Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T23:47:21.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genomic imprinting: normal complementation of murine chromosome 16

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Christoph N. Berger  and
Charles J. Epstein
Christoph N. Berger
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Box 0548, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143
Charles J. Epstein
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Box 0548, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143 Departments of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Box 0548, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Parental imprinting effects for chromosome 16 were investigated using disomic animals which were obtained by mating (Rb32Lub × Rb2H) F1 mice. Two allelic forms of the enzyme CuZn-superoxide dismutase, Sod-1a and Sod-1c, were` used to identify maternally or paternally disomic animals. Both types of disomic animals were found with the expected frequencies and did not visibly differ from one another or from non-disomic animals. These results indicate that the genomic imprinting mechanism either does not act on chromosome 16, or, if it does, does not do so in a manner which affects normal development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 227 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

Barton, S. C., Surani, M. A. H. & Norris, M. L. (1984). Role of paternal and maternal genomes in mouse development. Nature 311, 374–376.Google Scholar
Beechey, C. V., Cattanach, B. M. & Searle, A. G. (1988). Personal Communication. Genetic imprinting map. Mouse News Letter 81, 48–49.Google Scholar
Cattanach, B. M. & Kirk, M. (1985). Differential activity of maternally and paternally derived chromosome regions in mice. Nature 315, 496–498.Google Scholar
Debrot, S. & Epstein, C. J. (1986). Tetrasomy 16 in the mouse: A more severe condition than the corresponding trisomy. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 91, 169–180.Google Scholar
Groudine, M. & Conkin, K. F. (1985). Chromatin structure and de novo methylation of sperm DNA: implications for activation of the paternal genome. Science 228, 1061–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadchouel, M., Farza, H., Simon, D., Tiollais, P. & Pourcel, C. (1987). Maternal inhibition of hepatitis B surface antigen expression in transgenic mice correlates with de novo methylation. Nature 329, 454–456.Google Scholar
Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227, 680–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovett, M., Goldgaber, D., Ashley, P., Cox, D. R., Gajdusek, D. C. & Epstein, C. J. (1987). The mouse homolog of the human amyloid β protein (AD-AP) gene is located on the distal end of mouse chromosome 16: further extension of the homology between human chromosome 21 and mouse chromosome 16. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 144, 1069–1075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnuson, T., Debrot, S., Dimpfl, J., Zamora, T. & Epstein, C. J. (1985). The early lethality of autosomal monosomy in the mouse. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 69, 223–236.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. & Solter, D. (1983). Nuclear transplantation in the mouse embryo by microsurgery and cell fusion. Science 220, 1300–1303.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. & Solter, D. (1984). Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 37, 179–183.Google Scholar
Reik, W., Collick, A., Norris, M. L., Barton, S. C. & Surani, M. A. (1987). Genomic imprinting determines methylation of parental alleles in transgenic mice. Nature 328, 248–251.Google Scholar
Sapienza, C., Peterson, A. C., Rossant, J. & Balling, R. (1987). Degree of methylation of transgenes is dependent on gamete of origin. Nature 328, 251–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroeder, W. T., Chao, L., Dao, D. D., Strong, L. C., Pathak, S., Riccardi, V., Lewis, W. H. & Saunders, G. F. (1987). Nonrandom loss of maternal chromosome 11 alleles in Wilms tumors. American Journal of Human Genetics 40, 413–420.Google Scholar
Searle, A. G. & Beechey, C. V. (1978). Complementation studies with mouse translocations. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 20, 282–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, A. G., Ford, C. E. & Beechey, C. V. (1971). Meiotic disjunction in mouse translocations and the determination of centromere position. Genetical Research, Cambridge 18, 215–235.Google Scholar
Solter, D. (1988). Differential imprinting and expression of maternal and paternal genomes. Annual Reviews of Genetics 22, 127–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surani, M. A. H., Barton, S. C. & Norris, M. L. (1984). Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature 308, 548–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surani, M. A. H., Barton, S. C. & Norris, M. L. (1986). Nuclear transplantation in the mouse; heritable differences between parental genomes after activation of the embryonic genome. Cell 45, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swain, J. L., Stewart, T. A. & Leder, P. (1987). Parental legacy determines methylation and expression of an autosomal transgene: a molecular mechanism for parental imprinting. Cell 50, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toguchida, J., Ishizaki, K., Sasaki, M. S., Nakamura, Y., Ikenaga, M., Kato, M., Sugimoto, M., Kotoura, Y. & Yamamuro, T. (1989). Preferential mutation of paternally derived RB gene as the initial event in sporadic osteosarcoma. Nature 338, 156–158.Google Scholar