4.6 Article

Three novel Pax6 alleles in the mouse leading to the same small-eye phenotype caused by different consequences at target promoters

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 12, 页码 4671-4683

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-1407

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To characterize three new mouse small-eye mutants detected during ethylnitrosourea mutagenesis programs. METHODS. Three new mouse small-eye mutants were morphologically characterized, particularly by in situ hybridization. The mutations were mapped, and the candidate gene was sequenced. The relative amount of Pax6-specific mRNA was determined by real-time PCR. Reporter gene analysis used Crygf and Six3 promoter fragments in front of a luciferase gene and HEK293 cells as recipients. RESULTS. The new mutations - ADD4802, Aey11, and Aey18 - were mapped to chromosome 2; causative mutations have been characterized in Pax6 (Aey11: C-->T substitution in exon 8, creating a stop codon just in front of the homeobox; ADD4802: G-->A substitution at the beginning of intron 8 changes splicing and leads to an altered open reading frame and then to a premature stop codon; Aey18: G-->A exchange in the last base of intron 5a leads also to a splice defect, skipping exons 5a and 6). Real-time PCR indicated nonsense-mediated decay in Pax6(Aey11) and Pax6(Aey18) mutants but not in Pax6(ADD4802). This result is supported by the functional analysis of corresponding expression constructs in cell culture, where the Aey11 and Aey18 alleles did not show a stimulation of the Six3 promotor or an inhibition of the Crygf promoter ( as wild-type constructs do). However, the Pax6(ADD4802) allele stimulated both promoters. CONCLUSIONS. Together with functional analysis in a reporter gene assay and immunohistochemistry using Pax6 antibodies, it is suggested that the Pax6(Aey11) and Pax6(Aey18) alleles act through a loss of function, whereas ADD4802 represents a gain-of-function allele.

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

4.6
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