Literature DB >> 11817540

Effect of DNA concentration on transgenesis rates in mice and pigs.

M B Nottle1, K A Haskard, P J Verma, Z T Du, C G Grupen, S M McIlfatrick, R J Ashman, S J Harrison, H Barlow, P L Wigley, I G Lyons, P J Cowan, R J Crawford, P L Tolstoshev, M J Pearse, A J Robins, A J d'Apice.   

Abstract

A retrospective analysis of transgenesis rates obtained in seven pronuclear microinjection programs was undertaken to determine if a relationship existed between the amount of DNA injected and transgenesis rates in the pig. Logistic regression analysis showed that as the concentration of DNA injected increased from 1 to 10 ng/microl, the number of transgenics when expressed as a proportion of the number liveborn (integration rate) increased from 4% to an average of 26%. A similar relationship was found when the number of molecules of DNA injected per picolitre was analysed. No evidence was obtained to suggest either parameter influenced integration rate in mice when the same constructs were injected. The number of transgenics liveborn when expressed as a proportion of ova injected (efficiency rate), increased as DNA concentration increased up to 7.5 ng/microl and then decreased at 10 ng/microl for both species suggesting that at this concentration DNA (or possible contaminants) may have influenced embryo survival. The relationship between efficiency and the number of molecules injected per picolitre was complex suggesting that the concentration at which DNA was injected was a better determinant of integration and efficiency rates. In conclusion, the present study suggests that transgenes need to be injected at concentrations of between 5 and 10 ng/microl to maximise integration and efficiency rates in pigs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11817540     DOI: 10.1023/a:1013007329936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transgenic Res        ISSN: 0962-8819            Impact factor:   2.788


  15 in total

1.  Effect of pronuclear DNA microinjection on the development of porcine ova in utero.

Authors:  M J Martin; J Houtz; C Adams; D Thomas; B Freeman; J Keirns; F Cottrill
Journal:  Theriogenology       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Expression and functional analysis of glycosyl-phosphatidyl inositol-linked CD46 in transgenic mice.

Authors:  T A Shinkel; P J Cowan; H Barlow; A Aminian; M Romanella; D M Lublin; M J Pearse; A J d'Apice
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1998-12-15       Impact factor: 4.939

3.  Chronological and cytological details of fertilization and early embryonic development in the domestic pig, Sus scrofa.

Authors:  R H Hunter
Journal:  Anat Rec       Date:  1974-02

4.  Detailed analysis of the mouse H-2Kb promoter: enhancer-like sequences and their role in the regulation of class I gene expression.

Authors:  A Kimura; A Israël; O Le Bail; P Kourilsky
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1986-01-31       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  Renal xenografts from triple-transgenic pigs are not hyperacutely rejected but cause coagulopathy in non-immunosuppressed baboons.

Authors:  P J Cowan; A Aminian; H Barlow; A A Brown; C G Chen; N Fisicaro; D M Francis; D J Goodman; W Han; M Kurek; M B Nottle; M J Pearse; E Salvaris; T A Shinkel; G V Stainsby; A B Stewart; A J d'Apice
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2000-06-27       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Factors affecting the efficiency of introducing foreign DNA into mice by microinjecting eggs.

Authors:  R L Brinster; H Y Chen; M E Trumbauer; M K Yagle; R D Palmiter
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Culture factors affecting the success rate of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer.

Authors:  P Quinn; G M Warnes; J F Kerin; C Kirby
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 5.691

8.  Development of porcine ova that were centrifuged to permit visualization of pronuclei and nuclei.

Authors:  R J Wall; V G Pursel; R E Hammer; R L Brinster
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 4.285

9.  Transgene detection during early murine embryonic development after pronuclear microinjection.

Authors:  R L Page; R S Canseco; C G Russell; J L Johnson; W H Velander; F C Gwazdauskas
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.788

10.  The majority of G0 transgenic mice are derived from mosaic embryos.

Authors:  C B Whitelaw; A J Springbett; J Webster; J Clark
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.788

View more
  11 in total

1.  Increased efficiency of transgenic livestock production.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Maga; R Geoffrey Sargent; Hong Zeng; Sushma Pati; David A Zarling; Stefanie M Oppenheim; Nicole M B Collette; Alice L Moyer; Janice S Conrad-Brink; Joan D Rowe; Robert H BonDurant; Gary B Anderson; James D Murray
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 2.  Genome editing revolutionize the creation of genetically modified pigs for modeling human diseases.

Authors:  Jing Yao; Jiaojiao Huang; Jianguo Zhao
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 3.  Lentiviral transgenesis.

Authors:  Alexander Pfeifer
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 4.  Animal transgenesis: state of the art and applications.

Authors:  Eduardo O Melo; Aurea M O Canavessi; Mauricio M Franco; Rodolfo Rumpf
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Increased transgene integration efficiency upon microinjection of DNA into both pronuclei of rabbit embryos.

Authors:  Peter Chrenek; Dusan Vasicek; Alexander V Makarevich; Rastislav Jurcik; Karin Suvegova; Vladimir Parkanyi; Miroslav Bauer; Jan Rafay; Angelika Batorova; Rekha K Paleyanda
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.788

6.  Pig transgenesis by Sleeping Beauty DNA transposition.

Authors:  Jannik E Jakobsen; Juan Li; Peter M Kragh; Brian Moldt; Lin Lin; Ying Liu; Mette Schmidt; Kjeld Dahl Winther; Brian Dall Schyth; Ida E Holm; Gábor Vajta; Lars Bolund; Henrik Callesen; Arne Lund Jørgensen; Anders Lade Nielsen; Jacob Giehm Mikkelsen
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 7.  A survey to establish performance standards for the production of transgenic mice.

Authors:  Thomas J Fielder; Laura Barrios; Lluís Montoliu
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 8.  Precision editing of large animal genomes.

Authors:  Wenfang Spring Tan; Daniel F Carlson; Mark W Walton; Scott C Fahrenkrug; Perry B Hackett
Journal:  Adv Genet       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.944

Review 9.  Pigs taking wing with transposons and recombinases.

Authors:  Karl J Clark; Daniel F Carlson; Scott C Fahrenkrug
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.583

Review 10.  A future for transgenic livestock.

Authors:  John Clark; Bruce Whitelaw
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 53.242

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.