Prospects for Insertional Mutagenesis in Zebrafish
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINIREVIEW From screens to genes: prospects for insertional mutagenesis in zebrafish Alexander F. Schier, 1 Alexandra L. Joyner, Ruth Lehmann, and William S. Talbot I Developmental Genetics Program, Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine, and Department of Cell Biology, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York 10016 USA The systematic, and now classic, genetic screens for mu- general defects (growth retardation or degeneration) and tations affecting the development of Drosophila and were discarded. Complementation analysis of the remain- Caenorhabditis elegans have laid the foundation for the ing mutants indicated that the two screens identified >400 study of developmental mechanisms in these inverte- genetic loci involved in various aspects of development. brates (N/isslein-Volhard and Wieschaus 1980; Horvitz Based on the average allele frequency, estimates indicate and Sternberg 1991). The subsequent molecular isolation that >50% of genes that could be identified by such and characterization of the affected genes has allowed a screens remain to be isolated. Nevertheless, the screens thorough understanding of the mechanisms underlying were efficient in inducing and identifying mutants: 1.3- development. A similar genetic approach has recently 1.4 mutants were identified in the progeny of each F2 been taken in a vertebrate. Large-scale genetic screens in family. These numbers are similar to the efficiency by zebrafish (Danio rerio) have identified >400 genes essen- which embryonic lethal mutations were identified in the tial for the early development of this vertebrate (Driever Drosophila chemical mutagenesis screens. The major lim- et al. 1996; Haffter et al. 1996). Phenotypic analysis of itation of zebrafish compared to Drosophila is, therefore, zebrafish mutants has already provided interesting in- not the rate of chemical mutagenesis but the limited sights into developmental mechanisms, but only a hand- number of fish that can be raised, housed, and screened. ful have been cloned. Because the mutagen ethylni- trosourea (ENU) predominantly causes point mutations, Insertional mutagenesis with pseudotyped retroviruses cloning of the mutations is rather laborious at this stage, disrupts essential genes and depends on positional cloning and candidate gene Insertional mutants provide an extremely useful tool to approaches (for review, see Collins 1995). The recent de- rapidly clone disrupted genes. This approach has been velopment of pseudotyped retroviruses as insertional very successful in C. elegans and Drosophila, using mutagens in zebrafish provides a novel tool to identify transposable elements. For instance, P element-medi- and efficiently clone zebrafish mutations. As described ated mutagenesis in Drosophila has allowed the cloning by Hopkins and co-workers (Gaiano et al. 1996b; Allende of many of the genes originally identified in chemical et al., this issue), retroviral vectors insert into the ze- mutagenesis screens, and has also led to the identifica- brafish genome and can disrupt essential genes. The in- tion and cloning of many more genes in recent years (for tegrated DNA can then be used to isolate affected genes review, see Spradling et al. 1995). Experiments in the rapidly. We discuss the strategies and results of recent mouse introducing transgenes by pronuclear injections, chemical and insertional genetic screens and assess dif- gene trapping, or retroviral integration have also high- ferent approaches to clone essential zebrafish genes. lighted the power of insertional mutagenesis in vertebrates (for review, see Jaenisch 1988; Gossler and Zachgo 1993). Chemical mutagenesis with ENU efficiently induces The retroviral approach has now been applied success- mutations in essential genes fully to disrupt and rapidly clone essential genes in ze- brafish (Allende et al. 1996; Gaiano et al. 1996b). Burns Two large-scale chemical mutagenesis screens were re- et al. (1993) initially developed a pseudotyped retroviral cently performed, using a standard three-generation in- vector that contains a genome based on the Moloney breeding scheme, to identify embryonic and larval mu- murine leukemia virus (MoMLV) and the envelope gly- tants as homozygous diploid animals (Driever et al. coprotein of the vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). The 1996; Haffter et al. 1996). Germ-line mutations were in- pseudotyped retrovirus was used to infect zebrafish cell duced by ENU in males (GO; see Fig. 1A), transmitted to lines (Burns et al. 1993) and embryos (Lin et al. 1994a), their F1 offspring, expanded by breeding to produce F2 and proviral insertions were initially transmitted at a families, and bred to homozygosity in F3 embryos by low frequency to subsequent generations. More recently interbreeding F2 fish. The two screens led to the identi- higher-titer virus stocks (2 x 10 9 cfu/ml) have been pro- fication of >6000 mutants, two-thirds of wh:ch showed duced, and the efficiency of insertion and germ-line transmission has been improved 100-fold (Gaiano et al. 1Corresponding authors. 1996a). In a pilot screen, -1/70 of insertions have now GENES & DEVELOPMENT 10:3077-3080 1996 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press ISSN 0890-9369/96 $5.00 3077 Schier et al. Figure 1 Possible strategies forinsertional GO Injection of pseudotyped ~r ~ retrovlrus into GO embryos mutagenesis in zebrafish. (A) An F3 screen- leads to mature GO fish with ing protocol similar to that previously used mosaic integration of retroviral for insertional mutagenesis except that F1 fish from a GO intercross can carry one or more transgenes fish carrying multiple insertions are identi- /1\ fied by Southern blot and used to make the I:1 F2 generation. The large-scale chemical screens employed a similar breeding scheme (see text for details). 'a' would then correspond to a mutation in a gene leading A. Identification of F1 individuals with B. Identification of F1 male and C. Production of gynogenetlc three or more insertions (Fish 1) by female with same insertion (Fish 2 F2 embryos from FI females to an embryonic or larval phenotype. (B, C) Southem blot, Breeding of two FI fish and 5) by Southern blot. Breeding (e.g. Fish 4); no Southern blot. with three or more different insertions results in F2 homozygotes In the case of gynogenetic F2 screening protocols. (B) Animals ho- generates F2 families with 6 or more hapioids, half of F2 embryos different insertions have a particular insertion mozygous for an insertion (b) can be ob- tained in the F2 generation if male and fe- male F1 animals carrying the same trans- l gene can be identified by Southern blot. (C) A screen of gynogenetic F2 animals would Each particular insertion is carded by eliminate the need to identify transgenic half of F2 individuals, An intercross of F2 siblings heterozygous for a given Screen for phenotypes fish, because only the maternal genome insertion ("a") results in F3 homozygotes contributes to gynogenotes. Half of a clutch of F2 haploids will inherit any transgene (c) Screen for phenotypes present in a F1 female. Gynogenetic dip- loids (not shown), which do not display the epigenetic abnormalities associated with haploids, can also be used; in this case, the fraction of homozygous progeny will vary (from 5-50%), depending on the distance Screen for phenotypes between the transgene and its centromere. been found to produce embryonic or larval phenotypes present insertional mutagenesis protocol is >20-fold less (Allende et al. 1996; Gaiano et al. 1996b). efficient in inducing lethal mutations as compared to To obtain transgenic fish, blastula embryos were in- chemical mutagenesis (Allende et al. 1996; Gaiano et al. jected with -20,000 infectious particles, some of which 1996b). Using F2 families that carry two insertions, one infect germ cells (see Fig. 1). Retroviral insertions were in about 35 F2 families would show an embryonic or transmitted to F1 offspring by breeding GO founder fish larval phenotype, compared to virtually every F2 family and Southern blot analysis was performed to determine in chemical mutagenesis screens. At this rate for in- which F1 animals carried retroviral insertions. About sertional mutagenesis, it is unlikely that all muta- 30% of F1 embryos derived from a given GO fish were tions identified in the chemical screens will be isolated. found to be transgenic, and, on average, 11 different in- However, variations on the breeding and screening sertions were present in the mosaic germline of each GO schemes, and potential advances in retroviral vectors founder fish (Gaiano et al. 1996a). F2 families were raised could make insertional mutagenesis more widely applic- and F2 fish heterozygous for the same insertion were able. intercrossed. The resulting F3 progeny were screened for Some benefit could be derived by increasing the num- mutant phenotypes. In a small-scale screen, Gaiano et al. ber of retroviral insertions in each F2 family (Fig. 1A). (1996b) analyzed 217 retroviral insertions and found When two founders are crossed to each other, -15% of three lethal mutations correlating with insertions. In to- F1 animals harbor three or more insertions. By breeding tal, four insertional mutations have now been identified, F1 fish with several insertions, F2 families could be and three have been cloned using the retroviral insertion to raised that contain six or more different insertions and isolate flanking genomic DNA by inverse PCR. The cloned these animals can be identified by Southern analysis of flanking DNA was sequenced, and disrupted transcription