Skip to main content
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1988 Jul 1;107(1):257–265. doi: 10.1083/jcb.107.1.257

A novel methodology for analysis of cell distribution in chimeric mouse organs using a strain specific antibody

PMCID: PMC2115179  PMID: 3292542

Abstract

Chimeric animals are very useful for analysis of cell lineage, homeostasis in tissue architecture, and cell-cell interactions during both organogenesis and carcinogenesis. However, there is not a generally effective means for marking cells of chimeric mice. We have therefore developed a polyclonal antibody that is useful for this purpose. This antibody specifically recognizes those cells derived from C3H strain mice. The specificity of this antibody was checked by both immunoblotting and immunoadsorption methods. The antigens were immunohistochemically detected in cytoplasm of both epithelial and mesenchymal cells of C3H/HeN strain mouse in many different organs, but not the corresponding cell types from BALB/c or C57BL/10 or several other mouse strains. The validity of these antibodies as markers for C3H cells was further checked by tissue recombination experiments and in mixed cultures of mouse and rat cells. In each case the antibody recognized only the C3H mouse cells. Next, chimeric mice were prepared between strains C3H/HeN and BALB/c, and C3H/HeN and C57BL/10 mice. Chimeras 2-mo old were examined for antigen distribution using the indirect immunofluorescence method. Many tissues in chimeric mice were composed of cells that were both stained and unstained by the anti-C3H specific antigen. The chimeric patterns were classified into four types, A-D. In well-defined structural units such as intestinal crypts, small intestinal villi, kidney convoluted tubules, exocrine gland acini, ovarian follicles, thyroid gland follicles, stomach glands, adrenal cortex, lingual papillae, etc., (A) each unit was composed entirely of either positive or negative cells, or else (B) in some organs each unit was composed of both types of cells. In the uniform tissues without such distinguishable units, such as stratified squamous epithelium, mesenchymal tissue, corpora lutea, pituitary gland, Islets of Langerhans, adrenal medulla etc., (C) the tissue was composed of definite small cell groups made entirely of either positive or negative cells, or else (D) the tissue was composed of both types of cells which were intermingled with one another. These findings strongly suggest that the chimeric patterns demonstrated here reflect the cell proliferative unit in each tissue. This cell marker system has proven useful for analysis of cell lineage and cell renewal systems in many organs of chimeric mice.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.2 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cheng H., Bjerknes M. Whole population cell kinetics and postnatal development of the mouse intestinal epithelium. Anat Rec. 1985 Apr;211(4):420–426. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092110408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Condamine H., Custer R. P., Mintz B. Pure-strain and genetically mosaic liver tumors histochemically identified with the -glucuronidase marker in allophenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Sep;68(9):2032–2036. doi: 10.1073/pnas.68.9.2032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cunha G. R., Vanderslice K. D. Identification in histological sections of species origin of cells from mouse, rat and human. Stain Technol. 1984 Jan;59(1):7–12. doi: 10.3109/10520298409113823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feder N. Solitary cells and enzyme exchange in tetraparental mice. Nature. 1976 Sep 2;263(5572):67–69. doi: 10.1038/263067a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garner W., McLaren A. Cell distribution in chimaeric mouse embryos before implantation. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1974 Oct;32(2):495–503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gearhart J., Oster-Granite M. L. An immunofluorescence procedure for the tissue localization of glucosephosphate isomerase. J Histochem Cytochem. 1980 Mar;28(3):245–249. doi: 10.1177/28.3.6986434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldowitz D., Mullen R. J. Nuclear morphology of ichthyosis mutant mice as a cell marker in chimeric brain. Dev Biol. 1982 Jan;89(1):261–267. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90313-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Herrup K., Mullen R. J. Intercellular transfer of beta-glucuronidase in chimeric mice. J Cell Sci. 1979 Dec;40:21–31. doi: 10.1242/jcs.40.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hillman N., Sherman M. I., Graham C. The effect of spatial arrangement on cell determination during mouse development. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1972 Oct;28(2):263–278. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hume W. J., Potten C. S. Proliferative units in stratified squamous epithelium. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1983 Jan;8(1):95–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.1983.tb01749.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hume W. J., Potten C. S. The ordered columnar structure of mouse filiform papillae. J Cell Sci. 1976 Oct;22(1):149–160. doi: 10.1242/jcs.22.1.149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kusakabe M., Sakakura T., Nishizuka Y., Sano M., Matsukage A. Polyester wax embedding and sectioning technique for immunohistochemistry. Stain Technol. 1984 May;59(3):127–132. doi: 10.3109/10520298409113845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kusakabe M., Sakakura T., Sano M., Nishizuka Y. A pituitary-salivary mixed gland induced by tissue recombination of embryonic pituitary epithelium and embryonic submandibular gland mesenchyme in mice. Dev Biol. 1985 Aug;110(2):382–391. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(85)90097-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Laemmli U. K. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680–685. doi: 10.1038/227680a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mintz B. Experimental Study of the Developing Mammalian Egg: Removal of the Zona Pellucida. Science. 1962 Nov 2;138(3540):594–595. doi: 10.1126/science.138.3540.594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mintz B. Gene control of mammalian pigmentary differentiation. I. Clonal origin of melanocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1967 Jul;58(1):344–351. doi: 10.1073/pnas.58.1.344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moser F. G., Dorman B. P., Ruddle F. H. Mouse-human heterokaryon analysis with a 33258 Hoechst-Giemsa technique. J Cell Biol. 1975 Sep;66(3):676–680. doi: 10.1083/jcb.66.3.676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Olsen I., Dean M. F., Harris G., Muir H. Direct transfer of a lysosomal enzyme from lymphoid cells to deficient fibroblasts. Nature. 1981 May 21;291(5812):244–247. doi: 10.1038/291244a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Oster-Granite M. L., Gearhart J. Cell lineage analysis of cerebellar Purkinje cells in mouse chimeras. Dev Biol. 1981 Jul 15;85(1):199–208. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(81)90251-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ponder B. A., Schmidt G. H., Wilkinson M. M., Wood M. J., Monk M., Reid A. Derivation of mouse intestinal crypts from single progenitor cells. Nature. 1985 Feb 21;313(6004):689–691. doi: 10.1038/313689a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ponder B. A., Wilkinson M. M. Organ-related differences in binding of Dolichos biflorus agglutinin to vascular endothelium. Dev Biol. 1983 Apr;96(2):535–541. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(83)90191-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ponder B. A., Wilkinson M. M., Wood M. H-2 antigens as markers of cellular genotype in chimaeric mice. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1983 Aug;76:83–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Potten C. S. Cell replacement in epidermis (keratopoiesis) via discrete units of proliferation. Int Rev Cytol. 1981;69:271–318. doi: 10.1016/s0074-7696(08)62326-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Potten C. S., Hendry J. H. Differential regeneration of intestinal proliferative cells and cryptogenic cells after irradiation. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med. 1975 May;27(5):413–424. doi: 10.1080/09553007514550411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Potten C. S. The epidermal proliferative unit: the possible role of the central basal cell. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1974 Jan;7(1):77–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2184.1974.tb00401.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rossant J., Chapman V. M. Somatic and germline mosaicism in interspecific chimaeras between Mus musculus and Mus caroli. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1983 Feb;73:193–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rossant J., Vijh M., Siracusa L. D., Chapman V. M. Identification of embryonic cell lineages in histological sections of M. musculus in-equilibrium M. caroli chimaeras. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1983 Feb;73:179–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schmidt G. H., Wilkinson M. M., Ponder B. A. Cell migration pathway in the intestinal epithelium: an in situ marker system using mouse aggregation chimeras. Cell. 1985 Feb;40(2):425–429. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(85)90156-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Spindle A. Cell allocation in preimplantation mouse chimeras. J Exp Zool. 1982 Feb 20;219(3):361–367. doi: 10.1002/jez.1402190311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. TARKOWSKI A. K. Mouse chimaeras developed from fused eggs. Nature. 1961 Jun 3;190:857–860. doi: 10.1038/190857a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. TARKOWSKI A. K. PATTERNS OF PIGMENTATION IN EXPERIMENTALLY PRODUCED MOUSE CHIMAERAE. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1964 Dec;12:575–585. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Weinberg W. C., Howard J. C., Iannaccone P. M. Histological demonstration of mosaicism in a series of chimeric rats produced between congenic strains. Science. 1985 Feb 1;227(4686):524–527. doi: 10.1126/science.3966159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. West J. D. Patches in the livers of chimaeric mice. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1976 Aug;36(1):151–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Whittingham D. G. Culture of mouse ova. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 1971 Jun;14:7–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Cell Biology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES