4.1 Article

Novel lethal mouse mutants produced in balancer chromosome screens

期刊

GENE EXPRESSION PATTERNS
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 653-665

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.modgep.2005.11.015

关键词

mutagenesis screen; balancer chromosome; lethal mutation; cardiovascular development; embryonic development; gastrulation defect; peri-natal lethal; post-natal lethal

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [F32 HD42436, U01 HD39372] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [077187] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutagenesis screens are a valuable method to identify genes that are required for normal development. Previous mouse mutagenesis screens for lethal mutations were targeted at specific time points or for developmental processes. Here we present the results of lethal mutant isolation from two mutagenesis screens that use balancer chromosomes. One screen was localized to mouse chromosome 4, between the STS markers D4Mit281 and D4Mit51. The second screen covered the region between Trp53 and Wnt3 on mouse chromosome 11. These screens identified all lethal mutations in the balancer regions, without bias towards any phenotype or stage of death. We have isolated 19 lethal lines on mouse chromosome 4, and 59 lethal lines on chromosome 11, many of which are distinct from previous mutants that map to these regions of the genome. We have characterized the mutant lines to determine the time of death, and performed a pair-wise complementation cross to determine if the mutations are allelic. Our data suggest that the majority of mouse lethal mutations die during mid-gestation, after uterine implantation, with a variety of defects in gastrulation, heart, neural tube, vascular, or placental development. This initial group of mutants provides a functional annotation of mouse chromosomes 4 and 11, and indicates that many novel developmental phenotypes can be quickly isolated in defined genomic intervals through balancer chromosome mutagenesis screens. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据