PURPOSE: We noted an unexpected inheritance pattern of lesions in several strains of gene-manipulated mice with ocular phenotypes. The lesions, which appeared at various stages of backcross to C57BL/6, bore resemblance to the rd8 retinal degeneration phenotype. We set out to examine the prevalence of this mutation in induced mutant mouse lines, vendor C57BL/6 mice and in widely used embryonic stem cells. METHODS: Ocular lesions were evaluated by fundus examination and histopathology. Detection of the rd8 mutation at the genetic level was performed by PCR with appropriate primers. Data were confirmed by DNA sequencing in selected cases. RESULTS: Analysis of several induced mutant mouse lines with ocular disease phenotypes revealed that the disease was associated 100% with the presence of the rd8 mutation in the Crb1 gene rather than with the gene of interest. DNA analysis of C57BL/6 mice from common commercial vendors demonstrated the presence of the rd8 mutation in homozygous form in all C57BL/6N substrains, but not in the C57BL/6J substrain. A series of commercially available embryonic stem cells of C57BL/6N origin and C57BL/6N mouse lines used to generate ES cells also contained the rd8 mutation. Affected mice displayed ocular lesions typical of rd8, which were detectable by funduscopy and histopathology as early as 6 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS: These findings identify the presence of the rd8 mutation in the C57BL/6N mouse substrain used widely to produce transgenic and knockout mice. The results have grave implications for the vision research community who develop mouse lines to study eye disease, as presence of rd8 can produce significant disease phenotypes unrelated to the gene or genes of interest. It is suggested that researchers screen for rd8 if their mouse lines were generated on the C57BL/6N background, bear resemblance to the rd8 phenotype, or are of indeterminate origin.
PURPOSE: We noted an unexpected inheritance pattern of lesions in several strains of gene-manipulated mice with ocular phenotypes. The lesions, which appeared at various stages of backcross to C57BL/6, bore resemblance to the rd8 retinal degeneration phenotype. We set out to examine the prevalence of this mutation in induced mutant mouse lines, vendor C57BL/6 mice and in widely used embryonic stem cells. METHODS:Ocular lesions were evaluated by fundus examination and histopathology. Detection of the rd8 mutation at the genetic level was performed by PCR with appropriate primers. Data were confirmed by DNA sequencing in selected cases. RESULTS: Analysis of several induced mutant mouse lines with ocular disease phenotypes revealed that the disease was associated 100% with the presence of the rd8 mutation in the Crb1 gene rather than with the gene of interest. DNA analysis of C57BL/6 mice from common commercial vendors demonstrated the presence of the rd8 mutation in homozygous form in all C57BL/6N substrains, but not in the C57BL/6J substrain. A series of commercially available embryonic stem cells of C57BL/6N origin and C57BL/6N mouse lines used to generate ES cells also contained the rd8 mutation. Affected mice displayed ocular lesions typical of rd8, which were detectable by funduscopy and histopathology as early as 6 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS: These findings identify the presence of the rd8 mutation in the C57BL/6N mouse substrain used widely to produce transgenic and knockout mice. The results have grave implications for the vision research community who develop mouse lines to study eye disease, as presence of rd8 can produce significant disease phenotypes unrelated to the gene or genes of interest. It is suggested that researchers screen for rd8 if their mouse lines were generated on the C57BL/6N background, bear resemblance to the rd8 phenotype, or are of indeterminate origin.
Authors: Esther Zurita; Mónica Chagoyen; Marta Cantero; Rosario Alonso; Anna González-Neira; Alejandro López-Jiménez; José Antonio López-Moreno; Carlisle P Landel; Javier Benítez; Florencio Pazos; Lluís Montoliu Journal: Transgenic Res Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 2.788
Authors: Tomas S Aleman; Artur V Cideciyan; Geoffrey K Aguirre; Wei Chieh Huang; Cristina L Mullins; Alejandro J Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Melani B Olivares; Frank F Tsai; Sharon B Schwartz; Luk H Vandenberghe; Maria P Limberis; Edwin M Stone; Peter Bell; James M Wilson; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Y Szpak; J C Vieville; T Tabary; M C Naud; M Chopin; C Edelson; J H Cohen; J Dausset; Y de Kozak; M Pla Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-02-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Adrienne K Mehalow; Shuhei Kameya; Richard S Smith; Norman L Hawes; James M Denegre; James A Young; Lesley Bechtold; Neena B Haider; Ulrich Tepass; John R Heckenlively; Bo Chang; Jürgen K Naggert; Patsy M Nishina Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: C Bowes; T Li; W N Frankel; M Danciger; J M Coffin; M L Applebury; D B Farber Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1993-04-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jingsheng Tuo; Christine M Bojanowski; Min Zhou; Defen Shen; Robert J Ross; Kevin I Rosenberg; D Joshua Cameron; Chunyue Yin; Jeffrey A Kowalak; Zhengping Zhuang; Kang Zhang; Chi-Chao Chan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: B Lu; B J Rutledge; L Gu; J Fiorillo; N W Lukacs; S L Kunkel; R North; C Gerard; B J Rollins Journal: J Exp Med Date: 1998-02-16 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Vera L Bonilha; Brent A Bell; Mary E Rayborn; Ivy S Samuels; Anna King; Joe G Hollyfield; Chengsong Xie; Huaibin Cai Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Una L Kelly; Daniel Grigsby; Martha A Cady; Michael Landowski; Nikolai P Skiba; Jian Liu; Alan T Remaley; Mikael Klingeborn; Catherine Bowes Rickman Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Irina Proekt; Corey N Miller; Marion Jeanne; Kayla J Fasano; James J Moon; Clifford A Lowell; Douglas B Gould; Mark S Anderson; Anthony L DeFranco Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jingyu Yao; Lin Jia; Kecia Feathers; Chengmao Lin; Naheed W Khan; Daniel J Klionsky; Thomas A Ferguson; David N Zacks Journal: Autophagy Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 16.016