Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:13:17.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paternal inheritance of egg traits in mice: a case of genomic imprinting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

S. A. A. Bander ,
S. C. Watson  and
J. G. M. Shire
S. A. A. Bander
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Essex, Colchester, C04 3SQ
S. C. Watson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Essex, Colchester, C04 3SQ
J. G. M. Shire*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Essex, Colchester, C04 3SQ
*
* Corresponding author.
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.

Eggs from reciprocal hybrids between the C57BL/6By and BALB/cBy strains were tested for their susceptibility to attack by hyaluronidase and pronase. There were significant reciprocal differences between the F1 females in the responses of their unfertilized eggs to both enzymes. The F1 hybrids from BALB mothers showed the increased susceptibility characteristic of C57BL whilst the F1 hybrids with C57BL mothers were more resistant to both enzymes, like BALB mice. Eggs from the four kinds of reciprocal F2 hybrid females also showed patroclinous patterns of susceptibility. A patroclinous difference was found between reciprocal crosses of the CXBD and CXBE recombinant inbred strains but not in crosses between recombinant inbred strains with similar phenotypes. Cross fostering did not alter the phenotypes of the C57BL and BALB females or those of their reciprocal F1 hybrids. The findings are interpreted in terms of differential genomic imprinting of paternally inherited information. The possible general usefulness of patroclinous differences between reciprocal F1 females in revealing differences in imprinting is noted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 213 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

Argyropoulos, G. & Shire, J. G. M. (1989). Genotypic effects on gonadal size in fetal mice. Journal of Reproduction & Fertility 86 (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bander, S. A. A., Watson, S. C. & Shire, J. G. M. (1988). Genetic differences in periovum sensitivity to hyaluronidase and protease between C57BL/6, BALB and CXB recombinant mice. Journal of Reproduction & Fertility 84, 709–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beechey, C. V., Cattanach, B. M. & Searle, A. G. (1988). Genetic imprinting map. Mouse Newsletter 81, 48–49.Google Scholar
Beerman, F., Jenderny, J., Hummler, E. & Hansmann, I. (1987). Inheritance of a meiosis I error expressed in mouse oocytes and modulated by a maternal factor. Genetical Research 49, 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, D. K., Ruvinsky, A. O. & Borodin, P. M. (1981). Inheritance of alternative states of the fused gene in mice. Journal of Heredity 72, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braden, A. W. H. (1958). Variation between strains of mice in phenomena associated with sperm penetration and fertilization. Journal of Genetics 56, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattanach, B. M. & Kirk, M. (1985). Differential activity of maternally and paternally derived chromosome regions in mice. Nature 315, 496–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S., Isaacson, J. H. & Gauld, I. K. (1982). Non-random X-chromosome inactivation in the mouse: difference of reaction to imprinting. Genetical Research 39, 237–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harding, A. E. (1981). Genetic aspects of autosomal dominant late onset cerebellar ataxia. Journal of Medical Genetics 18, 436–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayward, P. & Shire, J. G. M. (1974). Y-chromosome effect on adult testis size. Nature 250, 499–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, S. E. & Mittwoch, U. (1987). Y-chromosomal and other factors in the development of testis size in mice. Genetical Research 50, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. R. (1971). Genes and genotypes affecting embryonic fluid relations in the mouse. Genetical Research 18, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. R. (1975). Further observations on the hairpintail (Thp) mutation in the mouse. Genetical Research 24, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzanowska, H. (1972). Rapidity of removal in vitro of the cumulus oophorus and the zona pellucida in different strains of mice. Journal of Reproduction & Fertility 31, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamoureux, M. L. & Galbraith, D. B. (1986). DK/Lm: a strain of laboratory mouse with an unusual expression of the lethal yellow (Ay) phenotype. Genetical Research 48, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, M. F. (1983). The use of Robertsonian translocations for studies of non-disjunction. In: Radiation-Induced Chromosome Damage in Man (ed. Ishihara, T. and Sasakio, M. S.), pp. 327–346. New York: A. R. Liss.Google Scholar
Maxson, S. C. (1981). The genetics of aggression in vertebrates. In: The Biology of Aggression (ed. Brain, P. F. and Benton, D.), pp. 69–104. Amsterdam: Sythoff & Noordhoff International Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. & Solter, D. (1984 a). Maternal Thp lethality in the mouse is a nuclear, not cytoplasmic, defect. Nature 308, 550–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. & Solter, D. (1984 b). Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 37, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monk, M., Boubelik, M. & Lehnert, S. (1987). Temporal and regional changes in DNA methylation in the embryonic, extra embryomic and germ cell lineages during mouse embryo development. Development 99, 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, R. H., Goldman, D., Bird, E. D., Sax, D. L., Merril, C. R., Schoenfield, M. & Wolf, P. A. (1983). Maternal transmission of Huntington's disease. Lancet i, 208–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Nicol, A. & McLaren, A. (1974). An effect of the female genotype on sperm transport in mice. Journal of Reproduction & Fertility 39, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renard, P. & Babinet, C. (1986). Identification of a paternal genotype effect of the cytoplasm of one-cell-stage mouse embryos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 83, 6883–6886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruvinsky, A. O. (1988). Inheritance of dominant genes with variable penetrance: an evolutionary aspect. Journal of Animal Breeding & Genetics 105, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle 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
Schabronath, J. & Gartner, K. (1988). Paternal influence on timing of pronuclear DNA synthesis in naturally ovulated and fertilized mouse eggs. Biology of Reproduction 38, 744–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, A. G. & Beechey, C. V. (1985). Non-complementation phenomena and their bearing on non-disjunction effects. In: Aneuploidy: Aetiology and Mechanisms (ed. Delarco, V. L., Voytek, P. E. and Hollaender, A.), pp. 363–376. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukri, N. M., Grew, F. & Shire, J. G. M. (1988). Recessive mutation in a standard recombinant-inbred line of mice affects seminal vesicle shape. Genetic Research 52, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, L. O. (1973). Thymus weight changes during the early postnatal period in mice. American Journal of Anatomy 138, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, A. D. (1983). The role of the Y-chromosome in mammalian sexual differentiation. In: Development in Mammals, Vol. 5 (ed. Johnson, M. H.), pp. 321–367. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
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. (1987). Experimental reconstruction of mouse eggs and embryos: an analysis of mammalian development. Biology of Reproduction 36, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surani, M. A. H., Reik, W. & Allen, N. D. (1988). Transgenics as molecular probes for genomic imprinting. Trends in Genetics 4, 59–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Swain, J. L., Stewart, T. A. & Leder, P. (1987). Parental legacy determines methylation and expression of an autosomal transgene: a molecular mechanism for imprinting. Cell 50, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toguchida, J., Ishizaki, K., Saski, M. S., Makamura, Y., Ikemaga, M., Kato, M., Sugimo, M., Kotoura, Y. & Yamamuro, T. (1989). Preferential mutation of paternally derived RB gene as the initial event in sporadic osteosarcoma. Nature 338, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, J. D., Frels, W. I., Chapman, V. M. & Papaioannou, V. E. (1977). Preferential expression of the maternally derived X chromosome in the mouse yolk sac. Cell 12, 873–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed