4.5 Article

Comparative analysis of right element mutant lox sites on recombination efficiency in embryonic stem cells

Journal

BMC BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6750-10-29

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [17012018]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17012018] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cre-mediated site-specific integrative recombination in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells is a useful tool for genome engineering, allowing precise and repeated site-specific integration. To promote the integrative reaction, a left element/right element (LE/RE) mutant strategy using a pair of lox sites with mutations in the LE or RE of the lox sequence has previously been developed. Recombination between LE and RE mutant lox produces a wild-type loxP site as well as an LE+RE double mutant lox site, which has mutations in both sides and less affinity to Cre, resulting in stable integration. We previously demonstrated successful integrative recombination using lox71 (an LE mutant) and lox66 (an RE mutant) in ES cells. Recently, other LE/RE mutant lox sites showing higher recombination efficiency in Escherichia coli have been reported. However, their recombination efficiency in mammalian cells remains to be analyzed. Results: Using ES cells, we compared six RE mutant lox sites, focusing on their recombination efficiency with lox71. All of the RE mutant lox sites showed similar recombination efficiency. We then analyzed the stability of the recombined product, i.e., the LE+RE double mutant lox site, under continuous and strong Cre activity in ES cells. Two RE mutants, loxJTZ17 and loxKR3, produced more stable LE+RE double mutant lox than did the lox66/71 double mutant. Conclusion: The two mutant RE lox sites, loxJTZ17 and loxKR3, are more suitable than lox66 for Cre-mediated integration or inversion in ES cells.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available