to perform gene targeting in mouse ES cells as they seek to examine the role of subtle mutations and regulatory elements such as enhancers. It will be an era when the pace of discovery will be fierce, and the rewards to humankind immense.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
---|
We thank all of those whose tireless efforts have provided valuable insights into the ever-burgeoning field of mouse genetics, and we apologize to those whose work was not cited.
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
---|
Article published online before print. See web site for date of publication (http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org).
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. Bradley, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambs CB10 1SA, UK (E-mail: abradley{at}sanger.ac.uk).
10.1152/physiolgenomics.00074.2002.
1 Alternatively, a single marker such as the Hprt minigene can be used, allowing for both positive and negative selection in the appropriate genetic background (228). 
2 Dox is the inducer of choice because of its low cost, commercial availability, and efficient activation/inactivation of rtTA/tTA at doses well below cytotoxic levels (16, 71). 
3 Only ES cell with an inactivated Hprt gene [such as the AB2.2 line (27)] can be used in these procedures because the Cre-loxP-mediated recombination event generates a functional Hprt minigene, which is used to select the ES cell clones that contain the desired rearrangement. 
 |
References
|
---|
- Adams DJ and van der Weyden L. Are we creating problems? Negative effects of Cre recombinase. Genesis 29: 115, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Akagi K, Sandig V, Vooijs M, Van der Valk M, Giovannini M, Strauss M, and Berns A. Cre-mediated somatic site-specific recombination in mice. Nucleic Acids Res 25: 17661773, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Allen JD and Berns A. Complementation tagging of cooperating oncogenes in knockout mice. Semin Cancer Biol 7: 299306, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Angrand PO, Daigle N, van der Hoeven F, Scholer HR, and Stewart AF. Simplified generation of targeting constructs using ET recombination. Nucleic Acids Res 27: e16, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Anton M and Graham FL. Site-specific recombination mediated by an adenovirus vector expressing the Cre recombinase protein: a molecular switch for control of gene expression. J Virol 69: 46004606, 1995.[Abstract]
- Arama E, Dickman D, Kimchie Z, Shearn A, and Lev Z. Mutations in the beta-propeller domain of the Drosophila brain tumor (brat) protein induce neoplasm in the larval brain. Oncogene 19: 37063716, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Askew GR, Doetschman T, and Lingrel JB. Site-directed point mutations in embryonic stem cells: a gene-targeting tag-and-exchange strategy. Mol Cell Biol 13: 41154124, 1993.[Abstract]
- Araki K, Araki M, Miyazaki J, and Vassalli P. Site-specific recombination of a transgene in fertilized eggs by transient expression of Cre recombinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 160164, 1995.[Abstract]
- Araki K, Imaizumi T, Sekimoto T, Yoshinobu K, Yoshimuta J, Akizuki M, Miura K, Araki M, Yamamura K. Exchangeable gene trap using the Cre/mutated lox system. Cell Mol Biol 45, 737750, 1999.
- Aratani Y, Koyama H, Nyui S, Suzuki K, Kura F, and Maeda N. Severe impairment in early host defense against Candida albicans in mice deficient in myeloperoxidase. Infect Immun 67: 18281836, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Avner P, Bruls T, Poras I, Eley L, Gas S, Ruiz P, Wiles MV, Sousa-Nunes R, Kettleborough R, Rana A, Morissette J, Bentley L, Goldsworthy M, Haynes A, Herbert E, Southam L, Lehrach H, Weissenbach J, Manenti G, Rodriguez-Tome P, Beddington R, Dunwoodie S, and Cox RD. A radiation hybrid transcript map of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 29: 194200, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Baker RK, Haendel MA, Swanson BJ, Shambaugh JC, Micales BK, and Lyons GE. In vitro preselection of gene-trapped embryonic stem cell clones for characterizing novel developmentally regulated genes in the mouse. Dev Biol 185: 201214, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Balling R. ENU mutagenesis: analyzing gene function in mice. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet 2: 463492, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Baron U, Freundlieb S, Gossen M, and Bujard H. Co-regulation of two gene activities by tetracycline via a bidirectional promoter. Nucleic Acids Res 23: 36053606, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Baron U, Schnappinger D, Helbl V, Gossen M, Hillen W, and Bujard H. Generation of conditional mutants in higher eukaryotes by switching between the expression of two genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 10131018, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Baron U and Bujard H. Tet repressor-based system for regulated gene expression in eukaryotic cells: principles and advances. Methods Enzymol 327: 401421, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Battey J, Jordan E, Cox D, and Dove W. An action plan for mouse genomics. Nat Genet 21: 7375, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Batzoglou S, Jaffe DB, Stanley K, Butler J, Gnerre S, Mauceli E, Berger B, Mesirov JP, and Lander ES. ARACHNE: a whole-genome shotgun assembler. Genome Res 12: 177189, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bedell MA, Largaespada DA, Jenkins NA, and Copeland NG. Mouse models of human disease. II. Recent progress and future directions. Genes Dev 11: 1143, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Behringer R and Magnuson T (Editors). Tissue specific expression of Cre recombinase in mice (Special Issue). In: Genesis. Wiley-Liss, 2000, vol. 26, issue 2. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/issuetoc?Type=DD&ID=70001850)
- Behringer R and Magnuson T (Editors). Conditional alleles in mice (Special Issue). In: Genesis. Wiley-Liss, 2002, vol. 32, issue 2. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/issuetoc?ID=90511963)
- Bellen HJ, OKane CJ, Wilson C, Grossniklaus U, Pearson RK, and Gehring WJ. P-element-mediated enhancer detection: a versatile method to study development in Drosophila. Genes Dev 3: 12881300, 1989.[Abstract]
- Berkovich I and Efrat S. Inducible and reversible ß-cell autoimmunity and hyperplasia in transgenic mice expressing a conditional oncogene. Diabetes 50: 22602267, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Beumer KJ, Pimpinelli S, and Golic KG. Induced chromosomal exchange directs the segregation of recombinant chromatids in mitosis of Drosophila. Genetics 150: 173188, 1998.[Free Full Text]
- Bjorklund A, Kirik D, Rosenblad C, Georgievska B, Lundberg C, and Mandel RJ. Towards a neuroprotective gene therapy for Parkinsons disease: use of adenovirus, AAV and lentivirus vectors for gene transfer of GDNF to the nigrostriatal system in the rat Parkinson model. Brain Res 886: 8298, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Bode VC. Ethylnitrosourea mutagenesis and the isolation of mutant alleles for specific genes located in the T region of mouse chromosome 17. Genetics 108: 457470, 1984.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bollag RJ and Liskay RM. Direct-repeat analysis of chromatid interactions during intrachromosomal recombination in mouse cells. Mol Cell Biol 11: 48394845, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
- Bonaldo P, Chowdhury K, Stoykova A, Torres M, and Gruss P. Efficient gene trap screening for novel developmental genes using IRES beta geo vector and in vitro preselection. Exp Cell Res 244: 125136, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Bradley A, Zheng B, and Liu P. Thirteen years of manipulating the mouse genome: a personal history. Int J Dev Biol 42: 94350, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Breitman ML, Clapoff S, Rossant J, Tsui LC, Glode LM, Maxwell IH, and Bernstein A. Genetic ablation: targeted expression of a toxin gene causes microphthalmia in transgenic mice. Science 238: 15631565, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
- Brocard J, Warot X, Wendling O, Messaddeq N, Vonesch JL, Chambon P, and Metzger D. Spatio-temporally controlled site-specific somatic mutagenesis in the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 1455914563, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Buchholz F, Ringrose L, Angrand PO, Rossi F, and Stewart AF. Different thermostabilities of FLP and Cre recombinases: implications for applied site-specific recombination. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 42564262, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Buchholz F, Angrand PO, and Stewart AF. Improved properties of FLP recombinase evolved by cycling mutagenesis. Nat Biotechnol 16: 657662, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Buchholz F, Refaeli Y, Trumpp A, and Bishop JM. Inducible chromosomal translocation of AML1 and ETO genes through Cre/loxP-mediated recombination in the mouse. EMBO Rep 1: 133139, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Cai WW, Chow CW, Damani S, Gregory SG, Marra M, and Bradley A. An SSLP marker-anchored BAC framework map of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 29: 133134, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Capecchi MR. Altering the genome by homologous recombination. Science 244: 12881292, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Cattanach BM, Burtenshaw MD, Rasberry C, and Evans EP. Large deletions and other gross forms of chromosome imbalance compatible with viability and fertility in the mouse. Nat Genet 3: 5661, 1993.[ISI][Medline]
- Cearley JA and Detloff PJ. Efficient repetitive alteration of the mouse Huntingtons disease gene by management of background in the tag and exchange gene targeting strategy. Transgenic Res 10: 479488, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Cecconi F and Meyer BI. Gene trap: a way to identify novel genes and unravel their biological function. FEBS Lett 480: 6371, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Cheah SS and Behringer RR. Contemporary gene targeting strategies for the novice. Mol Biotechnol 19: 297304, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Chen Y, Yee D, Dains K, Chatterjee A, Cavalcoli J, Schneider E, Om J, Woychik RP, and Magnuson T. Genotype-based screen for ENU-induced mutations in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 24: 314317, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Chen CM, and Behringer RR CREating breakthroughs. Nat Biotechnol 19: 921922, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Chowdhury K, Bonaldo P, Torres M, Stoykova A, and Gruss P. Evidence for the stochastic integration of gene trap vectors into the mouse germline. Nucleic Acids Res 25: 15311536, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Collins EC, Pannell R, Simpson EM, Forster A, and Rabbitts TH. Inter-chromosomal recombination of Mll and Af9 genes mediated by cre-loxP in mouse development. EMBO Rep 1: 127132, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, and Court DL. Recombineering: a powerful new tool for mouse functional genomics. Nat Rev Genet 2: 769779, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Corral J, Lavenir I, Impey H, Warren AJ, Forster A, Larson TA, Bell S, McKenzie AN, King G, and Rabbitts TH. An Mll-AF9 fusion gene made by homologous recombination causes acute leukemia in chimeric mice: a method to create fusion oncogenes. Cell 85: 853861, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Cox RD, Hugill A, Shedlovsky A, Noveroske JK, Best S, Justice MJ, Lehrach H, and Dove WF. Contrasting effects of ENU induced embryonic lethal mutations of the quaking gene. Genomics 57: 333341, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Davis AP and Justice MJ. Mouse alleles: if youve seen one, you havent seen them all. Trends Genet 14: 438441, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Davisson MT, Schmidt C, and Akeson EC. Segmental trisomy of murine chromosome 16: a new model system for studying Down syndrome. Prog Clin Biol Res 360: 263280, 1990.[Medline]
- de Alboran IM, OHagan RC, Gartner F, Malynn B, Davidson L, Rickert R, Rajewsky K, DePinho RA, and Alt FW. Analysis of C-MYC function in normal cells via conditional gene-targeted mutation. Immunity 14: 4555, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Dickinson P, Kimber WL, Kilanowski FM, Webb S, Stevenson BJ, Porteous DJ, and Dorin JR. Enhancing the efficiency of introducing precise mutations into the mouse genome by hit and run gene targeting. Transgenic Res 9: 5566, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Dietrich WF, Lander ES, Smith JS, Moser AR, Gould KA, Luongo C, Borenstein N, and Dove W. Genetic identification of Mom-1, a major modifier locus affecting Min-induced intestinal neoplasia in the mouse. Cell 75: 631639, 1993.[ISI][Medline]
- Dietrich WF, Miller J, Steen R, Merchant MA, Damron-Boles D, Husain Z, Dredge R, Daly MJ, Ingalls KA, OConnor TJ, Evans CA, DeAngelis MM, Levinson DM, Kruglyak L, Goodman N, Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, Hawkins TL, Stein L, Page DC, and Lander ES. A comprehensive genetic map of the mouse genome. Nature 380: 149152, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Doetschman T, Gregg RG, Maeda N, Hooper ML, Melton DW, Thompson S, and Smithies O. Targetted correction of a mutant HPRT gene in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature 330: 576578, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
- Dymecki SM. Site-specific recombination in cells and mice. In: Gene Targeting: a Practical Approach (2nd ed.), edited by Joyner AL. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, chapt. 2, p. 37100.
- Eppig JT and Strivens M. Finding a mouse: the International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR). Trends Genet 15: 8182, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Evans MJ. Gene trapping: a preface. Dev Dyn 212: 167169, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Farley FW, Soriano P, Steffen LS, and Dymecki SM. Widespread recombinase expression using FLPeR (flipper) mice. Genesis 28: 106110, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Favor J and Neuhäuser-Klaus A. Saturation mutagenesis for dominant eye morphological defects in the mouse Mus musculus. Mamm Genome 11: 520525, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Favor J and Neuhauser-Klaus A. Genetic mosaicism in the house mouse. Annu Rev Genet 28: 2747, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
- Feil R, Brocard J, Mascrez B, LeMeur M, Metzger D, and Chambon P. Ligand-activated site-specific recombination in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 1088710890, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Feng YQ, Seibler J, Alami R, Eisen A, Westerman KA, Leboulch P, Fiering S, and Bouhassira EE. Site-specific chromosomal integration in mammalian cells: highly efficient CRE recombinase-mediated cassette exchange. J Mol Biol 292: 779785, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Flaherty L, Messer A, Russell LB, and Rinchik EM. Chlorambucil-induced mutations in mice recovered in homozygotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 28592863, 1992.[Abstract]
- Flaherty L and Herron B. The new kid on the block: a whole genome mouse radiation hybrid panel. Mamm Genome 9: 417418, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Forrester LM, Nagy A, Sam M, Watt A, Stevenson L, Bernstein A, Joyner AL, and Wurst W. Induction gene trapping in ES cells: identification of developmentally regulated genes that respond to retinoic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 16771682, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Friedrich G and Soriano P. Promoter traps in embryonic stem cells: a genetic screen to identify and mutate developmental genes in mice. Genes Dev 5: 15131523, 1991.[Abstract]
- Fuhrmann-Benzakein E, Garcia-Gabay I, Pepper MS, Vassalli JD, and Herrera PL. Inducible and irreversible control of gene expression using a single transgene. Nucleic Acids Res 28: E99, 2000.[Medline]
- Gajovic S, Chowdhury K, and Gruss P. Genes expressed after retinoic acid-mediated differentiation of embryoid bodies are likely to be expressed during embryo development. Exp Cell Res 242: 138143, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Geng Y, Whoriskey W, Park MY, Bronson RT, Medema RH, Li T, Weinberg RA, and Sicinski P. Rescue of cyclin D1 deficiency by knockin cyclin E. Cell 97: 767777, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- German J. Bloom syndrome: a Mendelian prototype of somatic mutational disease. Medicine (Baltimore) 72: 393406, 1993.[ISI][Medline]
- Gondo Y, Nakamura K, Nakao K, Sasaoka T, Ito K, Kimura M, and Katsuki M. Gene replacement of the p53 gene with the lacZ gene in mouse embryonic stem cells and mice by using two steps of homologous recombination. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 202: 830837, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
- Gossen M and Bujard H. Tight control of gene expression in mammalian cells by tetracycline-responsive promoters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 55475551, 1992.[Abstract]
- Gossen M, Freundlieb S, Bender G, Muller G, Hillen W, and Bujard H. Transcriptional activation by tetracyclines in mammalian cells. Science 268: 17661769, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Gossler A, Joyner AL, Rossant J, and Skarnes WC. Mouse embryonic stem cells and reporter constructs to detect developmentally regulated genes. Science 244: 463465, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Gschwind M and Huber G. Introduction of hereditary disease-associated mutations into the beta-amyloid precursor protein gene of mouse embryonic stem cells: a comparison of homologous recombination methods. Mol Cell Biol 18: 46514658, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gu H, Marth JD, Orban PC, Mossmann H, and Rajewsky K. Deletion of a DNA polymerase beta gene segment in T cells using cell type-specific gene targeting. Science 265: 103106, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
- Hamilton CM, Aldea M, Washburn BK, Babitzke P, and Kushner SR. New method for generating deletions and gene replacements in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 171: 46174622, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Hanks M, Wurst W, Anson-Cartwright L, Auerbach AB, and Joyner AL. Rescue of the En-1 mutant phenotype by replacement of En-1 with En-2. Science 269: 679682, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Harbers K, Kuehn M, Delius H, and Jaenisch R. Insertion of retrovirus into the first intron of 1(I) collagen gene leads to embryonic lethal mutation in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81: 15041508, 1984.[Abstract]
- Hardouin N and Nagy A. Gene-trap-based target site for Cre-mediated transgenic insertion. Genesis 26: 245252, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Hashimoto-Gotoh T and Sekiguchi M. Mutations of temperature sensitivity in R plasmid pSC101. J Bacteriol 131: 405412, 1977.[ISI][Medline]
- Hasty P, Ramirez-Solis R, Krumlauf R, and Bradley A. Introduction of a subtle mutation into the Hox-2.6 locus in embryonic stem cells. Nature 350: 243246, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
- Hasty P, Rivera-Perez J, Chang C, and Bradley A. Target frequency and integration pattern for insertion and replacement vectors in embryonic stem cells. Mol Cell Biol 11: 45094517, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
- Hasty P, Abuin A, and Bradley A. Gene targeting, principles, and practice in mammalian cells. In: Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach (2nd ed.), edited by Joyner AL. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, chapt. 1, p. 135.
- Hicks GG, Shi EG, Li XM, Li CH, Pawlak M, and Ruley HE. Functional genomics in mice by tagged sequence mutagenesis. Nat Genet 16: 338344, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Hidaka M, Caruana G, Stanford WL, Sam M, Correll PH, and Bernstein A. Gene trapping of two novel genes, Hzf and Hhl, expressed in hematopoietic cells. Mech Dev 90: 315, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Holland EC, Hively WP, DePinho RA, and Varmus HE. A constitutively active epidermal growth factor receptor cooperates with disruption of G1 cell-cycle arrest pathways to induce glioma-like lesions in mice. Genes Dev 12: 36753685, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hrabe de Angelis M and Balling R. Large scale ENU screens in the mouse: genetics meets genomics. Mutat Res 400: 2532, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Hrabe de Angelis MH, Flaswinkel H, Fuchs H, Rathkolb B, Soewarto D, Marschall S, Heffner S, Pargent W, Wuensch K, Jung M, Reis A, Richter T, Alessandrini F, Jakob T, Fuchs E, Kolb H, Kremmer E, Schaeble K, Rollinski B, Roscher A, Peters C, Meitinger T, Strom T, Steckler T, Holsboer F, Klopstock T, Gekeler F, Schindewolf C, Jung T, Avraham K, Behrendt H, Ring J, Zimmer A, Schughart K, Pfeffer K, Wolf E, and Balling R. Genome-wide, large-scale production of mutant mice by ENU mutagenesis. Nat Genet 25: 444447, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Hudson TJ, Church DM, Greenaway S, Nguyen H, Cook A, Steen RG, Van Etten WJ, Castle AB, Strivens MA, Trickett P, Heuston C, Davison C, Southwell A, Hardisty R, Varela-Carver A, Haynes AR, Rodriguez-Tome P, Doi H, Ko MS, Pontius J, Schriml L, Wagner L, Maglott D, Brown SD, Lander ES, Schuler G, and Denny P. A radiation hybrid map of mouse genes. Nat Genet 29: 201205, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Hug BA, Wesselschmidt RL, Fiering S, Bender MA, Epner E, Groudine M, and Ley TJ. Analysis of mice containing a targeted deletion of beta-globin locus control region 5 hypersensitive site 3. Mol Cell Biol 16: 29062912, 1996.[Abstract]
- Indra AK, Warot X, Brocard J, Bornert JM, Xiao JH, Chambon P, and Metzger D. Temporally-controlled site-specific mutagenesis in the basal layer of the epidermis: comparison of the recombinase activity of the tamoxifen-inducible Cre-ER(T) and Cre-ER(T2) recombinases. Nucleic Acids Res 27: 43244327, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ivics Z, Hackett PB, Plasterk RH, and Izsvak Z. Molecular reconstruction of Sleeping Beauty, a Tc1-like transposon from fish, and its transposition in human cells. Cell 91: 501510, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Izsvak Z, Ivics Z, and Plasterk RH. Sleeping Beauty, a wide host-range transposon vector for genetic transformation in vertebrates. J Mol Biol 302: 93102, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Jenkins NA, Copeland NG, Taylor BA, and Lee BK. Dilute (d) coat colour mutation of DBA/2J mice is associated with the site of integration of an ecotropic MuLV genome. Nature 293: 370374, 1981.[ISI][Medline]
- Jo D, Nashabi A, Doxsee C, Lin Q, Unutmaz D, Chen J, and Ruley HE. Epigenetic regulation of gene structure and function with a cell-permeable Cre recombinase. Nat Biotechnol 19: 929933, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Johnson L, Mercer K, Greenbaum D, Bronson RT, Crowley D, Tuveson DA, and Jacks T. Somatic activation of the K-ras oncogene causes early onset lung cancer in mice. Nature 410: 11111116, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Jonkers J, Meuwissen R, van der Gulden H, Peterse H, van der Valk M, and Berns A. Synergistic tumor suppressor activity of BRCA2 and p53 in a conditional mouse model for breast cancer. Nat Genet 29: 418425, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Jonkers J and Berns A. Conditional mouse models of sporadic cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2: 251265, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Joshi SK, Hashimoto K, and Koni PA. Induced DNA recombination by Cre recombinase protein transduction. Genesis 33: 4854, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Joza N, Susin SA, Daugas E, Stanford WL, Cho SK, Li CY, Sasaki T, Elia AJ, Cheng HY, Ravagnan L, Ferri KF, Zamzami N, Wakeham A, Hakem R, Yoshida H, Kong YY, Mak TW, Zuniga-Pflucker JC, Kroemer G, and Penninger JM. Essential role of the mitochondrial apoptosis inducing factor in programmed cell death. Nature 410: 549554, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Justice MJ and Bode VC. ENU-induced allele of brachyury (Tkt1) exhibits a developmental lethal phenotype similar to the original brachyury (T) mutation. J Exp Zool 254: 286295, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
- Justice MJ and Bode VC. Induction of new mutations in a mouse t-haplotype using ethylnitrosourea mutagenesis. Genet Res 47: 187192, 1986.[ISI][Medline]
- Justice MJ and Bode VC. Three ENU-induced alleles of the murine quaking locusare recessive embryonic lethal mutations. Genet Res 51: 95102, 1988.[ISI][Medline]
- Justice MJ, Zheng B, Woychik RP, and Bradley A. Using targeted large deletions and high-efficiency N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea mutagenesis for functional analyses of the mammalian genome. Methods 13: 423436, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Justice MJ, Noveroske JK, Weber JS, Zheng B, and Bradley A. Mouse ENU mutagenesis. Hum Mol Genet 8: 19551963, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Justice MJ. Capitalizing on large-scale mouse mutagenesis screens. Nat Rev Genet 1: 109115, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Kaartinen V and Nagy A. Removal of the floxed neo gene from a conditional knockout allele by the adenoviral Cre recombinase in vivo. Genesis 31: 126129, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Kasarskis A, Manova K, and Anderson KV. A phenotype-based screen for embryonic lethal mutations in the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 74857490, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kaspar BK, Vissel B, Bengoechea T, Crone S, Randolph-Moore L, Muller R, Brandon EP, Schaffer D, Verma IM, Lee KF, Heinemann SF, and Gage FH. Adeno-associated virus effectively mediates conditional gene modification in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 23202325, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kawai J, Shinagawa A, Shibata K, Yoshino M, Itoh M, Ishii Y, Arakawa T, Hara A, Fukunishi Y, Konno H, Adachi J, Fukuda S, Aizawa K, Izawa M, Nishi K, Kiyosawa H, Kondo S, Yamanaka I, Saito T, Okazaki Y, Gojobori T, Bono H, Kasukawa T, Saito R, Kadota K, Matsuda HA, Ashburner M, Batalov S, Casavant T, Fleischmann W, Gaasterland T, Gissi C, King B, Kochiwa H, Kuehl P, Lewis S, Matsuo Y, Nikaido I, Pesole G, Quackenbush J, Schriml LM, Staubli F, Suzuki R, Tomita M, Wagner L, Washio T, Sakai K, Okido T, Furuno M, Aono H, Baldarelli R, Barsh G, Blake J, Boffelli D, Bojunga N, Carninci P, de Bonaldo MF, Brownstein MJ, Bult C, Fletcher C, Fujita M, Gariboldi M, Gustincich S, Hill D, Hofmann M, Hume DA, Kamiya M, Lee NH, Lyons P, Marchionni L, Mashima J, Mazzarelli J, Mombaerts P, Nordone P, Ring B, Ringwald M, Rodriguez I, Sakamoto N, Sasaki H, Sato K, Schonbach C, Seya T, Shibata Y, Storch KF, Suzuki H, Toyo-oka K, Wang KH, Weitz C, Whittaker C, Wilming L, Wynshaw-Boris A, Yoshida K, Hasegawa Y, Kawaji H, Kohtsuki S, and Hayashizaki Y. Functional annotation of a full-length mouse cDNA collection. Nature 409: 685690, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Kim DG, Kang HM, Jang SK, and Shin HS. Construction of a bifunctional mRNA in the mouse by using the internal ribosomal entry site of the encephalomyocarditis virus. Mol Cell Biol 12: 36363643, 1992.[Abstract]
- King W, Patel MD, Lobel LI, Goff SP, and Nguyen-Huu MC. Insertion mutagenesis of embryonal carcinoma cells by retroviruses. Science 228: 554558, 1985.[ISI][Medline]
- Komada M, McLean DJ, Griswold MD, Russell LD, and Soriano P. E-MAP-115, encoding a microtubule-associated protein, is a retinoic acid-inducible gene required for spermatogenesis. Genes Dev 14: 13321342, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kobayashi T, Kida Y, Kaneko T, Pastan I, and Kobayashi K. Efficient ablation by immunotoxin-mediated cell targeting of the cell types that express human interleukin-2 receptor depending on the internal ribosome entry site. J Gene Med 3: 505510, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Kucera GT, Bortner DM, and Rosenberg MP. Overexpression of an Agouti cDNA in the skin of transgenic mice recapitulates dominant coat color phenotypes of spontaneous mutants. Dev Biol 173: 162173, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Kuehn MR, Bradley A, Robertson EJ, and Evans MJ. A potential animal model for Lesch-Nyhan syndrome through introduction of HPRT mutations into mice. Nature 326: 295298, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
- Kushi A, Edamura K, Noguchi M, Akiyama K, Nishi Y, and Sasai H. Generation of mutant mice with large chromosomal deletion by use of irradiated ES cells: analysis of large deletion around hprt locus of ES cell. Mamm Genome 9: 269273, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Kushner SR, Nagaishi H, and Clark AJ. Isolation of exonuclease VIII: the enzyme associated with sbcA indirect suppressor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71: 35933597, 1974.[Abstract]
- Lampe DJ, Churchill ME, Robertson HM. A purified mariner transposase is sufficient to mediate transposition in vitro. EMBO J 15: 54705479, 1996.[Abstract]
- Lallemand Y, Luria V, Haffner-Krausz R, and Lonai P. Maternally expressed PGK-Cre transgene as a tool for early and uniform activation of the Cre site-specific recombinase. Transgenic Res 7: 105112, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Lavon I, Goldberg I, Amit S, Landsman L, Jung S, Tsuberi BZ, Barshack I, Kopolovic J, Galun E, Bujard H, Ben-Neriah Y. High susceptibility to bacterial infection, but no liver dysfunction, in mice compromised for hepatocyte NF-B activation. Nat Med 6: 573577, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Lee EC, Yu D, Martinez de Velasco J, Tessarollo L, Swing DA, Court DL, Jenkins NA, and Copeland NG. A highly efficient Escherichia coli-based chromosome engineering system adapted for recombinogenic targeting and subcloning of BAC DNA. Genomics 73: 5665, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Leighton PA, Mitchell KJ, Goodrich LV, Lu X, Pinson K, Scherz P, Skarnes WC, and Tessier-Lavigne M. Defining brain wiring patterns and mechanisms through gene trapping in mice. Nature 410: 174179, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- LePage DF, Church DM, Millie E, Hassold TJ, and Conlon RA. Rapid generation of nested chromosomal deletions on mouse chromosome 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 1047110476, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lewandoski M. Conditional control of gene expression in the mouse. Nat Rev Genet 2: 743755, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Lewis SE, Barnett LB, Akeson EC, and Davisson MT. A new dominant neurological mutant induced in the mouse by ethylene oxide. Mutat Res 229: 135139, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
- Li ZW, Stark G, Gotz J, Rulicke T, Gschwind M, Huber G, Muller U, and Weissmann C. Generation of mice with a 200-kb amyloid precursor protein gene deletion by Cre recombinase-mediated site-specific recombination in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 61586162, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Li M, Indra AK, Warot X, Brocard J, Messaddeq N, Kato S, Metzger D, and Chambon P. Skin abnormalities generated by temporally controlled RXR
mutations in mouse epidermis. Nature 407: 633636, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Lin FL, Sperle K, and Sternberg N. Recombination in mouse L cells between DNA introduced into cells and homologous chromosomal sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82: 13911395, 1985.[Abstract]
- Lindblad-Toh K, Winchester E, Daly MJ, Wang DG, Hirschhorn JN, Laviolette JP, Ardlie K, Reich DE, Robinson E, Sklar P, Shah N, Thomas D, Fan JB, Gingeras T, Warrington J, Patil N, Hudson TJ, and Lander ES. Large-scale discovery and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the mouse. Nat Genet 24: 381386, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Lindblad-Toh K, Lander ES, McPherson JD, Waterston RH, Rodgers J, and Birney E. Progress in sequencing the mouse genome. Genesis 31: 137141, 2001.[Medline]
- Lindsay EA, Botta A, Jurecic V, Carattini-Rivera S, Cheah YC, Rosenblatt HM, Bradley A, and Baldini A. Congenital heart disease in mice deficient for the DiGeorge syndrome region. Nature 401: 379383, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Lindsay EA, Vitelli F, Su H, Morishima M, Huynh T, Pramparo T, Jurecic V, Ogunrinu G, Sutherland HF, Scambler PJ, Bradley A, and Baldini A. Tbx1 haploinsufficiency in the DiGeorge syndrome region causes aortic arch defects in mice. Nature 410: 97101, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Liu P, Zhang H, McLellan A, Vogel H, and Bradley A. Embryonic lethality and tumorigenesis caused by segmental aneuploidy on mouse chromosome 11. Genetics 150: 11551168, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Liu Q, Li MZ, Leibham D, Cortez D, and Elledge SJ. The univector plasmid-fusion system, a method for rapid construction of recombinant DNA without restriction enzymes. Curr Biol 8: 13001309, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Liu P, Jenkins NA, and Copeland NG. Efficient Cre-loxP-induced mitotic recombination in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 30: 6672, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Lloyd RG. The segregation of the SbcA and Rac phenotypes in an Escherichia coli recB mutant. Mol Gen Genet 134: 249259, 1974.[ISI][Medline]
- Lo WD, Qu G, Sferra TJ, Clark R, Chen R, and Johnson PR. Adeno-associated virus-mediated gene transfer to the brain: duration and modulation of expression. Hum Gene Ther 10: 201213, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Loonstra A, Vooijs M, Beverloo HB, Allak BA, van Drunen E, Kanaar R, Berns A, and Jonkers J. Growth inhibition and DNA damage induced by Cre recombinase in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 92099214, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Look AT. Oncogenic transcription factors in the human acute leukemias. Science 278: 10591064, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Luo G, Ivics Z, Izsvak Z, and Bradley A. Chromosomal transposition of a Tc1/mariner-like element in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 1076910773, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Luo G, Santoro IM, McDaniel LD, Nishijima I, Mills M, Youssoufian H, Vogel H, Schultz RA, and Bradley A. Cancer predisposition caused by elevated mitotic recombination in Bloom mice. Nat Genet 26: 424429, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Lyon MF and Meredith R. Autosomal translocations causing male sterility and viable aneuploidy in the mouse. Cytogenetics 5: 335354, 1966.[ISI][Medline]
- Mainguy G, Montesinos ML, Lesaffre B, Zevnik B, Karasawa M, Kothary R, Wurst W, Prochiantz A, and Volovitch M. An induction gene trap for identifying a homeoprotein-regulated locus. Nat Biotechnol 18: 746749, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Mansouri A, Pla P, Larue L, and Gruss P. Pax3 acts cell autonomously in the neural tube and somites by controlling cell surface properties. Development 128: 19952005, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Marra M, Hillier L, Kucaba T, Allen M, Barstead R, Beck C, Blistain A, Bonaldo M, Bowers Y, Bowles L, Cardenas M, Chamberlain A, Chappell J, Clifton S, Favello A, Geisel S, Gibbons M, Harvey N, Hill F, Jackson Y, Kohn S, Lennon G, Mardis E, Martin J, and Waterston R. An encyclopedia of mouse genes. Nat Genet 21: 191194, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- McClive P, Pall G, Newton K, Lee M, Mullins J, and Forrester L. Gene trap integrations expressed in the developing heart: insertion site affects splicing of the PT1-ATG vector. Dev Dyn 212: 267276, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- McCown TJ, Xiao X, Li J, Breese GR, and Samulski RJ. Differential and persistent expression patterns of CNS gene transfer by an adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector. Brain Res 713: 99107, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Medico E, Gambarotta G, Gentile A, Comoglio PM, and Soriano P. A gene trap vector system for identifying transcriptionally responsive genes. Nat Biotechnol 19: 579582, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Medina-Martinez O, Bradley A, and Ramirez-Solis R. A large targeted deletion of Hoxb1-Hoxb9 produces a series of single-segment anterior homeotic transformations. Dev Biol 222: 7183, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Mills AA, Zheng B, Wang XJ, Vogel H, Roop DR, and Bradley A. p63 is a p53 homologue required for limb and epidermal morphogenesis. Nature 398: 708713, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Misulovin Z, Yang XW, Yu W, Heintz N, and Meffre E. A rapid method for targeted modification and screening of recombinant bacterial artificial chromosome. J Immunol Methods 257: 99105, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Mitchell KJ, Pinson KI, Kelly OG, Brennan J, Zupicich J, Scherz P, Leighton PA, Goodrich LV, Lu X, Avery BJ, Tate P, Dill K, Pangilinan E, Wakenight P, Tessier-Lavigne M, and Skarnes WC. Functional analysis of secreted and transmembrane proteins critical to mouse development. Nat Genet 28: 241249, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Mitelman F, Mertens F, and Johansson B. A breakpoint map of recurrent chromosomal rearrangements in human neoplasia. Nat Genet 15, Spec No: 417474, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Moore RC, Redhead NJ, Selfridge J, Hope J, Manson JC, and Melton DW. Double replacement gene targeting for the production of a series of mouse strains with different prion protein gene alterations. Biotechnology 13: 9991004, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Mortensen RM, Conner DA, Chao S, Geisterfer-Lowrance AA, and Seidman JG. Production of homozygous mutant ES cells with a single targeting construct. Mol Cell Biol 12: 23912395, 1992.[Abstract]
- Moser AR, Pitot HC, and Dove WF. A dominant mutation that predisposes to multiple intestinal neoplasia in the mouse. Science 247: 322324, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
- Murphy KC. Use of bacteriophage lambda recombination functions to promote gene replacement in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 180: 20632071, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Muth K, Bruyns R, Thorey IS, and von Melchner H. Disruption of genes regulated during hematopoietic differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells. Dev Dyn 212: 277283, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Muyrers JP, Zhang Y, Testa G, and Stewart AF. Rapid modification of bacterial artificial chromosomes by ET-recombination. Nucleic Acids Res 27: 15551557, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Muyrers JP, Zhang Y, Benes V, Testa G, Ansorge W, and Stewart AF. Point mutation of bacterial artificial chromosomes by ET recombination. EMBO Rep 1: 239243, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Muyrers JP, Zhang Y, and Stewart AF. ET-cloning: think recombination first. Genet Eng 22: 7798, 2000.
- Muyrers JP, Zhang Y, and Stewart AF. Techniques: Recombinogenic engineering: new options for cloning and manipulating DNA. Trends Biochem Sci 26: 325331, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Nadeau JH, Balling R, Barsh G, Beier D, Brown SD, Bucan M, Camper S, Carlson G, Copeland N, Eppig J, Fletcher C, Frankel WN, Ganten D, Goldowitz D, Goodnow C, Guenet JL, Hicks G, de Angelis MH, Jackson I, Jacob HJ, Jenkins N, Johnson D, Justice M, Kay S, Kingsley D, Lehrach H, Magnuson T, Meisler M, Poustka A, Rinchik EM, Rossant J, Russell LB, Schimenti J, Shiroishi T, Skarnes WC, Soriano P, Stanford W, Takahashi JS, Wurst W, and Zimmer A. Sequence interpretation. Functional annotation of mouse genome sequences. Science 291: 12511255, 2001.[Free Full Text]
- Nagy A. Cre recombinase: the universal reagent for genome tailoring. Genesis 26: 99109, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Narayanan K, Williamson R, Zhang Y, Stewart AF, and Ioannou PA. Efficient and precise engineering of a 200 kb beta-globin human/bacterial artificial chromosome in E. coli DH10B using an inducible homologous recombination system. Gene Ther 6: 442447, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Narita N, Bielinska M, and Wilson DB. Cardiomyocyte differentiation by GATA-4-deficient embryonic stem cells. Development 122: 37553764, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Niwa H, Araki K, Kimura S, Taniguchi S, Wakasugi S, and Yamamura K. An efficient gene-trap method using poly A trap vectors and characterization of gene-trap events. J Biochem (Tokyo) 113: 343349, 1993.[Abstract]
- Nolan PM, Peters J, Strivens M, Rogers D, Hagan J, Spurr N, Gray IC, Vizor L, Brooker D, Whitehill E, Washbourne R, Hough T, Greenaway S, Hewitt M, Liu X, McCormack S, Pickford K, Selley R, Wells C, Tymowska-Lalanne Z, Roby P, Glenister P, Thornton C, Thaung C, Stevenson JA, Arkell R, Mburu P, Hardisty R, Kiernan A, Erven A, Steel KP, Voegeling S, Guenet JL, Nickols C, Sadri R, Nasse M, Isaacs A, Davies K, Browne M, Fisher EM, Martin J, Rastan S, Brown SD, and Hunter J. A systemic, genome-wide, phenotype-driven mutagenesis programme for gene function studies in the mouse. Nat Genet 25: 440443, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Nusbaum C, Slonim DK, Harris KL, Birren BW, Steen RG, Stein LD, Miller J, Dietrich WF, Nahf R, Wang V, Merport O, Castle AB, Husain Z, Farino G, Gray D, Anderson MO, Devine R, Horton LT Jr, Ye W, Wu X, Kouyoumjian V, Zemsteva IS, Wu Y, Collymore AJ, Courtney DF, Tam J, Cadman M, Haynes AR, Heuston C, Marsland T, Southwell A, Trickett P, Strivens MA, Ross MT, Makalowski W, Xu Y, Boguski MS, Carter NP, Denny P, Brown SDM, Hudson TJ, and Lander ES. A YAC-based physical map of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 22: 388393, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Nusse R and Varmus HE. Many tumors induced by the mouse mammary tumor virus contain a provirus integrated in the same region of the host genome. Cell 31: 99109, 1982.[ISI][Medline]
- OConnor M, Peifer M, and Bender W. Construction of large DNA segments in Escherichia coli. Science 244: 13071312, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- OGorman S, Dagenais NA, Qian M, and Marchuk Y. Protamine-Cre recombinase transgenes efficiently recombine target sequences in the male germ line of mice, but not in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 1460214607, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Okuda T, Cai Z, Yang S, Lenny N, Lyu CJ, van Deursen JM, Harada H, and Downing JR. Expression of a knocked-in AML1-ETO leukemia gene inhibits the establishment of normal definitive hematopoiesis and directly generates dysplastic hematopoietic progenitors. Blood 91: 31343143, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Olson EN, Arnold HH, Rigby PW, and Wold BJ. Know your neighbors: three phenotypes in null mutants of the myogenic bHLH gene MRF4. Cell 85: 14, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Ornitz DM, Moreadith RW, and Leder P. Binary system for regulating transgene expression in mice: targeting int-2 gene expression with yeast GAL4/UAS control elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 698702, 1991.[Abstract]
- Osoegawa K, Tateno M, Woon PY, Frengen E, Mammoser AG, Catanese JJ, Hayashizaki Y, and de Jong PJ. Bacterial artificial chromosome libraries for mouse sequencing and functional analysis. Genome Res 10: 116128, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Overbeek PA, Aguilar-Cordova E, Hanten G, Schaffner DL, Patel P, Lebovitz RM, and Lieberman MW. Coinjection strategy for visual identification of transgenic mice. Transgenic Res 1: 3137, 1991.[Medline]
- Palmiter RD and Brinster RL. Germ-line transformation of mice. Annu Rev Genet 20: 465499, 1986.[ISI][Medline]
- Pegg AE and Byers TL. Repair of DNA containing O6-alkylguanine. FASEB J 6: 23022310, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Peters J, Andrews SJ, Loutit JF, and Clegg JB. A mouse beta-globin mutant that is an exact model of hemoglobin Rainier in man. Genetics 110: 709721, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Peitz M, Pfannkuche K, Rajewsky K, and Edenhofer F. Ability of the hydrophobic FGF and basic TAT peptides to promote cellular uptake of recombinant Cre recombinase: a tool for efficient genetic engineering of mammalian genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 44894494, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Pelletier J and Sonenberg N. Internal binding of eucaryotic ribosomes on poliovirus RNA: translation in HeLa cell extracts. J Virol 63: 441444, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Pham CT, MacIvor DM, Hug BA, Heusel JW, and Ley TJ. Long-range disruption of gene expression by a selectable marker cassette. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 1309013095, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Pierson TM, Wang Y, DeMayo FJ, Matzuk MM, Tsai SY, and Omalley BW. Regulable expression of inhibin A in wild-type and inhibin null mice. Mol Endocrinol 14: 10751085, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Plasterk RH. Methods in Cell Biology. New York: Academic, 1995, p. 5980.
- Plasterk RHA. The Tc1/mariner transposon family. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 204: 125143, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Pollock JL, Westervelt P, Kurichety AK, Pelicci PG, Grisolano JL, and Ley TJ. A bcr-3 isoform of RAR
-PML potentiates the development of PML-RAR
-driven acute promyelocytic leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1510315108, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Popp RA, Bailiff EG, Skow LC, Johnson FM, and Lewis SE. Analysis of a mouse
-globin gene mutation induced by ethylnitrosurea. Genetics 105: 15767, 1983.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Poteete AR, Fenton AC, and Murphy KC. Roles of RuvC and RecG in phage lambda red-mediated recombination. J Bacteriol 181: 54025408, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Rabbitts TH. Chromosomal translocations in human cancer. Nature 372: 143149, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
- Ramirez-Solis R, Liu P, and Bradley A. Chromosome engineering in mice. Nature 378: 720724, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Reddy S, DeGregori JV, von Melchner H, and Ruley HE. Retrovirus promoter-trap vector to induce lacZ gene fusions in mammalian cells. J Virol 19: 1723, 1991.
- Reeves RH, Irving NG, Moran TH, Wohn A, Kitt C, Sisodia SS, Schmidt C, Bronson RT, and Davisson MT. A mouse model for Down syndrome exhibits learning and behaviour deficits. Nat Genet 11: 177184, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Rinchik EM, Carpenter DA, and Selby PB. A strategy for fine-structure functional analysis of a 6- to 11-cM region of mouse chromosome 7 by high-efficiency mutagenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87: 896900, 1990.[Abstract]
- Rinchik EM. Chemical mutagenesis and fine-structure functional analysis of the mouse genome. Trends Genet 7: 1521, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
- Rinchik EM, Carpenter DA, and Handel MA. Pleiotropy in microdeletion syndromes: neurologic and spermatogenic abnormalities in mice homozygous for the p6H deletion are likely due to dysfunction of a single gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 63946398, 1995.[Abstract]
- Rinchik EM and Carpenter DA. N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea mutagenesis of a 6- to 11-cM subregion of the Fah-Hbb interval of mouse chromosome 7: completed testing of 4557 gametes and deletion mapping and complementation analysis of 31 mutations. Genetics 152: 373383, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Rinchik EM. Developing genetic reagents to facilitate recovery, analysis, and maintenance of mouse mutations. Mamm Genome 11: 489499, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Ringrose L, Lounnas V, Ehrlich L, Buchholz F, Wade R, and Stewart AF. Comparative kinetic analysis of FLP and Cre recombinases: mathematical models for DNA binding and recombination. J Mol Biol 284: 363384, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Rodriguez CI, Buchholz F, Galloway J, Sequerra R, Kasper J, Ayala R, Stewart AF, and Dymecki SM. High-efficiency deleter mice show that FLPe is an alternative to Cre-loxP. Nat Genet 25: 139140, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Rogers DC, Fisher EM, Brown SD, Peters J, Hunter AJ, and Martin JE. Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment. Mamm Genome 8: 711713, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Ross-Macdonald P, Coelho PS, Roemer T, Agarwal S, Kumar A, Jansen R, Cheung KH, Sheehan A, Symoniatis D, Umansky L, Heidtman M, Nelson FK, Iwasaki H, Hager K, Gerstein M, Miller P, Roeder GS, and Snyder M. Large-scale analysis of the yeast genome by transposon tagging and gene disruption. Nature 402: 413418, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Rudolph U, Brabet P, Hasty P, Bradley A, and Birnbaumer L. Disruption of the Gi2 alpha locus in embryonic stem cells and mice: a modified hit and run strategy with detection by a PCR dependent on gap repair. Transgenic Res 2: 345355, 1993.[ISI][Medline]
- Russell WL. X-ray induced mutations in mice. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 16: 327336, 1951.[ISI]
- Russell WL, Kelly PR, Hunsicker PR, Bangham JW, Maddux SC, and Phipps EL. Specific-locus test shows ethylnitrosourea to be the most potent mutagen in the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76: 59185922, 1979.
- Russell LB, Hunsicker PR, Cacheiro NL, Bangham JW, Russell WL, and Shelby MD. Chlorambucil effectively induces deletion mutations in mouse germ cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 37043708, 1989.[Abstract]
- Sakai K and Miyazaki J. A transgenic mouse line that retains Cre recombinase activity in mature oocytes irrespective of the cre transgene transmission. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 237: 318324, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Salminen M, Meyer BI, and Gruss P. Efficient Poly A trap approach allows the capture of genes specifically active in differentiated embryonic stem cells and in mouse embryos. Dev Dyn 212: 326333, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Sam M, Wurst W, Kluppel M, Jin O, Heng H, and Bernstein A. Aquarius, a novel gene isolated by gene trapping with an RNA-dependent polymerase motif. Dev Dyn 212: 304317, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Schimenti J and Bucan M. Functional genomics in the mouse: phenotype-based mutagenesis screens. Genome Res 8: 698710, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schmidt EE, Taylor DS, Prigge JR, Barnett S, and Capecchi MR. Illegitimate Cre-dependent chromosome rearrangements in transgenic mouse spermatids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 1370213707, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schwartzberg PL, Xing L, Hoffmann O, Lowell CA, Garrett L, Boyce BF, and Varmus HE. Rescue of osteoclast function by transgenic expression of kinase-deficient Src in src-/- mutant mice. Genes Dev 11: 28352844, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schwartzberg PL, Goff SP, and Robertson EJ. Germ-line transmission of a c-abl mutation produced by targeted gene disruption in ES cells. Science 246: 799803, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Scully R and Puget N. BRCA1 and BRCA2 in hereditary breast cancer. Biochimie 84: 95102, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Shaffer LG and Lupski JR. Molecular mechanisms for constitutional chromosomal rearrangements in humans. Annu Rev Genet 34: 297329, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Shalaby F, Ho J, Stanford WL, Fischer KD, Schuh AC, Schwartz L, Bernstein A, and Rossant J. A requirement for Flk-1 in primitive and definitive hematopoiesis, and vasculogenesis. Cell 89: 981990, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Shedlovsky A, Guenet JL, Johnson LL, and Dove WF. Induction of recessive lethal mutations in the T/t-H-2 region of the mouse genome by a point mutagen. Genet Res 47: 135142, 1986.[ISI][Medline]
- Shedlovsky A, King TR, and Dove WF. Saturation germ line mutagenesis of the murine t region including a lethal allele at the quaking locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85: 180184, 1988.[Abstract]
- Shin MK, Levorse JM, Ingram RS, and Tilghman SM. The temporal requirement for endothelin receptor-B signalling during neural crest development. Nature 402: 496501, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Shirai M, Miyashita A, Ishii N, Itoh Y, Satokata I, Watanabe YG, and Kuwano R. A gene trap strategy for identifying the gene expressed in the embryonic nervous system. Zoolog Sci 13: 277283, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
- Silver DP and Livingston DM. Self-excising retroviral vectors encoding the Cre recombinase overcome Cre-mediated cellular toxicity. Mol Cell 8: 233243, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Sims NA, Sabatakos G, Chen JS, Kelz MB, Nestler EJ, and Baron R. Regulating DeltaFosB expression in adult tet-off-DeltaFosB transgenic mice alters bone formation and bone mass. Bone 30: 3239, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Skarnes WC, Auerbach BA, and Joyner AL. A gene trap approach in mouse embryonic stem cells: the lacZ reported is activated by splicing, reflects endogenous gene expression, and is mutagenic in mice. Genes Dev 6: 903918, 1992.[Abstract]
- Skarnes WC, Moss JE, Hurtley SM, and Beddington RS. Capturing genes encoding membrane and secreted proteins important for mouse development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 65926659, 1995.[Abstract]
- Smith AJ, De Sousa MA, Kwabi-Addo B, Heppell-Parton A, Impey H, and Rabbitts P. A site-directed chromosomal translocation induced in embryonic stem cells by Cre-loxP recombination. Nat Genet 9: 376385, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Smith GR, Amundsen SK, Dabert P, and Taylor AF. The initiation and control of homologous recombination in Escherichia coli. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 347: 1320, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Smithies O, Gregg RG, Boggs SS, Koralewski MA, and Kucherlapati RS. Insertion of DNA sequences into the human chromosomal ß-globin locus by homologous recombination. Nature 317: 230234, 1985.[ISI][Medline]
- Soriano P, Gridley T, and Jaenisch R. Retroviruses and insertional mutagenesis in mice: proviral integration at the Mov 34 locus leads to early embryonic death. Genes Dev 1: 366375, 1987.[Abstract]
- Stacey A, Schnieke A, McWhir J, Cooper J, Colman A, and Melton DW. Use of double-replacement gene targeting to replace the murine
-lactalbumin gene with its human counterpart in embryonic stem cells and mice. Mol Cell Biol 14: 10091016, 1994.[Abstract]
- Stanford WL, Caruana G, Vallis KA, Inamdar M, Hidaka M, Bautch VL, and Bernstein A. Expression trapping: identification of novel genes expressed in hematopoietic and endothelial lineages by gene trapping in ES cells. Blood 92: 46224631, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stanford WL, Cohn JB, and Cordes SP. Gene-trap mutagenesis: past, present and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 2: 756768, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Storck T, Kruth U, Kolhekar R, Sprengel R, and Seeburg PH. Rapid construction in yeast of complex targeting vectors for gene manipulation in the mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 45946459, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stoykova A, Chowdhury K, Bonaldo P, Torres M, and Gruss P. Gene trap expression and mutational analysis for genes involved in the development of the mammalian nervous system. Dev Dyn 212: 198213, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Strausberg RL, Feingold EA, Klausner RD, and Collins FS. The mammalian gene collection. Science 286: 455457, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stubbs L, Carver EA, Cacheiro NL, Shelby M, and Generoso W. Generation and characterization of heritable reciprocal translocations in mice. Methods 13: 397408, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Su H, Wang X, and Bradley A. Nested chromosomal deletions induced with retroviral vectors in mice. Nat Genet 24: 9295, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Suda Y, Nakabayashi J, Matsuo I, and Aizawa S. Functional equivalency between Otx2 and Otx1 in development of the rostral head. Development 126: 743757, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sykes PJ, Hooker AM, Harrington CS, Jacobs AK, Kingsbury L, and Morley AA. Induction of somatic intrachromosomal recombination inversion events by cyclophosphamide in a transgenic mouse model. Mutat Res 397: 209219, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Taniguchi M, Sanbo M, Watanabe S, Naruse I, Mishina M, and Yagi T. Efficient production of Cre-mediated site-directed recombinants through the utilization of the puromycin resistance gene, pac: a transient gene-integration marker for ES cells. Nucleic Acids Res 26: 679680, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Thomas KR and Capecchi MR. Site-directed mutagenesis by gene targeting in mouse embryo-derived stem cells. Cell 51: 503512, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
- Thomas JW, LaMantia C, and Magnuson T. X-ray-induced mutations in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 11141119, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Thompson S, Clarke AR, Pow AM, Hooper ML, and Melton DW. Germ line transmission and expression of a corrected HPRT gene produced by gene targeting in embryonic stem cells. Cell 56: 31321, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Threadgill DW, Dlugosz AA, Hansen LA, Tennenbaum T, Lichti U, Yee D, LaMantia C, Mourton T, Herrup K, Harris RC, Barnard JA, Yuspa SH, Coffey RJ, and Magnuson T. Targeted disruption of mouse EGF receptor: effect of genetic background on mutant phenotype. Science 269: 230234, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
- Townley DJ, Avery BJ, Rosen B, and Skarnes WC. Rapid sequence analysis of gene trap integrations to generate a resource of insertional mutations in mice. Genome Res 7: 293298, 1997.[Abstract]
- Tsai TF, Jiang YH, Bressler J, Armstrong D, and Beaudet AL. Paternal deletion from Snrpn to Ube3a in the mouse causes hypotonia, growth retardation and partial lethality and provides evidence for a gene contributing to Prader-Willi syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 8: 13571364, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Umana P, Gerdes CA, Stone D, Davis JR, Ward D, Castro MG, and Lowenstein PR. Efficient FLPe recombinase enables scalable production of helper-dependent adenoviral vectors with negligible helper-virus contamination. Nat Biotechnol 19: 582585, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Urlinger S, Baron U, Thellmann M, Hasan MT, Bujard H, and Hillen W. Exploring the sequence space for tetracycline-dependent transcriptional activators: novel mutations yield expanded range and sensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 79637968, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Valancius V and Smithies O. Testing an "in-out" targeting procedure for making subtle genomic modifications in mouse embryonic stem cells. Mol Cell Biol 11: 14021408, 1991.[ISI][Medline]
- Vallis KA, Chen Z, Stanford WL, Hill RP, and Bernstein A. Identification of ionizing radiation-responsive genes: a large-scale, induction gene trap strategy in embryonic stem cells. Radiat Res 157: 818, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Van Deursen J, Fornerod M, Van Rees B, and Grosveld G. Cre-mediated site-specific translocation between nonhomologous mouse chromosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 73767380, 1995.[Abstract]
- Van Etten WJ, Steen RG, Nguyen H, Castle AB, Slonim DK, Ge B, Nusbaum C, Schuler GD, Lander ES, and Hudson TJ. Radiation hybrid map of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 22: 384387, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Vidan S and Snyder M. Large-scale mutagenesis: yeast genetics in the genome era. Curr Opin Biotechnol 12: 2834, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Vijaya S, Steffen DL, and Robinson HL. Acceptor sites for retroviral integrations map near DNaseI-hypersensitive sites in chromatin. J Virol 60: 683692, 1986.[ISI][Medline]
- Vitaterna MH, King DP, Chang AM, Kornhauser JM, Lowrey PL, McDonald JD, Dove WF, Pinto LH, Turek FW, and Takahashi JS. Mutagenesis and mapping of a mouse gene, Clock, essential for circadian behavior. Science 264: 719725, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
- von Melchner H and Ruley HE. Identification of cellular promoters by using a retrovirus promoter trap. J Virol 63: 32273233, 1989.[ISI][Medline]
- Vooijs M, van der Valk M, te Riele H, and Berns A. Flp-mediated tissue-specific inactivation of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene in the mouse. Oncogene 17: 112, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Vooijs M, Jonkers J, and Berns A. A highly efficient ligand-regulated Cre recombinase mouse line shows that LoxP recombination is position dependent. EMBO Rep 2: 292297, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Vos JC, De Baere I, and Plasterk RH. Transposase is the only nematode protein required for in vitro transposition of Tc1. Genes Dev 10: 755761, 1996.[Abstract]
- Voss AK, Thomas T, and Gruss P. Efficiency assessment of the gene trap approach. Dev Dyn 212: 171180, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Wang Y, Krushel LA, and Edelman GM. Targeted DNA recombination in vivo using an adenovirus carrying the cre recombinase gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 39323936, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wang Y, DeMayo FJ, Tsai SY, and OMalley BW. Ligand-inducible and liver-specific target gene expression in transgenic mice. Nat Biotechnol 15: 239243, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Wang XJ, Liefer KM, Tsai S, OMalley BW, and Roop DR. Development of gene-switch transgenic mice that inducibly express transforming growth factor 1 in the epidermis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 84838488, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wattler S, Kelly M, and Nehls M. Construction of gene targeting vectors from lambda KOS genomic libraries. Biotechniques 26: 11501156, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Weber F, de Villiers J, and Schaffner W. An SV40 "enhancer trap" incorporates exogenous enhancers or generates enhancers from its own sequences. Cell 36: 983992, 1984.[ISI][Medline]
- Weiss MJ, Keller G, and Orkin SH. Novel insights into erythroid development revealed through in vitro differentiation of GATA-1-embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev 8: 11841197, 1994.[Abstract]
- Westerman KA and Leboulch P. Reversible immortalization of mammalian cells mediated by retroviral transfer and site-specific recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 89718976, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Whyatt LM and Rathjen PD. Introduction of precise alterations into the mouse genome with high efficiency by stable tag-exchange gene targeting: implications for gene targeting in ES cells. Nucleic Acids Res 25: 23812388, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wiles MV, Vauti F, Otte J, Fuchtbauer EM, Ruiz P, Fuchtbauer A, Arnold HH, Lehrach H, Metz T, von Melchner H, and Wurst W. Establishment of a gene-trap sequence tag library to generate mutant mice from embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 24: 1314, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Wilson C, Pearson RK, Bellen HJ, OKane CJ, Grossniklaus U, and Gehring WJ. P-element-mediated enhancer detection: an efficient method for isolating and characterizing developmentally regulated genes in Drosophila. Genes Dev 3: 13011313, 1989.[Abstract]
- Wu H, Liu X, and Jaenisch R. Double replacement: strategy for efficient introduction of subtle mutations into the murine Col1a-1 gene by homologous recombination in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 28192823, 1994.[Abstract]
- Wurst W, Rossant J, Prideaux V, Kownacka M, Joyner A, Hill DP, Guillemot F, Gasca S, Cado D, and Auerbach A. A large-scale gene-trap screen for insertional mutations in developmentally regulated genes in mice. Genetics 139: 889899, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wurst W and Gossler A. Gene trap strategies in ES cells. In: Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach (2nd ed.), edited by Joyner AL. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, chapt. 6, p. 207254.
- Yang W, Musci TS, and Mansour SL. Trapping genes expressed in the developing mouse inner ear. Hear Res 114: 5361, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Yant SR, Meuse L, Chiu W, Ivics Z, Izsvak Z, and Kay MA. Somatic integration and long-term transgene expression in normal and haemophilic mice using a DNA transposon system. Nat Genet 25: 3541, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Yergeau DA, Hetherington CJ, Wang Q, Zhang P, Sharpe AH, Binder M, Marin-Padilla M, Tenen DG, Speck NA, and Zhang DE. Embryonic lethality and impairment of haematopoiesis in mice heterozygous for an AML1-ETO fusion gene. Nat Genet 15: 303306, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Yokoyama T, Silversides DW, Waymire KG, Kwon BS, Takeuchi T, and Overbeek PA. Conserved cysteine to serine mutation in tyrosinase is responsible for the classical albino mutation in laboratory mice. Nucleic Acids Res 18: 72937298, 1990.[Abstract]
- You Y, Bergstrom R, Klemm M, Lederman B, Nelson H, Ticknor C, Jaenisch R, and Schimenti J. Chromosomal deletion complexes in mice by radiation of embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 15: 285288, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
- Yu D, Ellis HM, Lee EC, Jenkins NA, Copeland NG, and Court DL. An efficient recombination system for chromosome engineering in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 59785983, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Yu Y and Bradley A. Mouse genomic technologies: engineering chromosomal rearrangements in mice. Nat Rev Genet 2: 780790, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
- Zambrowicz BP, Friedrich GA, Buxton EC, Lilleberg SL, Person C, and Sands AT. Disruption and sequence identification of 2,000 genes in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature 392: 608611, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Zhang Y, Buchholz F, Muyrers JP, and Stewart AF. A new logic for DNA engineering using recombination in Escherichia coli. Nat Genet 20: 123128, 1998.[ISI][Medline]
- Zhang Y, Muyrers JP, Testa G, and Stewart AF. DNA cloning by homologous recombination in Escherichia coli. Nat Biotechnol 18: 13141317, 2000.[ISI][Medline]
- Zhang P, Li MZ, and Elledge SJ. Towards genetic genome projects: genomic library screening and gene-targeting vector construction in a single step. Nat Genet 30: 3139, 2002.[ISI][Medline]
- Zhao S, Shatsman S, Ayodeji B, Geer K, Tsegaye G, Krol M, Gebregeorgis E, Shvartsbeyn A, Russell D, Overton L, Jiang L, Dimitrov G, Tran K, Shetty J, Malek JA, Feldblyum T, Nierman WC, and Fraser CM. Mouse BAC ends quality assessment and sequence analyses. Genome Res 11: 17361745, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zheng B, Sage M, Cai WW, Thompson DM, Tavsanli BC, Cheah YC, and Bradley A. Engineering a mouse balancer chromosome. Nat Genet 22: 375378, 1999.[ISI][Medline]
- Zheng B, Mills AA, and Bradley A. A system for rapid generation of coat color-tagged knockouts and defined chromosomal rearrangements in mice. Nucleic Acids Res 27: 23542360, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zheng B, Sage M, Sheppeard EA, Jurecic V, and Bradley A. Engineering mouse chromosomes with Cre-loxP: range, efficiency, and somatic applications. Mol Cell Biol 20: 648655, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zheng B, Mills AA, and Bradley A. Introducing defined chromosomal rearrangements into the mouse genome. Methods 24: 8194, 2001.[Medline]