4.5 Article

Phenotyping structural abnormalities in mouse embryos using high-resolution episcopic microscopy

期刊

DISEASE MODELS & MECHANISMS
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 1143-1152

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dmm.016337

关键词

Phenotype screen; HREM; Imaging; 3D; Episcopic

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [WT100160]
  2. Medical Research Council [U117562103]
  3. MRC [MC_U117562103] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Cancer Research UK [13031] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U117562103] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The arrival of simple and reliable methods for 3D imaging of mouse embryos has opened the possibility of analysing normal and abnormal development in a far more systematic and comprehensive manner than has hitherto been possible. This will not only help to extend our understanding of normal tissue and organ development but, by applying the same approach to embryos from genetically modified mouse lines, such imaging studies could also transform our knowledge of gene function in embryogenesis and the aetiology of developmental disorders. The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium is coordinating efforts to phenotype single gene knockouts covering the entire mouse genome, including characterising developmental defects for those knockout lines that prove to be embryonic lethal. Here, we present a pilot study of 34 such lines, utilising high-resolution episcopic microscopy (HREM) for comprehensive 2D and 3D imaging of homozygous null embryos and their wild-type littermates. We present a simple phenotyping protocol that has been developed to take advantage of the high-resolution images obtained by HREM and that can be used to score tissue and organ abnormalities in a reliable manner. Using this approach with embryos at embryonic day 14.5, we show the wide range of structural abnormalities that are likely to be detected in such studies and the variability in phenotypes between sibling homozygous null embryos.

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

4.5
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