Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T20:41:15.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A genetic method for measuring non-disjunction in mice with Robertsonian translocations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Mary F. Lyon ,
Hazel C. Ward  and
Gillian M. Simpson
Mary F. Lyon
Affiliation:
MRC Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Oxon, England
Hazel C. Ward
Affiliation:
MRC Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Oxon, England
Gillian M. Simpson
Affiliation:
MRC Radiobiology Unit, Harwell, Oxon, England
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

A high frequency of chromosomal non-disjunction occurs spontaneously in mice heterozygous for some Robertsonian translocations. If animals heterozygous for the translocation and homozygous for different alleles of a marker gene are mated together a few young homozygous for the marker arise through non-disjunction, and their frequency can be used as a measure. This method has been used with the Robertsonian translocation Rb(9.19)163H and the marker ruby ru (chr. 19); Rb(4.6)-2Bnr with brown (b) and misty (m) (chr. 4); and Rb(9.14)6Bnr with hairless (hr) and piebald (s) (chr. 14) respectively. The frequencies of marked young were: Rb163 0/5260 ruru; Rb2 21/1997 mm bb; and Rb6 19/1702 hrhr ss, and the corresponding calculated non-disjunction frequencies in each arm of the translocation were Rb163, <5 %; Rb2, 15%; Rb6, 15%. These figures show reasonably good agreement with values obtained by other methods. A search for genetic or environmental factors affecting the frequency of marked young in Rb2 and Rb6 revealed that in Rb2 the frequency increased with maternal age, whereas in Rb6 the maternal age of the marked young was non-significantly below that of the total progeny. The reasons for this discrepancy are not clear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , December 1975 , pp. 283 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Cattanach, B. M. & Moseley, H. (1973). Non-disjunction and reduced fertility caused by the tobacco mouse metacentric chromosomes. Cytogenetics Cell Genetics 12, 264–287.Google Scholar
Evans, E. P., Lyon, M. F. & Daglish, M. (1967). A mouse translocation giving a metacentric marker chromosome. Cytogenetics 6, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, C. E. & Hamerton, J. L. (1956). A colchicine, hypotonic citrate, squash sequence for mammalian chromosomes. Stain Technology 31, 247–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, C. E. & Evans, E. P. (1973). Non-expression of genome unbalance in haplophase and early diplophase of the mouse and incidence of karyotypic abnormality in post-implantation embryos. In Les Accidents chromosomiques de la reproduction (ed. Boué, A. and Thibault, C.), pp. 271–285. Paris: Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale.Google Scholar
Fredga, K. (1964). A simple technique for demonstration of the chromosomes and mitotic stages in a mammal. Hereditas 51, 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gropp, A., Tettenborn, U. & Lehmann, E. von. (1970). Chromosomen variation vom Robertson' schen Typus bei der Tabakmaus M. poschiavinus, und ihren Hybriden mit der Laboratoriumsmaus. Cytogenetics 9, 9–23.Google Scholar
Gropp, A., Giers, D. & Kolbus, U. (1974). Trisomy in the fetal backcross progeny of male and female metacentric heterozygotes of the mouse: I. Cytogenetics Cell Genetics 13, 511–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gropp, A., Kolbus, U. & Giers, D. (1975). Systematic approach to the study of trisomy in the mouse: II. Cytogenetics Cell Genetics 14, 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, P. A. (1972). Human population cytogenetics. Proceedings of the IVth International Congress on Human Genetics pp. 232–242. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
Meredith, R. (1969). A simple method for preparing meiotic chromosomes from mammalian testis. Chromosoma (Berl.) 26, 254–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, L. B. (1968). The use of sex-chromosome anomalies for measuring radiation effects in different germ-cell stages of the mouse. In Effects of Radiation on Meiotic Systems, pp. 27–41. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
Searle, A. G., Ford, C. E. & Beechey, C. V. (1971). Meiotic disjunction in mouse trans-locations and the determination of centromere position. Genetical Research 18, 215–235.Google Scholar
Tettenborn, U. & Gropp, A. (1970). Meiotic non-disjunction in mice and mouse hybrids. Cytogenetics 9, 272–283.Google Scholar
Uchida, I. A. & Lee, C. P. V. (1974). Radiation-induced non-disjunction in mouse oocytes. Nature 250, 601–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, M., Endo, A. & Watanabe, G. (1973 a). Maternal age dependence of chromosome anomalies. Nature New Biology 241, 141–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, M., Shimada, T., Endo, A. & Watanabe, G. (1973 b). Effects of low-dose X-irradiation on the chromosomal non-disjunction in aged mice. Nature New Biology 244, 206–208.Google Scholar