4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Knocking out the regulatory beta subunit of protein kinase CK2 in mice: Gene dosage effects in ES cells and embryos

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 274, 期 1-2, 页码 31-37

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-005-3117-x

关键词

CK2 beta; embryonic lethality; knockout; mouse; protein kinase CK2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knocking out the regulatory beta subunit of protein kinase CK2 in mice leads to early embryonic lethality. Heterozygous CK2 beta (CK2 beta(+/-)) knockout mice do not show an obvious phenotype. However, the number of heterozygous offsprings from CK2 beta(+/-) inter-crossings is lower than expected, meaning that some heterozygous embryos do not survive. Interestingly, CK2 beta(+/-) ES (Embryonic Stem) cells express a considerably lower level of CK2 beta than wild-type ES cells, whereas the level of CK2 beta in organs from heterozygous adult mice does not significantly differ from those of wild-type mice. The data suggest a compensatory mechanism that adjusts CK2 beta levels during development in the majority of, but not in all, cases (Mol Cell Biol {23:} 908-915, 2003). In order to find an explanation for the gene dosage effect observed for heterozygous offsprings, we analysed embryos at mid-gestation (E10.5) as well as wild-type and CK2 beta(+/-) ES cells for differences in growth rate and response to different stress agents. Analysis of E10.5 embryos generated from heterozygous matings revealed about 20% of smaller retarded CK2 beta(+/-) embryos. No correlation between CK2 beta levels in normal looking and retarded CK2 beta(+/-) embryos were found. However, a different post-translational form of CK2 beta protein has been detected in these retarded embryos. Cellular parameters such as growth rate and G1-, G2-checkpoints in ES cells were identical in both wild-type and CK2 beta(+/-) cells. When ES cells were injected to induce differentiated teratocarcinoma in syngenic mice, the size of the tumours correlated with the level of CK2 beta.

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