4.4 Article

An artificial promoter construct for heat-inducible misexpression during fish embryogenesis

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 271, 期 2, 页码 416-430

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.04.006

关键词

heat shock promoter; inducible misexpression; medaka; injection; meganuclease; Fgf8; cyclopic eye; otic vesicle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beside spatial distribution, timing of gene expression is a key parameter controlling gene function during embryonic development. Gain-of-function experiments can therefore have quite opposing results, depending on the time of gene activation. Induction techniques are necessary to control timing in these experiments from outside of the organism. Natural heat shock promoters constitute a simple inducible misexpression system, the main disadvantage is a high background level of expression. We present here a new heat stress-inducible bidirectional promoter consisting of multimerized heat shock elements (HSE). The simplified architecture of this promoter largely improves the properties needed for an efficient induction system: dramatically reduced background activity, improved inducibility, and loss of all tissue specific components. Based on this new artificial promoter, we present a transient induction system for fish embryos. Application of this new induction system for Fgf8 misexpression during embryonic development reveals different windows of competence during eye development. A dramatic early phenotype resulting in loss of the eyes is observed for conventional mRNA injection. Later activation, by using our inducible promoter, uncovers different eye phenotypes like cyclopic eyes. Even after 14 days, an efficient heat stress response could be evoked in the injected embryos. The HSE promoter therefore represents a new artificial heat shock promoter with superior properties, making possible transient experiments with inducible misexpression at various stages of development. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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