Assessment of Genetic Purity of Inbred Strains of Mice using Microsatellite Markers

Authors

  • IMTECH Centre for Animal Resources and Experimentation (iCARE), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Institute of Microbial Technology (CSIR-IMTECH), Sector 39-A, Chandigarh – 160036, Punjab
  • IMTECH Centre for Animal Resources and Experimentation (iCARE), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Institute of Microbial Technology (CSIR-IMTECH), Sector 39-A, Chandigarh – 160036, Punjab
  • IMTECH Centre for Animal Resources and Experimentation (iCARE), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Institute of Microbial Technology (CSIR-IMTECH), Sector 39-A, Chandigarh – 160036, Punjab

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/ti/2021/v28i4/27916

Keywords:

Genetic Monitoring, Inbred Mice, Microsatellite Markers, C57BL/6, BALB/c

Abstract

Monitoring of genetic make-up of inbred strains of mice is one of the most essential and basic requirements to assure the continued purity and homogeneity of the strains. It further helps in maintaining phenotypic characteristics of mice strain, which in turn, ensures the reproducibility of research outcomes between the group of mice and over time. In the present study, the phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of various inbred strains of mice maintained in our Animal Facility were assessed to ascertain their purity. The mice exhibited strain-specific phenotypic characters and skin coat colours in accordance with the published profile of the specific strains. The average litter size of C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice, the most commonly used strains of mice, was calculated over different generations and found to be 5 to 6.6 and 4 to 6, respectively. For checking the genetic purity of mice, more than 1700 tissue samples (ear punched tissue) were collected from various strains of mice. Genomic DNA was isolated from the tissue samples and subjected to PCR-based microsatellite analysis. Amplified PCR products of genomic DNA of tested mice showed identical amplicon base-pair length as per the published profile in the MGI database, indicating the purity and uniformity of the mice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mohanan PV, Division T, Wing BMT. Quality of animals in GLP studies. J Lab Anim Sci. 2014. p. 20–3.

Papa R, Gepts P. Asymmetry of gene flow and differential geographical structure of molecular diversity in wild and domesticated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Mesoamerica. TheorAppl Genet. 2003; 106:239–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-1085-z. PMid:12582849

Nomura T, Esaki K, Tomita T. ICLAS manual for genetic monitoring of inbred mice. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; 1984.

Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, Davis RW. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet. 1980; 32(3):314–31. PMID: 6247908; PMCID: PMC1686077.

Franco NH. Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals (Basel). 2013; 3(1):238–73. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238. PM id:26487317 PMCid:PMC4495509

Festing MF. Evidence should trump intuition by preferring inbred strains to outbred stocks in preclinical research. ILAR J. 2014; 55(3):399–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilu036. PMid:25541542

Xiaojuan Z, Zhaohui Z, Zhaofeng H, Pingping T, Runlin ZM. Microsatellite genotyping for four expected inbred mouse strains from KM mice. J Genet Genomics. 2007; 34(3):214–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1673-8527(07)60022-8

Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. Med J Aust. 1959; 1:500. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1960.tb73127.x

Cohan RA, Inanlou DN, Aref MHS, Zeinali S, Farhoudi R. Microsatellite marker analysis for laboratory mice profiling. Adv Biomed Res. 2019;8:40. https://doi.org/10.4103/abr.abr_53_19. PMid:31360681. PMCid:PMC6621418

Rakoczy-Trojanowska M, Bolibok H. Characteristics and a comparison of three classes of microsatellitebased markers and their application in plants. Cell Mol Biol Lett. 2004; 9(2):221–38. PMID: 15213804.

Bartlett JM, Stirling D. A short history of the polymerase chain reaction. Methods Mol Biol. 2003; 226:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-384-4:3. PMid:12958470

van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, Macleod MR. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245. PMid:20361020 PMCid:PMC2846855

Brenner S, Miller J, Broughton W. Encyclopedia of genetics. Elsevier Sci Inc.; 2001.

Underkoffler LA, Collins JN, Choi JD, Oakey RJ. An application of molecular genotyping in mice. BiolProced Online. 2003; 5:116–22. https://doi.org/10.1251/bpo53. PMid:14569615. PMCid:PMC154566

Kumar PS, Yadav G. Genetic monitoring of breeding colony through evaluation of genetic diversity within and between the inbred lines by using microsatellite markers. J Lab Anim Sci. 2020; 1:20–5.

Purohit N, Kumar M, Srivastav AK, Purohit DC. Evaluation of genetic relationship within and between mice strains using microsatellite markers. Res Biotechnol. 2015; 6(6):31–41.

Gurumurthy CB, Joshi PS, Kurz SG, Ohtsuka M, Quadros RM, Harms DW, Lloyd KC. Validation of simple sequence length polymorphism regions of commonly used mouse strains for marker assisted speed congenics screening. Int J Genomics. 2015; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/735845. PMid:2 5815306. PMCid:PMC4359823

Published

2021-12-22

How to Cite

Raut, S., Singh Chopra, B., & Khatri, N. (2021). Assessment of Genetic Purity of Inbred Strains of Mice using Microsatellite Markers. Toxicology International, 28(4), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.18311/ti/2021/v28i4/27916

Issue

Section

Original Research