Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baulch, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Overstreet, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baulch, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Overstreet, J. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mutagenesis, Vol. 17, No. 1, 9-13, January 2002
© 2002 UK Environmental Mutagen Society/Oxford University Press

Germline drift in chimeric male mice possessing an F2 component with a paternal F0 radiation history

Janet E. Baulch,1, Otto G. Raabe, Lynn M. Wiley and James W. Overstreet

Institute of Toxicology and Environmental Health, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

In earlier work using mouse chimeric embryos we have shown that pre-implantation embryonic cells with a history of paternal {gamma}-irradiation (1 Gy) 6 weeks prior to conception demonstrated a competitive cell proliferation disadvantage when challenged by direct cell–cell contact with control pre-implantation embryos in chimeras even two generations after paternal irradiation. This effect on embryonic cell proliferation was associated with paternal irradiation of sensitive type A/B spermatogonia 6 weeks prior to conception but not from irradiation 5 weeks prior to conception. The purpose of this new study is to test the hypothesis that germ cell lines with a history of acute irradiation may also exhibit a selection disadvantage or germline chimeric drift over time in adult male mice two generations after paternal irradiation in chimeric mice. F0 male CD1 mice received a 1.0 Gy whole body absorbed dose of attenuated 137Cs {gamma}-rays and were mated at post-irradiation weeks 5 and 6. Chimeric XY<-->XY male CD1 mice were constructed with F2 embryos from the F1 offspring and with control embryos. To distinguish the control germline cells, the control embryos were heterozygous for the neo transgene, which served as a cell lineage marker. To test for germline chimeric drift, each XY<-->XY chimera was mated periodically from age 7 to 21 weeks with a different CD1 female. The fraction of offspring from each liter with the neo marker was used to quantify the relative contribution of the control germ cell lineage to the fertilizing sperm population. The results showed that there was a significant selection against germ cells with the paternal F0 post-irradiation week 6 history. In contrast, there was a very small but significant selection in favor of the germ cells with the paternal F0 post-irradiation week 5 history. These results indicate that the effects of a relatively non-toxic dose of radiation (1 Gy) on cell proliferation transmitted by ancestral type B spermatogonia to the embryo are manifested in the germline of the adult male mice even after two generations.

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 530 752 9872; Fax: +1 530 752 5300; E-mail: jebaulch{at}uedavis.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
J. E. Baulch and O. G. Raabe
Gamma irradiation of Type B spermatogonia leads to heritable genomic instability in four generations of mice
Mutagenesis, September 1, 2005; 20(5): 337 - 343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.