Skip to main content
Wellcome Open Research logoLink to Wellcome Open Research
. 2016 Nov 15;1:1. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.9899.1

Highly variable penetrance of abnormal phenotypes in embryonic lethal knockout mice

Robert Wilson 1, Stefan H Geyer 2, Lukas Reissig 2, Julia Rose 2, Dorota Szumska 3, Emily Hardman 1, Fabrice Prin 1, Christina McGuire 1, Ramiro Ramirez-Solis 4, Jacqui White 4, Antonella Galli 4, Catherine Tudor 4, Elizabeth Tuck 4, Cecilia Icoresi Mazzeo 4, James C Smith 1, Elizabeth Robertson 5, David J Adams 4, Timothy Mohun 1,a, Wolfgang J Weninger 2
PMCID: PMC5159622  EMSID: EMS70773  PMID: 27996060

Abstract

Background: Identifying genes that are essential for mouse embryonic development and survival through term is a powerful and unbiased way to discover possible genetic determinants of human developmental disorders. Characterising the changes in mouse embryos that result from ablation of lethal genes is a necessary first step towards uncovering their role in normal embryonic development and establishing any correlates amongst human congenital abnormalities.

Methods: Here we present results gathered to date in the Deciphering the Mechanisms of Developmental Disorders (DMDD) programme, cataloguing the morphological defects identified from comprehensive imaging of 220 homozygous mutant embryos from 42 lethal and subviable lines, analysed at E14.5.

Results: Virtually all embryos show multiple abnormal phenotypes and amongst the 42 lines these affect most organ systems. Within each mutant line, the phenotypes of individual embryos form distinct but overlapping sets. Subcutaneous edema, malformations of the heart or great vessels, abnormalities in forebrain morphology and the musculature of the eyes are all prevalent phenotypes, as is loss or abnormal size of the hypoglossal nerve.

Conclusions: Overall, the most striking finding is that no matter how profound the malformation, each phenotype shows highly variable penetrance within a mutant line. These findings have challenging implications for efforts to identify human disease correlates.

Keywords: mouse, embryo, phenotype, morphology, high-resolution episcopic microscopy, development, penetrance

Introduction

Animal models have long been used as experimental surrogates for investigating the role of individual genes in human development and disease. The remarkable degree of conservation in gene sequence and role that we now know exists across species confirms the validity of this approach and genetic manipulation in the mouse provides a commonly used way to explore gene function. The most ambitious example of this is the attempt coordinated by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC) to generate a catalogue of gene function, using a systematic approach to phenotyping of individual gene knockouts (KO) that cover the entire mouse genome. In generating KO lines from about one quarter of the total mouse genome so far, these studies have revealed that around one third of all mammalian genes are essential for life 13, their removal resulting in embryonic or perinatal lethality. The study of such mutant lines provides a unique opportunity to gain a comprehensive overview of the genetic components regulating normal embryo development and, by inference, the identity of genes whose mutation may cause congenital abnormalities or developmental disease.

Deciphering the Mechanisms of Developmental Disorders (DMDD) is a five year, UK-based programme funded by the Wellcome Trust with the goal of studying 240 embryonic lethal KO lines 3. By applying systematic phenotyping methods for homozygous mutant embryos with parallel efforts to identify placental abnormalities and changes in early embryo transcriptome profiles, DMDD offers a foundation for identifying novel genes important for developmental or clinical studies. Here we summarise results to date from detailed examination of homozygous mutant embryos at E14.5 for structural abnormalities.

Materials and methods

Embryos

All embryos were produced by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute ( https://www.sanger.ac.uk/mouseportal/) as part of the DMDD project 3. Gene knockout lines produced as part of a systematic programme coordinated by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium ( http://www.mousephenotype.org) were designated lethal if no homozygous mutants were present amongst a minimum of 28 pups at P14 and sub-viable if their proportion fell below 13% of total offspring 2. Embryos were harvested from one or more litters at E14.5, fixed in Bouin’s fixative for 24 hours and stored at 4°C in phosphate buffered saline.

Generation of digital volume data

Embryos were initially scored for gross abnormalities under a dissection microscope before preparation for 3D imaging. Briefly, embryos were dehydrated in methanol (10% steps until 90%, followed by 95% and 100%; at least 2 hours each) and embedded in methacrylate resin (JB-4, PolySciences) containing eosin B and acridine orange, as previously described 46. Within each resin block, the embryo was oriented to ensure transverse sectioning along its longitudinal axis. Resin blocks were allowed to polymerise overnight at room temperature, baked at 90°C for 24–48 hours and then subjected to digital volume data generation using high-resolution episcopic microscopy (HREM) 7. HREM data was downsized as appropriate to provide an isotropic voxel size of between 2.5–3 µm, depending on original section thickness.

Data processing and annotation

12 bit raw greyscale image data was adjusted to optimise tissue visualisation using Photoshop 6 (Adobe). Data visualisation and analysis was performed using software packages Amira 5 (ThermoFisher Scientific) and Osirix, versions 6–8 (Pixmeo). Virtual 2D sections were used for phenotype scoring, essentially as described in a recently published protocol 8, each phenotype call being assigned to a 3D point in each embryo image data stack. Abnormalities were classified by using the Mammalian Phenotype (MP) ontology 9 using the most specific MP term that described each defect. 3D volume rendered models were employed for developmental staging from external morphology.

Data analysis

In order to facilitate summarising of detailed phenotype annotation data, two subsets of the MP terms closer to the root of the ontology were chosen to provide structured “high” and “intermediate” level overviews of DMDD phenotype data. These MP ontology slims are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The MP terms assigned during annotation of the embryos were summarised into the categories defined by the DMDD slims using the Map2Slim algorithm ( https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/go-perl/scripts/map2slim). All the terms of the DMDD slims that map to terms used to annotate embryo phenotypes are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

MP annotation terms used to describe the phenotypes of each embryo of a line were normalised to remove duplicate terms, and the terms for each embryo were mapped onto the ontology slims. For each line, a set of the unique slim terms observed for the line was generated and lists were produced of all the embryos from the line falling into each of these high or intermediate level categories. This enabled calculation of a penetrance score for each of the broad slim terms, calculated as a ratio of the number of embryos listed for the slim category to the number of homozygous mutant embryos analysed for the line.

To obtain a global view of the phenotypes detected, the frequency of lines showing each of the broad category slim terms were counted across all the lines analysed. In addition, the incidence of embryos scored for every phenotype category described by the slim terms, and the total number of embryos analysed in lines exhibiting each individual phenotype category was counted.

The total number of lines for each slim term that had a penetrance score between 0–0.24, 0.25–0.49, 0.50–0.74 and 0.75–1.00 was recorded. We calculated the cumulative penetrance score for each slim term as the overall sum of the penetrance scores of every line showing this broad category phenotype. In addition, for each of the penetrance intervals listed above, the sum of the penetrance scores was calculated for the lines falling into these categories.

All plots showing analysis of the data were produced using the R software package, version 3.2.1 (2015-06-18) (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Use of animals

The care and use of all mice in this study were in accordance with UK Home Office regulations, UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 (PPL 80/2485) and were approved by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute’s Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body.

Results

Size of the study

The data for this study comprises 220 homozygous mutant E14.5 embryos analysed by the DMDD programme. All data is presented in Dataset 1 and also available on the DMDD web site ( https://dmdd.org.uk). Embryos were obtained from 42 novel gene knockout lines, 31 classified as lethal and 11 as sub-viable (see Materials and methods; Table 1). This corresponds to an average of approximately 5 embryos for each mutant line, although in practice numbers ranged widely from 1 to 11 as a result of variable breeding efficiency and cost limitations inherent in a large scale screening programme ( Supplementary Figure 1). In total, 722,329 transverse section images obtained from the 220 embryos formed the basis for examining embryo structure and with the addition of digital resection of datasets in coronal and sagittal planes, scoring of phenotypes was based on examination of 1,634,134 images.

Table 1. List of lethal and subviable lines studied.

The gene symbol, Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) ID for the gene, and allele symbol is listed for each line studied along with the number of homozygous mutant embryos analysed, and the viability status.

gene_symbol mgi_id allele_symbol viability # mutant embryos analysed
1700067K01Rik MGI:1920703 1700067K01Rik<tm2a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 8
4933434E20Rik MGI:1914027 4933434E20Rik<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 6
Adamts3 MGI:3045353 Adamts3<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 7
Adcy9 MGI:108450 Adcy9<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Subviable 8
Anks6 MGI:1922941 Anks6<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 2
Atp11a MGI:1354735 Atp11a<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 5
Brd2 MGI:99495 Brd2<em2Wtsi> Lethal 5
Camsap3 MGI:1916947 Camsap3<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Subviable 4
Celf4 MGI:1932407 Celf4<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 5
Chst11 MGI:1927166 Chst11<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 10
Chtop MGI:1913761 Chtop<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 4
Cir1 MGI:1914185 Cir1<tm3a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Cmip MGI:1921690 Cmip<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 10
Col4a3bp MGI:1915268 Col4a3bp<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 2
Cpt2 MGI:109176 Cpt2<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 6
D930028M14Rik MGI:3687343 D930028M14Rik<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 5
Dbn1 MGI:1931838 Dbn1<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 5
Dhx35 MGI:1918965 Dhx35<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 1
Exoc3l2 MGI:1921713 Exoc3l2<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Fam46c MGI:1921895 Fam46c<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 7
H13 MGI:95886 H13<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 7
Kif1bp MGI:1919570 Kif1bp<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Mybphl MGI:1916003 Mybphl<tm1b(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 3
Npat MGI:107605 Npat<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 1
Nsun2 MGI:107252 Nsun2<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Subviable 6
Nxn MGI:109331 Nxn<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Otud7b MGI:2654703 Otud7b<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 1
Pdzk1 MGI:1928901 Pdzk1<tm2b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Subviable 9
Polb MGI:97740 Polb<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 6
Prrc2b MGI:1923304 Prrc2b<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 9
Psph MGI:97788 Psph<tm1a(EUCOMM)Hmgu> Lethal 8
Pth1r MGI:97801 Pth1r<tm1a(EUCOMM)Hmgu> Lethal 3
Rundc1 MGI:2144506 Rundc1<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Subviable 4
Sh3pxd2a MGI:1298393 Sh3pxd2a<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 11
Slc25a20 MGI:1928738 Slc25a20<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 6
Slc5a7 MGI:1927126 Slc5a7<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Smg9 MGI:1919247 Smg9<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 6
Smpd4 MGI:1924876 Smpd4<tm2b(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 3
Ssr2 MGI:1913506 Ssr2<tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 3
Tcf7l2 MGI:1202879 Tcf7l2<tm1a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 5
Traf6 MGI:108072 Traf6<tm2a(EUCOMM)Wtsi> Lethal 9
Unk MGI:2442456 Unk<tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi> Subviable 5

Incidence of structural abnormalities in homozygous mutant embryos

Almost all embryos studied (209/220) showed structural abnormalities that could be identified by a phenotyping procedure previously established and refined from pilot studies 8. The remaining 11 apparently normal embryos were obtained from 9 different lines, each of which yielded several other homozygous mutants bearing detectable morphological abnormalities. We have previously reported that the resolution afforded by 3D datasets obtained by HREM imaging allowed the detection of phenotypic abnormalities spanning in size range from individual nerves and blood vessels to gross organ and tissue malformations 8. In the present study, a total of 398 different MP terms were employed to record a total of 2,939 detected embryo phenotypes ( Dataset 1). Multiple abnormalities were scored in virtually all embryos. Most showed up to 10, but in some embryos as many as 50 phenotypes were recorded ( Figure 1A). Whilst a few phenotypes (for example those affecting different parts of vertebrae or different parts of the vertebral column) were often scored repeatedly within affected embryos, their incidence was insufficient to have a significant impact on the overall distribution of phenotype numbers scored per embryo across the whole study. When analysed by individual mutant line, the incidence of detectable abnormalities is more broadly distributed, with more than half of the 42 lines showing between 10 and 49 different phenotypes ( Figure 1B).

Figure 1. Multiple abnormalities are evident in homozygous mutant embryos.

Figure 1.

The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology terms scored for ( A) each embryo, and ( B) each line were normalised to remove duplicate ontology terms. The number of distinct phenotypes scored that fell into categories with a window width of 10 were plotted to show the total number of embryos and lines respectively in each category.

The disparity between phenotype incidence by embryo and phenotype incidence by line is striking and indicates that individual mutant embryos within each line show distinct, but partially overlapping spectra of phenotypes. This is graphically illustrated by data from the four lines shown in Figure 2. The Atp11a allele exemplifies those mutant lines in which a significant proportion of phenotypes were detected across all the embryos scored. (Note that the data is summarised by high level MP ontology slim terms and individual embryos may still differ in the precise phenotypes actually scored. This may reflect differing degrees of severity amongst affected embryos or pleiotropic effects of mutations on individual organ systems). The Brd2 and Tcf712 alleles showed similar, but less pronounced, conservation of phenotype whilst the Celf4 allele is an example of those lines in which there was no detectable consistency to the phenotypes detected across the mutants analysed.

Figure 2. Individual embryos show overlapping but distinct spectra of phenotypes.

Figure 2.

The phenotypes annotated for individual embryos were normalised to remove duplicate ontology terms. The distinct terms for each homozygous mutant embryo from four lines were then mapped onto the broad set of ontology categories defined in the high level DMDD slim. The presence or absence of phenotype annotation within each of the high level categories was plotted for each embryo analysed.

Prevalence of individual abnormalities

Table 2 presents the frequency with which individual abnormalities were identified amongst the mutant embryos. Since some phenotypes (such as vertebral abnormalities) are often present multiply in affected embryos, the data is normalised for occurrence by embryo. Interestingly, the most common phenotype detected in this study was subcutaneous edema. This was evident from macroscopic observation of embryos at harvest and confirmed by subsequent HREM imaging ( Figure 3, panels A–C). In total, subcutaneous edema and edema in other body regions (scored with four distinct MP terms) affected one third (72/220) of the embryos and was observed in a little over half (24/42) of the mutant lines. Other prevalent phenotypes included defects affecting the vertebral arches, the ventricular septum of the heart, forebrain morphology and musculature of the developing eyes ( Table 2 and Figure 3). Of particular note is the frequency with which mutant embryos showed abnormalities affecting the architecture or presence of the hypoglossal nerve ( Figure 4, panels A and B). Complete absence of the nerve occurred in 37 embryos, obtained from 12 different mutant lines, with some embryos from a similar number of lines showing abnormal topology or unusual thinness of the nerve (13 and 9 lines respectively). Overall, scored phenotypes affected all the major organ systems at E14.5 ( Figure 5A) and multiple organs or tissues were frequently affected within individual embryos or collectively within a mutant line ( Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3). The complete listing of scored phenotypes is presented in Supplementary Table 1, organised according to the MP ontology slims adopted by the DMDD programme (see Table 4 and Table 5), with data ranked according to prevalence in mutant lines.

Figure 3. Examples of frequently observed abnormalities.

Figure 3.

AC. Subcutaneous edema. Original HREM sections showing a massive (asterisk) ( A), mild ( B), and unilaterally located subcutaneous edema ( C). Note the shrinkage artefacts in B and C, which complicate post mortem diagnosis. DF. Perimembraneous septal defect. Normal situation in a control ( D) as appearing in an original HREM section. Defect (asterisk) as appearing in an original HREM section ( E) and a 3D volume model ( F). GI. Fusion of vertebral arches. Normal situation in a control ( G) as appearing in a sagittal section. Fused articular processes (arrowheads) of subsequent vertebrae in a sagittal ( H) and a coronal section ( I). JL. Abnormal eye muscle morphology as appearing in original HREM sections. Normal situation in a control ( J). Thinning of the lateral rectus muscle (lrm) ( K). Absence of the lateral rectus muscle (lrm) ( L). da, descending aorta; e, esophagus; g, adrenal gland; hb, hyoid bone; i, intestine; k, kidney; l, lung; la, left atrium; le, lens; li, liver; lrm, lateral rectus muscle; lv, left ventricle; lx, larynx; mrm, medial rectus muscle; oc, optic cup; on, optic nerve; ra, right atrium; rv, right ventricle; sc, spinal chord; t, tongue; tr, trachea; v, body of vertebra; va, arch of vertebra. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 4. Other frequently observed abnormalities.

Figure 4.

A and B. Abnormal hyopglossal nerve in original HREM sections through the head of Prrc2b -/- ( A) and a Polb -/- ( B) embryo. Note the missing right hypoglossal nerve (arrowhead, inlay) in A and the thinning of both hypoglossal nerves (hn) in B. CE. Abnormalities that also occur in controls. Persisting craniopharnygeal duct (arrowhead) as appearing in sagittal sections ( C). Split tip of tail featured by volume models ( D) and vesicles (arrowheads) in the lens (le) as appearing in an original HREM section ( E).

Figure 5. Variable prevalence and penetrance of individual phenotypes.

Figure 5.

Data from the global analysis of the frequency of phenotype terms (see Materials and Methods) was plotted to show the number of lines falling into each of the observed phenotype categories. The colours indicate the number of lines falling into each of the distinct penetrance categories. The data was ordered according to line frequency, and subsequently by the numbers seen in the penetrance categories. ( A) shows the phenotype annotations summarised using the high level DMDD ontology slim, ( B) shows the phenotype annotations summarised using the intermediate level DMDD ontology slim.

Table 2. Frequency of phenotypes identified.

The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology terms describing phenotypes observed in each embryo were normalised to remove duplicates and the list then ranked in descending order by frequency of embryos exhibiting each phenotype.

mp_id term frequency
MP:0013848 subcutaneous edema 64
MP:0004613 fusion of vertebral arches 61
MP:0010418 perimembraneous ventricular septal
defect
49
MP:0000783 abnormal forebrain morphology 47
MP:0003686 abnormal eye muscle morphology 45
MP:0001015 small superior cervical ganglion 45
MP:0010420 muscular ventricular septal defect 41
MP:0013835 absent hypoglossal nerve 37
MP:0003826 abnormal Mullerian duct morphology 33
MP:0014021 heterochrony 33
MP:0004269 abnormal optic cup morphology 32
MP:0014001 abnormal vertebral artery topology 32
MP:0013836 abnormal hypoglossal nerve topology 30
MP:0013876 absent ductus venosus valve 29
MP:0000284 double outlet right ventricle 29
MP:0004666 absent stapedial artery 28
MP:0013971 blood in lymph vessels 27
MP:0000703 abnormal thymus morphology 26
MP:0014000 anastomosis between internal
carotid artery and basilar artery
25
MP:0000602 enlarged liver sinusoidal spaces 25
MP:0013969 reduced sympathetic cervical
ganglion size
25
MP:0008923 thoracoschisis 25
MP:0004163 abnormal adenohypophysis
morphology
24
MP:0002237 abnormal nasal cavity morphology 20
MP:0013986 abnormal vitelline vein topology 20
MP:0013967 abnormal infrahyoid muscle
connection
18
MP:0004463 basisphenoid bone foramen 18
MP:0008128 abnormal brain internal capsule morphology 16
MP:0000282 abnormal interatrial septum
morphology
16
MP:0004268 abnormal optic stalk morphology 16
MP:0013936 abnormal thymus topology 16
MP:0014017 abnormal Wolffian duct connection 15
MP:0013877 abnormal ductus venosus valve
morphology
15
MP:0002239 abnormal nasal septum morphology 15
MP:0000497 abnormal small intestine placement 15
MP:0000111 cleft palate 15
MP:0013859 abnormal vitelline vein connection 14
MP:0013826 absent hypoglossal canal 14
MP:0013840 absent segment of posterior cerebral artery 14
MP:0013875 trigeminal neuroma 14
MP:0010496 abnormal pectinate muscle
morphology
13
MP:0013834 thin hypoglossal nerve 13
MP:0003827 abnormal Wolffian duct morphology 12
MP:0013842 ductus venosus stenosis 12
MP:0010912 herniated liver 12
MP:0013968 multiple persisting craniopharyngeal
ducts
12
MP:0011361 pelvic kidney 12
MP:0010572 persistent right dorsal aorta 12
MP:0002633 persistent truncus arteriosis 12
MP:0013931 abnormal olfactory bulb position 11
MP:0011683 dual inferior vena cava 11
MP:0000914 exencephaly 11
MP:0002169 no abnormal phenotype detected 11
MP:0000154 rib fusion 11
MP:0000161 scoliosis 11
MP:0004110 transposition of great arteries 11
MP:0012303 umbilical vein stenosis 11
MP:0008922 abnormal cervical rib 10
MP:0009917 abnormal hyoid bone body morphology 10
MP:0009770 abnormal optic chiasm morphology 10
MP:0013844 abnormal perichondrial ossification 10
MP:0003345 decreased rib number 10
MP:0011493 double ureter 10
MP:0000445 short snout 10
MP:0002951 small thyroid gland 10
MP:0013878 abnormal ductus venosus valve
topology
9
MP:0000841 abnormal hindbrain morphology 9
MP:0010490 abnormal inferior vena cava valve
morphology
9
MP:0010853 abnormal lung position or orientation 9
MP:0000141 abnormal vertebral body morphology 9
MP:0002243 abnormal vomeronasal organ
morphology
9
MP:0013970 absent connection between
subcutaneous lymph vessels and
lymph sac
9
MP:0011667 double outlet right ventricle with
atrioventricular septal defect
9
MP:0014019 embryo cyst 9
MP:0013977 symmetric azygos veins 9
MP:0002092 abnormal eye morphology 8
MP:0014023 abnormal intestine placement 8
MP:0001303 abnormal lens morphology 8
MP:0000632 abnormal pineal gland morphology 8
MP:0010602 abnormal pulmonary valve cusp
morphology
8
MP:0013985 abnormal umbilical vein topology 8
MP:0013965 abnormally deep median sulcus of
tongue
8
MP:0010484 bicuspid aortic valve 8
MP:0004646 decreased cervical vertebrae
number
8
MP:0013915 abnormal brachial plexus formation 7
MP:0010436 abnormal coronary sinus morphology 7
MP:0000819 abnormal olfactory bulb morphology 7
MP:0009570 abnormal right lung morphology 7
MP:0003078 aphakia 7
MP:0003584 bifid ureter 7
MP:0013949 fusion of axis and occipital bones 7
MP:0013846 retropharyngeal edema 7
MP:0013847 retropleural edema 7
MP:0000153 rib bifurcation 7
MP:0002191 abnormal artery morphology 6
MP:0000079 abnormal basioccipital bone
morphology
6
MP:0000788 abnormal cerebral cortex morphology 6
MP:0013995 abnormal external carotid artery
origin
6
MP:0013845 abnormal eye muscle topology 6
MP:0002858 abnormal posterior semicircular
canal morphology
6
MP:0000759 abnormal skeletal muscle morphology 6
MP:0013871 abnormal stapedial artery topology 6
MP:0001146 abnormal testis morphology 6
MP:0000681 abnormal thyroid gland morphology 6
MP:0004599 abnormal vertebral arch morphology 6
MP:0013996 abnormal vertebral artery origin 6
MP:0013849 absent abducens nerve 6
MP:0000520 absent kidney 6
MP:0009725 absent lens vesicle 6
MP:0006093 arteriovenous malformation 6
MP:0010412 atrioventricular septal defect 6
MP:0013932 fragmented Meckel's cartilage 6
MP:0000963 fused dorsal root ganglion 6
MP:0005157 holoprosencephaly 6
MP:0000480 increased rib number 6
MP:0013992 persistent dorsal ophthalmic artery 6
MP:0013952 retro-esophageal left subclavian
artery
6
MP:0004160 retroesophageal right subclavian
artery
6
MP:0004158 right aortic arch 6
MP:0020301 short tongue 6
MP:0002989 small kidney 6
MP:0013852 abnormal Mullerian duct topology 5
MP:0010595 abnormal aortic valve cusp morphology 5
MP:0000297 abnormal atrioventricular cushion
morphology
5
MP:0013186 abnormal basilar artery morphology 5
MP:0002152 abnormal brain morphology 5
MP:0013874 abnormal ductus venosus topology 5
MP:0013945 abnormal elbow joint morphology 5
MP:0000559 abnormal femur morphology 5
MP:0006063 abnormal inferior vena cava
morphology
5
MP:0002135 abnormal kidney morphology 5
MP:0001879 abnormal lymphatic vessel
morphology
5
MP:0005236 abnormal olfactory nerve morphology 5
MP:0000150 abnormal rib morphology 5
MP:0004539 absent maxilla 5
MP:0003451 absent olfactory bulb 5
MP:0001014 absent superior cervical ganglion 5
MP:0014003 additional anastomosis between
intracranial vertebral arteries
5
MP:0012548 myelocele 5
MP:0000273 overriding aortic valve 5
MP:0000964 small dorsal root ganglion 5
MP:0000694 spleen hypoplasia 5
MP:0013928 thin motoric part of trigeminal nerve 5
MP:0002199 abnormal brain commissure
morphology
4
MP:0006065 abnormal heart position or orientation 4
MP:0002249 abnormal larynx morphology 4
MP:0009820 abnormal liver vasculature morphology 4
MP:0005105 abnormal middle ear ossicle morphology 4
MP:0004164 abnormal neurohypophysis morphology 4
MP:0013994 abnormal parasellar internal carotid artery branch morphology 4
MP:0000633 abnormal pituitary gland morphology 4
MP:0013980 abnormal pulmonary artery origin 4
MP:0011655 abnormal systemic artery morphology 4
MP:0011513 abnormal vertebral artery morphology 4
MP:0013855 absent celiac artery 4
MP:0013833 absent olfactory nerve 4
MP:0013362 absent pineal gland 4
MP:0014006 absent posterior communicating artery 4
MP:0013913 absent rib-vertebral column attachment 4
MP:0004846 absent skeletal muscle 4
MP:0004603 absent vertebral arch 4
MP:0010440 anomalous pulmonary venous connection 4
MP:0010530 cerebral arteriovenous malformation 4
MP:0010589 common truncal valve 4
MP:0003924 diaphragmatic hernia 4
MP:0003253 dilated bile duct 4
MP:0013879 duplication of ductus venosus 4
MP:0008534 enlarged fourth ventricle 4
MP:0004612 fusion of vertebral bodies 4
MP:0001914 hemorrhage 4
MP:0003262 intestinal/bowel diverticulum 4
MP:0010404 ostium primum atrial septal defect 4
MP:0013917 persistent right 6th pharyngeal arch
artery
4
MP:0000562 polydactyly 4
MP:0001088 small nodose ganglion 4
MP:0013827 thin oculomotor nerve 4
MP:0013858 abnormal azygos vein topology 3
MP:0002928 abnormal bile duct morphology 3
MP:0008026 abnormal brain white matter
morphology
3
MP:0004607 abnormal cervical atlas morphology 3
MP:0000820 abnormal choroid plexus morphology 3
MP:0013873 abnormal ductus venosus morphology 3
MP:0010439 abnormal hepatic vein morphology 3
MP:0000823 abnormal lateral ventricle morphology 3
MP:0000598 abnormal liver morphology 3
MP:0000897 abnormal midbrain morphology 3
MP:0013861 abnormal pancreas topology 3
MP:0000613 abnormal salivary gland morphology 3
MP:0013943 abnormal ureter topology 3
MP:0001100 abnormal vagus ganglion morphology 3
MP:0014002 absent extracranial vertebral artery
segment
3
MP:0013929 absent eye muscles 3
MP:0003722 absent ureter 3
MP:0000138 absent vertebrae 3
MP:0000640 adrenal gland hypoplasia 3
MP:0005262 coloboma 3
MP:0010433 double inlet heart left ventricle 3
MP:0001785 edema 3
MP:0000274 enlarged heart 3
MP:0006203 eye hemorrhage 3
MP:0005244 hemopericardium 3
MP:0013843 hepatic portal vein stenosis 3
MP:0011659 interrupted aortic arch, type b 3
MP:0013948 intraembryonal intestine elongation 3
MP:0013963 jugular vein stenosis 3
MP:0000692 small spleen 3
MP:0001093 small trigeminal ganglion 3
MP:0013828 thin facial nerve 3
MP:0004057 thin myocardium compact layer 3
MP:0003617 urinary bladder hypoplasia 3
MP:0013851 abnormal Wolffian duct topology 2
MP:0013857 abnormal abdominal muscle
morphology
2
MP:0004113 abnormal aortic arch morphology 2
MP:0002747 abnormal aortic valve morphology 2
MP:0004181 abnormal carotid artery
morphology
2
MP:0013978 abnormal carotid artery origin 2
MP:0013975 abnormal coronary sinus
connection
2
MP:0002279 abnormal diaphragm morphology 2
MP:0013815 abnormal digastric muscle morphology 2
MP:0013865 abnormal dorsal pancreas topology 2
MP:0000961 abnormal dorsal root ganglion
morphology
2
MP:0013950 abnormal dorsal root ganglion
topology
2
MP:0006011 abnormal endolymphatic duct
morphology
2
MP:0013918 abnormal endolymphatic sac
topology
2
MP:0006033 abnormal external auditory canal
morphology
2
MP:0000266 abnormal heart morphology 2
MP:0003056 abnormal hyoid bone morphology 2
MP:0013966 abnormal infrahyoid muscle
morphology
2
MP:0000489 abnormal large intestine morphology 2
MP:0008986 abnormal liver parenchyma
morphology
2
MP:0001175 abnormal lung morphology 2
MP:0000458 abnormal mandible morphology 2
MP:0003632 abnormal nervous system
morphology
2
MP:0001330 abnormal optic nerve morphology 2
MP:0002177 abnormal outer ear morphology 2
MP:0000492 abnormal rectum morphology 2
MP:0002428 abnormal semicircular canal
morphology
2
MP:0002746 abnormal semilunar valve
morphology
2
MP:0000496 abnormal small intestine morphology 2
MP:0005107 abnormal stapes morphology 2
MP:0003230 abnormal umbilical artery
morphology
2
MP:0002725 abnormal vein morphology 2
MP:0009707 absent external auditory canal 2
MP:0013987 absent intrahepatic inferior vena
cava segment
2
MP:0009771 absent optic chiasm 2
MP:0013999 absent parasellar internal carotid
artery
2
MP:0013809 absent pectinate muscle 2
MP:0004571 absent vagus nerve 2
MP:0000140 absent vertebral pedicles 2
MP:0003130 anal atresia 2
MP:0010463 aorta stenosis 2
MP:0004055 atrium hypoplasia 2
MP:0010406 common atrium 2
MP:0003586 dilated ureter 2
MP:0013981 double lumen aortic arch 2
MP:0014018 embryo tumor 2
MP:0010200 enlarged lymphatic vessel 2
MP:0008536 enlarged third ventricle 2
MP:0002015 epithelioid cysts 2
MP:0004201 fetal growth retardation 2
MP:0010977 fused right lung lobes 2
MP:0010728 fusion of atlas and occipital bones 2
MP:0013982 inverse situs of great intrathoracic arteries 2
MP:0010647 left atrium hypoplasia 2
MP:0000600 liver hypoplasia 2
MP:0000618 small salivary gland 2
MP:0001102 small superior vagus ganglion 2
MP:0000706 small thymus 2
MP:0011249 abdominal situs inversus 1
MP:0000639 abnormal adrenal gland
morphology
1
MP:0010592 abnormal atrioventricular septum
morphology
1
MP:0002745 abnormal atrioventricular valve
morphology
1
MP:0001614 abnormal blood vessel morphology 1
MP:0000494 abnormal cecum morphology 1
MP:0013862 abnormal cecum position 1
MP:0010744 abnormal cervical flexure
morphology
1
MP:0003048 abnormal cervical vertebrae
morphology
1
MP:0009495 abnormal common bile duct
morphology
1
MP:0012729 abnormal common carotid artery
morphology
1
MP:0013930 abnormal digastric muscle
connection
1
MP:0004252 abnormal direction of heart looping 1
MP:0014022 abnormal duodenum topology 1
MP:0013924 abnormal dural venous sinus
morphology
1
MP:0013927 abnormal facial nerve topology 1
MP:0006107 abnormal fetal atrioventricular
canal morphology
1
MP:0000828 abnormal fourth ventricle morphology 1
MP:0005084 abnormal gallbladder morphology 1
MP:0003105 abnormal heart atrium morphology 1
MP:0003922 abnormal heart right atrium morphology 1
MP:0013814 abnormal hepatic portal vein connection 1
MP:0013853 abnormal hepatic portal vein formation 1
MP:0010668 abnormal hepatic portal vein
morphology
1
MP:0013973 abnormal hepatic vein connection 1
MP:0005296 abnormal humerus morphology 1
MP:0009913 abnormal hyoid bone greater horn
morphology
1
MP:0013824 abnormal hypoglossal canal
morphology
1
MP:0002859 abnormal inner ear canal fusion 1
MP:0009804 abnormal interventricular foramen
morphology
1
MP:0000281 abnormal interventricular septum
morphology
1
MP:0000477 abnormal intestine morphology 1
MP:0013976 abnormal left vena cava superior
connection
1
MP:0004881 abnormal lung size 1
MP:0013841 abnormal lymphatic vessel
topology
1
MP:0003792 abnormal major salivary gland
morphology
1
MP:0000455 abnormal maxilla morphology 1
MP:0000452 abnormal mouth morphology 1
MP:0002108 abnormal muscle morphology 1
MP:0004056 abnormal myocardium compact
layer morphology
1
MP:0005269 abnormal occipital bone morphology 1
MP:0013818 abnormal oral cavity morphology 1
MP:0014011 abnormal ovary tissue architecture 1
MP:0004509 abnormal pelvic girdle bone morphology 1
MP:0002748 abnormal pulmonary valve morphology 1
MP:0009571 abnormal right lung accessory lobe morphology 1
MP:0009688 abnormal spinal cord central canal morphology 1
MP:0008023 abnormal styloid process morphology 1
MP:0013979 abnormal subclavian artery origin 1
MP:0001011 abnormal superior cervical ganglion morphology 1
MP:0000787 abnormal telencephalon morphology 1
MP:0005272 abnormal temporal bone morphology 1
MP:0000826 abnormal third ventricle morphology 1
MP:0002368 abnormal thymus capsule morphology 1
MP:0002282 abnormal trachea morphology 1
MP:0001065 abnormal trigeminal nerve morphology 1
MP:0010667 abnormal umbilical vein morphology 1
MP:0000534 abnormal ureter morphology 1
MP:0013925 abnormal vascular plexus formation 1
MP:0000137 abnormal vertebrae morphology 1
MP:0005274 abnormal viscerocranium morphology 1
MP:0010666 abnormal vitelline vein morphology 1
MP:0014004 absent basilar artery segment 1
MP:0008129 absent brain internal capsule 1
MP:0013998 absent canalicular internal carotid artery segment 1
MP:0008460 absent dorsal root ganglion 1
MP:0013880 absent ductus venosus 1
MP:0013914 absent intracranial segment of vertebral artery 1
MP:0013937 absent lobe of thyroid gland 1
MP:0000629 absent mammary gland 1
MP:0013926 absent neurohypophysis 1
MP:0013988 absent portal vein segment 1
MP:0013850 absent posterior commissure 1
MP:0000614 absent salivary gland 1
MP:0013823 absent segment of anterior cerebral artery 1
MP:0000690 absent spleen 1
MP:0008386 absent styloid process 1
MP:0002728 absent tibia 1
MP:0009905 absent tongue 1
MP:0001064 absent trochlear nerve 1
MP:0013595 absent vomeronasal organ 1
MP:0013860 anastomosis between common carotid and vertebral artery 1
MP:0014009 anastomosis between middle cerebral arteries 1
MP:0001293 anophthalmia 1
MP:0003387 aorta coarctation 1
MP:0006135 artery stenosis 1
MP:0000705 athymia 1
MP:0010403 atrial septal defect 1
MP:0013935 basal brain tissue herniation 1
MP:0010527 bicuspid pulmonary valve 1
MP:0011797 blind ureter 1
MP:0010607 common atrioventricular valve 1
MP:0004686 decreased length of long bones 1
MP:0009532 decreased parotid gland size 1
MP:0004648 decreased thoracic vertebrae number 1
MP:0011965 decreased total retina thickness 1
MP:0001247 dermal cysts 1
MP:0000825 dilated lateral ventricles 1
MP:0009144 dilated pancreatic duct 1
MP:0004938 dilated vasculature 1
MP:0011380 enlarged brain ventricles 1
MP:0013864 enlarged paraumbilical vein 1
MP:0003595 epididymal cyst 1
MP:0002947 increased hemangioma incidence 1
MP:0001634 internal hemorrhage 1
MP:0011974 intestinal stenosis 1
MP:0001916 intracerebral hemorrhage 1
MP:0003178 left pulmonary isomerism 1
MP:0013953 left sided brachiocephalic trunk 1
MP:0003327 liver cysts 1
MP:0003888 liver hemorrhage 1
MP:0000162 lordosis 1
MP:0010854 lung situs inversus 1
MP:0005287 narrow eye opening 1
MP:0004442 occipital bone foramen 1
MP:0000565 oligodactyly 1
MP:0006221 optic nerve hypoplasia 1
MP:0013933 short Meckel's cartilage 1
MP:0002766 situs inversus 1
MP:0002768 small adrenal glands 1
MP:0001306 small lens 1
MP:0013923 small prevertebral sympathetic ganglia 1
MP:0006254 thin cerebral cortex 1
MP:0013829 thin splanchnic nerve 1
MP:0013832 thin vagus nerve 1
MP:0003499 thyroid hypoplasia 1
MP:0009904 tongue hypoplasia 1
MP:0011697 vacuolated lens 1
MP:0013831 vagus nerve compression 1
MP:0004609 vertebral fusion 1

Individual phenotypes show highly variable penetrance

Perhaps the most striking finding of the DMDD study is the almost complete absence of any fully penetrant abnormalities. Amongst lines for which more than a single embryo was analysed, only three phenotypes showed 100% penetrance: abnormal perichondrial ossification (1 line; 10 mutant embryos), small nodose ganglion (1 line; 4 embryos) and small trigeminal ganglion (1 line, 3 embryos). Furthermore, most defects showed surprisingly low penetrance. A penetrance greater than 75% within the line was only found for 7% of detected phenotypes. In contrast, over half (55%) of the scored abnormalities had a penetrance of 25% or less. ( Table 3). This is graphically illustrated in Figure 5A, in which the scored phenotypes are clustered according to high level MP ontology terms (broadly reflecting distinct organ systems, tissues or body regions) and the prevalence of each in the 42 mutant lines categorised by penetrance. All phenotypes show a broad range of penetrance, about half showing roughly symmetrical distribution of penetrance, with similar numbers of lines both above and below 50%. Interestingly, it is possible also to distinguish several phenotypes where penetrance is noticeably skewed. Abnormalities affecting the cardiovascular system, nervous system and skeleton all affected a relatively large number of lines and each showed a striking bias towards higher penetrance values. A second group of abnormalities encompassing liver/biliary, respiratory, renal and hearing systems showed a converse bias to penetrance values below 50% ( Figure 5A).

Table 3. Variability in phenotype penetrance.

Every distinct phenotype scored in each line was listed along with its penetrance (i.e. the number of embryos showing the phenotype divided by the total number of embryos analysed for that line). Scored phenotypes were then ranked by penetrance value to obtain the proportions falling within the four ranges shown. (Note that all data from the lines Otud7b,Npat and Dhx35 were removed from the analysis, since in each case, these were obtained from examination of a single embryo).

Penetrance range Phenotypes scored %
<25% 673 55.21%
26–50% 343 28.14%
51–75% 118 9.68%
>75% 85 6.97%

Table 4. High level MP ontology slim used by DMDD.

A list of the Mammalian Phenotype Ontology IDs and names of terms selected as the high level ontology slim.

MP:0002169 no abnormal phenotype detected
MP:0005375 adipose tissue phenotype
MP:0005386 behavior/neurological phenotype
MP:0005385 cardiovascular system phenotype
MP:0005384 cellular phenotype
MP:0005382 craniofacial phenotype
MP:0005381 digestive/alimentary phenotype
MP:0005380 embryogenesis phenotype
MP:0005379 endocrine/exocrine gland phenotype
MP:0005378 growth/size/body region phenotype
MP:0005377 hearing/vestibular/ear phenotype
MP:0005397 hematopoietic system phenotype
MP:0005376 homeostasis/metabolism phenotype
MP:0005387 immune system phenotype
MP:0010771 integument phenotype
MP:0005371 limbs/digits/tail phenotype
MP:0005370 liver/biliary system phenotype
MP:0010768 mortality/aging
MP:0005369 muscle phenotype
MP:0003631 nervous system phenotype
MP:0001186 pigmentation phenotype
MP:0005367 renal/urinary system phenotype
MP:0005389 reproductive system phenotype
MP:0005388 respiratory system phenotype
MP:0005390 skeleton phenotype
MP:0005394 taste/olfaction phenotype
MP:0002006 tumorigenesis
MP:0005391 vision/eye phenotype

Table 5. Intermediate level MP ontology slim used by DMDD.

A list of the Mammalian Phenotype Ontology IDs and names of terms selected as the intermediate level ontology slim.

MP:0000001 mammalian phenotype
MP:0002873 normal phenotype
MP:0002169 no abnormal phenotype detected
MP:0005375 adipose tissue phenotype
MP:0000003 abnormal adipose tissue morphology
MP:0005666 abnormal adipose tissue physiology
MP:0004924 abnormal behavior
MP:0020222 abnormal alertness
MP:0011275 abnormal behavioral response to light
MP:0009745 abnormal behavioral response to xenobiotic
MP:0001502 abnormal circadian rhythm
MP:0002069 abnormal consumption behavior
MP:0002572 abnormal emotion/affect behavior
MP:0001440 abnormal grooming behavior
MP:0010698 abnormal impulsive behavior control
MP:0002063 abnormal learning/memory/conditioning
MP:0002066 abnormal motor capabilities/coordination/movement
MP:0002067 abnormal sensory capabilities/reflexes/nociception
MP:0011396 abnormal sleep behavior
MP:0002557 abnormal social/conspecific interaction
MP:0001529 abnormal vocalization
MP:0002822 catalepsy
MP:0002899 fatigue
MP:0002064 seizures
MP:0002127 abnormal cardiovascular system morphology
MP:0001614 abnormal blood vessel morphology
MP:0002925 abnormal cardiovascular development
MP:0000266 abnormal heart morphology
MP:0003279 aneurysm
MP:0013332 peliosis
MP:0001544 abnormal cardiovascular system physiology
MP:0002128 abnormal blood circulation
MP:0010695 abnormal blood pressure regulation
MP:0000249 abnormal blood vessel physiology
MP:0004039 abnormal cardiac cell glucose uptake
MP:0002972 abnormal cardiac muscle contractility
MP:0004084 abnormal cardiac muscle relaxation
MP:0011926 abnormal cardiac valve physiology
MP:0011390 abnormal fetal cardiomyocyte physiology
MP:0011925 abnormal heart echocardiography feature
MP:0008775 abnormal heart ventricle pressure
MP:0004085 abnormal heartbeat
MP:0003137 abnormal impulse conducting system conduction
MP:0020095 abnormal mean heart rate adaptation
MP:0004215 abnormal myocardial fiber physiology
MP:0003547 abnormal pulmonary pressure
MP:0020092 abnormal susceptibility to aortic cartilaginous metaplasia
MP:0020098 abnormal susceptibility to diet-induced aortic fatty streak lesions
MP:0000230 abnormal systemic arterial blood pressure
MP:0004484 altered response of heart to induced stress
MP:0000343 altered response to myocardial infarction
MP:0005330 cardiomyopathy
MP:0006138 congestive heart failure
MP:0001853 heart inflammation
MP:0003328 portal hypertension
MP:0005384 cellular phenotype
MP:0000358 abnormal cell morphology
MP:0005621 abnormal cell physiology
MP:0013258 abnormal extracellular matrix morphology
MP:0003121 genetic imprinting
MP:0005382 craniofacial phenotype
MP:0000428 abnormal craniofacial morphology
MP:0002116 abnormal craniofacial bone morphology
MP:0003935 abnormal craniofacial development
MP:0003743 abnormal facial morphology
MP:0011495 abnormal head shape
MP:0002177 abnormal outer ear morphology
MP:0005381 digestive/alimentary phenotype
MP:0000462 abnormal digestive system morphology
MP:0001663 abnormal digestive system physiology
MP:0005380 embryogenesis phenotype
MP:0001672 abnormal embryogenesis/ development
MP:0002084 abnormal developmental patterning
MP:0001697 abnormal embryo size
MP:0002085 abnormal embryonic tissue morphology
MP:0008926 abnormal anterior definitive endoderm morphology
MP:0013230 abnormal cervical sinus morphology
MP:0003085 abnormal egg cylinder morphology
MP:0010115 abnormal embryonic cloaca morphology
MP:3000001 abnormal gastrula morphology
MP:0011411 abnormal gonadal ridge morphology
MP:0011257 abnormal head fold morphology
MP:0011260 abnormal head mesenchyme morphology
MP:0012187 abnormal intraembryonic coelom morphology
MP:0005650 abnormal limb bud morphology
MP:0006301 abnormal mesenchyme morphology
MP:0008487 abnormal mesonephros morphology
MP:0011256 abnormal neural fold morphology
MP:0005657 abnormal neural plate morphology
MP:0002151 abnormal neural tube morphology/development
MP:0002825 abnormal notochord morphology
MP:0002884 abnormal pharyngeal arch morphology
MP:0013231 abnormal pharyngeal groove morphology
MP:0013232 abnormal pharyngeal membrane morphology
MP:0006031 abnormal pharyngeal pouch morphology
MP:0012496 abnormal pleuropericardial membrane morphology
MP:0002399 abnormal pluripotent precursor cell morphology/development
MP:0013217 abnormal posterior definitive endoderm morphology
MP:0003885 abnormal rostral-caudal body axis extension
MP:0012252 abnormal septum transversum morphology
MP:0001688 abnormal somite development
MP:0002861 abnormal tail bud morphology
MP:0011258 abnormal tail fold morphology
MP:0001674 abnormal triploblastic development
MP:0011835 abnormal urogenital fold morphology
MP:0011853 abnormal urorectal septum morphology
MP:0003988 disorganized embryonic tissue
MP:0013241 embryo tissue necrosis
MP:0008932 abnormal embryonic tissue physiology
MP:0003890 abnormal embryonic-extraembryonic boundary morphology
MP:0002086 abnormal extraembryonic tissue morphology
MP:0001726 abnormal allantois morphology
MP:0005029 abnormal amnion morphology
MP:0011199 abnormal amniotic cavity morphology
MP:0002836 abnormal chorion morphology
MP:0011202 abnormal ectoplacental cavity morphology
MP:0003396 abnormal embryonic hematopoiesis
MP:0011200 abnormal extraembryonic coelom morphology
MP:0010736 abnormal extraembryonic ectoderm morphology
MP:0001724 abnormal extraembryonic endoderm formation
MP:0006323 abnormal extraembryonic mesoderm development
MP:0011203 abnormal parietal yolk sac morphology
MP:0001711 abnormal placenta morphology
MP:0011197 abnormal proamniotic cavity morphology
MP:0001725 abnormal umbilical cord morphology
MP:0011201 abnormal visceral yolk sac cavity morphology
MP:0001718 abnormal visceral yolk sac morphology
MP:0003229 abnormal vitelline vasculature morphology
MP:0002582 disorganized extraembryonic tissue
MP:0004264 abnormal extraembryonic tissue physiology
MP:0004966 abnormal inner cell mass proliferation
MP:0009781 abnormal preimplantation embryo development
MP:0011186 abnormal visceral endoderm morphology
MP:0012028 abnormal visceral endoderm physiology
MP:0001730 embryonic growth arrest
MP:0003984 embryonic growth retardation
MP:0005379 endocrine/exocrine gland phenotype
MP:0002163 abnormal gland morphology
MP:0002164 abnormal gland physiology
MP:0005378 growth/size/body region phenotype
MP:0009701 abnormal birth body size
MP:0005451 abnormal body composition
MP:0003385 abnormal body wall morphology
MP:0004134 abnormal chest morphology
MP:0000432 abnormal head morphology
MP:0012719 abnormal neck morphology
MP:0002089 abnormal postnatal growth/weight/body size
MP:0004196 abnormal prenatal growth/weight/body size
MP:0001270 distended abdomen
MP:0004133 heterotaxia
MP:0013328 visceromegaly
MP:0005377 hearing/vestibular/ear phenotype
MP:0002102 abnormal ear morphology
MP:0003938 abnormal ear development
MP:0000026 abnormal inner ear morphology
MP:0000049 abnormal middle ear morphology
MP:0002177 abnormal outer ear morphology
MP:0003878 abnormal ear physiology
MP:0005397 hematopoietic system phenotype
MP:0002396 abnormal hematopoietic system morphology/development
MP:0002429 abnormal blood cell morphology/development
MP:0002398 abnormal bone marrow cell morphology/development
MP:0004808 abnormal hematopoietic stem cell morphology
MP:0000689 abnormal spleen morphology
MP:0000703 abnormal thymus morphology
MP:0001545 abnormal hematopoietic system physiology
MP:0005376 homeostasis/metabolism phenotype
MP:0001764 abnormal homeostasis
MP:0005266 abnormal metabolism
MP:0008872 abnormal physiological response to xenobiotic
MP:0005164 abnormal response to injury
MP:0000604 amyloidosis
MP:0013027 wounding
MP:0005387 immune system phenotype
MP:0000685 abnormal immune system morphology
MP:0000716 abnormal immune system cell morphology
MP:0002722 abnormal immune system organ morphology
MP:0001879 abnormal lymphatic vessel morphology
MP:0001790 abnormal immune system physiology
MP:0010771 integument phenotype
MP:0010678 abnormal skin adnexa morphology
MP:0010680 abnormal skin adnexa physiology
MP:0002060 abnormal skin morphology
MP:0005501 abnormal skin physiology
MP:0001968 abnormal touch/ nociception
MP:0005371 limbs/digits/tail phenotype
MP:0002109 abnormal limb morphology
MP:0000572 abnormal autopod morphology
MP:0000550 abnormal forelimb morphology
MP:0000556 abnormal hindlimb morphology
MP:0002115 abnormal limb bone morphology
MP:0006279 abnormal limb development
MP:0012000 abnormal limb position
MP:0000549 absent limbs
MP:0008985 hemimelia
MP:0013069 limb wound
MP:0000548 long limbs
MP:0013133 pale limbs
MP:0000547 short limbs
MP:0020288 supernumerary limbs
MP:0002111 abnormal tail morphology
MP:0005370 liver/biliary system phenotype
MP:0002138 abnormal hepatobiliary system morphology
MP:0005083 abnormal biliary tract morphology
MP:0003943 abnormal hepatobiliary system development
MP:0000598 abnormal liver morphology
MP:0010040 abnormal oval cell morphology
MP:0002139 abnormal hepatobiliary system physiology
MP:0010768 mortality/aging
MP:0005369 muscle phenotype
MP:0002108 abnormal muscle morphology
MP:0002106 abnormal muscle physiology
MP:0003631 nervous system phenotype
MP:0003632 abnormal nervous system morphology
MP:0002751 abnormal autonomic nervous system morphology
MP:0002152 abnormal brain morphology
MP:0002653 abnormal ependyma morphology
MP:0003634 abnormal glial cell morphology
MP:0002184 abnormal innervation
MP:0005623 abnormal meninges morphology
MP:0003861 abnormal nervous system development
MP:0000778 abnormal nervous system tract morphology
MP:0002882 abnormal neuron morphology
MP:0002752 abnormal somatic nervous system morphology
MP:0000955 abnormal spinal cord morphology
MP:0008493 alpha-synuclein inclusion body
MP:0003329 amyloid beta deposits
MP:0012260 encephalomeningocele
MP:0002229 neurodegeneration
MP:0003012 no phenotypic analysis
MP:0005395 other phenotype
MP:0001186 pigmentation phenotype
MP:0005367 renal/urinary system phenotype
MP:0000516 abnormal renal/urinary system morphology
MP:0011782 abnormal internal urethral orifice morphology
MP:0002135 abnormal kidney morphology
MP:0005187 abnormal penis morphology
MP:0000534 abnormal ureter morphology
MP:0011487 abnormal ureteropelvic junction morphology
MP:0011488 abnormal ureterovesical junction morphology
MP:0000537 abnormal urethra morphology
MP:0000538 abnormal urinary bladder morphology
MP:0003942 abnormal urinary system development
MP:0003630 abnormal urothelium morphology
MP:0003129 persistent cloaca
MP:0005360 urolithiasis
MP:0005502 abnormal renal/urinary system physiology
MP:0003633 abnormal nervous system physiology
MP:0005389 reproductive system phenotype
MP:0002160 abnormal reproductive system morphology
MP:0001119 abnormal female reproductive system morphology
MP:0001929 abnormal gametogenesis
MP:0005149 abnormal gubernaculum morphology
MP:0003673 abnormal inguinal canal morphology
MP:0001145 abnormal male reproductive system morphology
MP:0003315 abnormal perineum morphology
MP:0003936 abnormal reproductive system development
MP:0002210 abnormal sex determination
MP:0000653 abnormal sex gland morphology
MP:0013055 genital wound
MP:0001919 abnormal reproductive system physiology
MP:0005388 respiratory system phenotype
MP:0002132 abnormal respiratory system morphology
MP:0002249 abnormal larynx morphology
MP:0001175 abnormal lung morphology
MP:0002233 abnormal nose morphology
MP:0002240 abnormal paranasal sinus morphology
MP:0002234 abnormal pharynx morphology
MP:0010820 abnormal pleura morphology
MP:0012684 abnormal pleural cavity morphology
MP:0010942 abnormal respiratory epithelium morphology
MP:0003115 abnormal respiratory system development
MP:0002282 abnormal trachea morphology
MP:0002133 abnormal respiratory system physiology
MP:0005390 skeleton phenotype
MP:0005508 abnormal skeleton morphology
MP:0009250 abnormal appendicular skeleton morphology
MP:0002114 abnormal axial skeleton morphology
MP:0003795 abnormal bone structure
MP:0000163 abnormal cartilage morphology
MP:0011849 abnormal clitoral bone morphology
MP:0002932 abnormal joint morphology
MP:0005504 abnormal ligament morphology
MP:0006322 abnormal perichondrium morphology
MP:0002113 abnormal skeleton development
MP:0005503 abnormal tendon morphology
MP:0000566 synostosis
MP:0001533 abnormal skeleton physiology
MP:0005394 taste/olfaction phenotype
MP:0005500 abnormal gustatory system morphology
MP:0001002 abnormal taste bud morphology
MP:0001985 abnormal gustatory system physiology
MP:0005499 abnormal olfactory system morphology
MP:0006292 abnormal nasal placode morphology
MP:0008789 abnormal olfactory epithelium morphology
MP:0012067 abnormal olfactory gland morphology
MP:0001983 abnormal olfactory system physiology
MP:0002006 tumorigenesis
MP:0005391 vision/eye phenotype
MP:0002092 abnormal eye morphology
MP:0005193 abnormal anterior eye segment morphology
MP:0001286 abnormal eye development
MP:0001299 abnormal eye distance/ position
MP:0003686 abnormal eye muscle morphology
MP:0001324 abnormal eye pigmentation
MP:0002697 abnormal eye size
MP:0001340 abnormal eyelid morphology
MP:0008968 abnormal lacrimal apparatus morphology
MP:0010030 abnormal orbit morphology
MP:0005195 abnormal posterior eye segment morphology
MP:0002698 abnormal sclera morphology
MP:0005197 abnormal uvea morphology
MP:0001293 anophthalmia
MP:0006209 calcified intraocular region
MP:0013146 eye lesions
MP:0009859 eye opacity
MP:0013170 eye swellings
MP:0006225 ocular rupture
MP:0001788 periorbital edema
MP:0005254 strabismus
MP:0005253 abnormal eye physiology

Table 6. New MP terms derived from embryo phenotyping.

A list of the Mammalian Phenotype Ontology IDs along with their corresponding term name. These have been added to the ontology to allow annotation of abnormalities observed in the embryos which could not be adequately described by existing terms.

MP:0013809 absent pectinate muscle
MP:0013810 absent brachiocephalic trunk
MP:0013812 enlarged orbital veins
MP:0013813 dilated hepatic portal vein
MP:0013814 abnormal hepatic portal vein connection
MP:0013816 absent digastric muscle
MP:0013817 absent nasal cavity
MP:0013818 abnormal oral cavity morphology
MP:0013819 abnormal acromioclavicular joint morphology
MP:0013820 absent optic cup
MP:0013823 absent segment of anterior cerebral artery
MP:0013825 small hypoglossal canal
MP:0013826 absent hypoglossal canal
MP:0013827 thin oculomotor nerve
MP:0013828 thin facial nerve
MP:0013829 thin splanchnic nerve
MP:0013830 abnormal intrathoracic topology of vagus nerve
MP:0013831 vagus nerve compression
MP:0013832 thin vagus nerve
MP:0013833 absent olfactory nerve
MP:0013834 thin hypoglossal nerve
MP:0013835 absent hypoglossal nerve
MP:0013836 abnormal hypoglossal nerve topology
MP:0013837 abnormal vagus nerve topology
MP:0013838 small caudate nucleus
MP:0013840 absent segment of posterior cerebral artery
MP:0013841 abnormal lymphatic vessel topology
MP:0013842 ductus venosus stenosis
MP:0013843 hepatic portal vein stenosis
MP:0013844 abnormal perichondrial ossification
MP:0013845 abnormal eye muscle topology
MP:0013846 retropharyngeal edema
MP:0013847 retropleural edema
MP:0013848 subcutaneous edema
MP:0013849 absent abducens nerve
MP:0013850 absent posterior commissure
MP:0013851 abnormal Wolffian duct topology
MP:0013852 abnormal Mullerian duct topology
MP:0013853 abnormal hepatic portal vein formation
MP:0013855 absent celiac artery
MP:0013857 abnormal abdominal muscle morphology
MP:0013858 abnormal azygos vein topology
MP:0013859 abnormal vitelline vein connection
MP:0013860 anastomosis between common carotid and vertebral artery
MP:0013861 abnormal pancreas topology
MP:0013862 abnormal cecum position
MP:0013864 enlarged paraumbilical vein
MP:0013865 abnormal dorsal pancreas topology
MP:0013868 abnormal ventral pancreas topology
MP:0013869 vascular diverticulum
MP:0013870 absent proximal internal carotid artery segment
MP:0013871 abnormal stapedial artery topology
MP:0013873 abnormal ductus venosus morphology
MP:0013874 abnormal ductus venosus topology
MP:0013875 trigeminal neuroma
MP:0013876 absent ductus venosus valve
MP:0013877 abnormal ductus venosus valve morphology
MP:0013878 abnormal ductus venosus valve topology
MP:0013879 duplication of ductus venosus
MP:0013880 absent ductus venosus
MP:0013913 absent rib-vertebral column attachment
MP:0013914 absent intracranial segment of vertebral artery
MP:0013915 abnormal brachial plexus formation
MP:0013916 decreased intestine length
MP:0013917 persistent right 6th pharyngeal arch artery
MP:0013918 abnormal endolymphatic sac topology
MP:0013923 small prevertebral sympathetic ganglia
MP:0013924 abnormal dural venous sinus morphology
MP:0013925 abnormal vascular plexus formation
MP:0013926 absent neurohypophysis
MP:0013927 abnormal facial nerve topology
MP:0013928 thin motoric part of trigeminal nerve
MP:0013929 absent eye muscles
MP:0013930 abnormal digastric muscle connection
MP:0013931 abnormal olfactory bulb position
MP:0013932 fragmented Meckel's cartilage
MP:0013933 short Meckel's cartilage
MP:0013934 supratentorial ventricles enlargement
MP:0013935 basal brain tissue herniation
MP:0013936 abnormal thymus topology
MP:0013937 absent lobe of thyroid gland
MP:0013938 abnormal esophagus topology
MP:0013943 abnormal ureter topology
MP:0013944 persistent cloacal membrane
MP:0013945 abnormal elbow joint morphology
MP:0013946 abnormal perirectal tissue morphology
MP:0013947 abnormal paraaortic body morphology
MP:0013948 intraembryonal intestine elongation
MP:0013949 fusion of axis and occipital bones
MP:0013950 abnormal dorsal root ganglion topology
MP:0013951 abnormal descending aorta topology
MP:0013952 retro-esophageal left subclavian artery
MP:0013953 left sided brachiocephalic trunk
MP:0013963 jugular vein stenosis
MP:0013964 absent tongue muscles
MP:0013965 abnormally deep median sulcus of tongue
MP:0013967 abnormal infrahyoid muscle connection
MP:0013968 multiple persisting craniopharyngeal ducts
MP:0013969 reduced sympathetic cervical ganglion size
MP:0013970 absent connection between subcutaneous lymph vessels and lymph sac
MP:0013971 blood in lymph vessels
MP:0013972 occipital vertebra
MP:0013973 abnormal hepatic vein connection
MP:0013974 abnormal coronary vein connection
MP:0013975 abnormal coronary sinus connection
MP:0013976 abnormal left vena cava superior connection
MP:0013977 symmetric azygos veins
MP:0013978 abnormal carotid artery origin
MP:0013979 abnormal subclavian artery origin
MP:0013980 abnormal pulmonary artery origin
MP:0013981 double lumen aortic arch
MP:0013982 inverse situs of great intrathoracic arteries
MP:0013984 abnormal superior mesenterial vein connection
MP:0013985 abnormal umbilical vein topology
MP:0013986 abnormal vitelline vein topology
MP:0013987 absent intrahepatic inferior vena cava segment
MP:0013988 absent portal vein segment
MP:0013989 symmetric hepatic veins
MP:0013991 abnormal common iliac artery origin
MP:0013992 persistent dorsal ophthalmic artery
MP:0013993 anastomosis between basilar artery and common carotid artery
MP:0013994 abnormal parasellar internal carotid artery branch morphology
MP:0013995 abnormal external carotid artery origin
MP:0013996 abnormal vertebral artery origin
MP:0013997 abnormal internal carotid artery topology
MP:0013998 absent canalicular internal carotid artery segment
MP:0013999 absent parasellar internal carotid artery
MP:0014000 anastomosis between internal carotid artery and basilar artery
MP:0014001 abnormal vertebral artery topology
MP:0014002 absent extracranial vertebral artery segment
MP:0014003 additional anastomosis between intracranial vertebral arteries
MP:0014004 absent basilar artery segment
MP:0014006 absent posterior communicating artery
MP:0014008 absent labyrinthine artery
MP:0014009 anastomosis between middle cerebral arteries
MP:0014011 abnormal ovary tissue architecture
MP:0014017 abnormal Wolffian duct connection
MP:0014018 embryo tumor
MP:0014019 embryo cyst
MP:0014020 intramural bleeding in blood vessel wall
MP:0014021 heterochrony
MP:0014022 abnormal duodenum topology

When grouped into such high level MP ontology terms, the most common group of abnormalities are those affecting the cardiovascular system, examples of which affect embryos in every single mutant line studied. Almost as prevalent are nervous system phenotypes, which are detected in 80% of the lines studied. Re-plotting the data summarised by intermediate level MP term slim provides a more detailed view of the prevalence and variability in penetrance of phenotypes ( Figure 5B). At this level of resolution, for example, cardiovascular defects are subdivided into two broad categories; those encompassing abnormalities in blood vessel morphology or topology (“abnormal blood vessel morphology” and most phenotypes within “abnormal cardiovascular development”) and those affecting the heart and its great vessels (“abnormal heart morphology”). Viewed in this way, it is clear that detection of cardiovascular defects in all lines examined results from the presence of phenotypes in the vasculature. These range from relatively major defects such as absence of the ductus venosus, interrupted aortic arch or arterial stenosis, to more minor alterations in vascular topology in different regions of the embryo. Cardiac abnormalities nevertheless remain prevalent, affecting almost two thirds (27/42) of the mutant lines. These encompass malformations in all regions of the four-chambered heart and its great vessels, including both atrial and ventricular septal defects, atrioventricular septal defects, common arterial trunk, double outlet right ventricle, transposition of the great arteries, bicuspid aortic valve, common truncal valve and abnormally thin myocardium. After blood vessel and cardiac abnormalities, the third most prevalent group of phenotypes detected were those affecting brain morphology ( Figure 5B), most commonly the forebrain ( Figure 6 and Supplementary Table 1).

Figure 6. Abnormal brain morphology phenotypes.

Figure 6.

A and B. Tissue protrusion (pr) into the 3rd ventricle (III) in an original HREM-section ( A) and a volume model ( B). Inlay in B shows normal situation in a control. C. Irregular tissue protrusions (arrowheads) on the brain surface in a 4933434E20Rik -/- embryo. D. Abnormal tissue (arrowhead) at the cortex near the lateral sulcus in a Polb -/- embryo. E. Abnormal frontal wall of the lateral ventricles in a H13 -/- embryo. F. Abnormal morphology and tissue architecture (arrowhead) of the frontal forebrain in a Chtop -/- embryo. G. Abnormal morphology of the wall of the 3rd ventricle and protrusions (arrowhead) on the surface of the diencephalon in a Brd2 -/- embryo. ah, adenohypophysis; f, forebrain; h, hindbrain; ie, inner ear; oc, optic cup; pr, tissue protrusion; tg, trigeminal ganglion; III, 3rd ventricle; Scale bars 1 mm

In order to assess the relative significance of each phenotype in the context of variable penetrance, we re-examined their ranking distribution after weighting each phenotype according to its individual prevalence. This provides a plot of cumulative line penetrance for each of the 70 intermediate level MP term slim ( Figure 7). Whilst abnormalities in blood vessel morphology and structure of the heart remain amongst the most prevalent phenotypes, weighting by penetrance has a significant impact on the ranking of other phenotypes. Notably, the relative ranking of “abnormal brain morphology” and “abnormal somatic nervous system morphology” is increased, with both now lying in the five most prevalent abnormalities scored. This change is largely driven by the relatively high prevalence associated with abnormalities in forebrain morphology and hypoglossal nerve structure or presence, respectively.

Figure 7. Cumulative penetrance of individual phenotypes.

Figure 7.

Data from the global analysis of the frequency of phenotype terms (see Materials and Methods) was plotted to show the cumulative penetrance score for each of the phenotype categories observed (i.e. the overall sum of the penetrance scores recorded for the lines showing the phenotype). The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology terms assigned during embryo phenotyping were summarised using the intermediate level DMDD ontology slim, and the data was ordered according to the cumulative penetrance score. The colours indicate the contribution of lines falling into each of the distinct penetrance categories to the cumulative penetrance score.

Phenotyping embryos required new MP terms

Adoption of a formal, standardised ontology for scoring abnormalities provides an essential framework for analysing the data and facilitating structured search enquiries. However, during the course of the DMDD programme and its pilot study 8, it became clear that additional terms were required in order to adequately describe abnormalities in embryo, as opposed to adult structures. A further outcome of the DMDD study has therefore been the creation of 142 new MP terms to accommodate the range of abnormalities we have observed ( Table 6). These include, for example, thin motoric part of the trigeminal nerve (MP:0013928; http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/MP?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MP_0013928), blood in lymph vessels (MP:0013971; http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/MP?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MP_0013971), double lumen aortic arch (MP:0013981; http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/MP?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MP_0013981), abnormal elbow joint morphology (MP:0013945; http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/MP?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MP_0013945), and intramural bleeding in blood vessel wall (MP:0014020; http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/MP?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MP_0014020)( Figure 8).

Figure 8. Examples of new MP phenotypes.

Figure 8.

AC. “Thin motoric part of trigeminal nerve”. Original HREM sections through the head of a Polb -/- embryo ( A, B) and a control ( C). Box in A indicates section displayed in B. D. “Blood in lymph vessels”, as appearing in an original HREM section through the neck of a 1700067K01Rik -/- embryo. Note the blood filled left lymph sac (asterisk). Use the right sided lymph sac (rls) as a control. E. Double lumen aortic arch. Surface model of the great intrathoracic arteries on top of an original HREM section of a Pdzk1 -/- embryo. (Compare with 16). F. “Intramural bleeding in blood vessel wall” (arrowhead) in the descending aorta (da) of an Akap9 -/- embryo from the DMDD pilot study 8. Coronal section through a volume model. GH. “Abnormal elbow joint morphology” Sagittal sections. Normal situation in a control ( G). Fusion of humerus (h) und ulna material (u) in an Atp11a -/- embryo. aa, aortic arch; ah, adenohypophysis; bt, brachiocephalic trunk; da, descending aorta; dlaa, double lumen aortic arch; e, esophagus; h, humerus; l, lung; la, left atrium; lcc, left common carotid artery; le, lens; lsa, left subclavian artery; lx, larynx; mp, motoric part of trigeminal nerve; nc, nasal cavity; oc, optic cup; r, radius; ra, right atrium; rcc, right common carotid artery; rv, right ventricle; sc, spinal chord; tg, trigeminal ganglion; u, ulna; v, vertrebral body; III, 3rd ventricle; Scale bars 1 mm.

Discussion

Since approximately one third of gene knockouts in the mouse prove to be embryonic or perinatal lethal 13, further study of such lines offers a unique opportunity to better understand the genetic regulation of embryo development and identify genetic determinants of congenital abnormalities. The data accumulated during three years of the DMDD programme provide the first opportunity to study in detail the identity, range and prevalence of morphological abnormalities in such mutants and offer a window on the opportunities (and pitfalls) such systematic studies present.

The current analysis is restricted to a single developmental stage (E14.5) when most organ systems of the embryo have developed their definitive fetal appearance and the body plan is broadly similar to that of the adult mouse. Whilst this provides obvious practical advantages for a systematic, high throughput phenotyping programme, it is of course an arbitrary choice with respect to the time course of individual gene function and the consequences of gene ablation. Indeed, about 60% of the lethal lines entering the DMDD pipeline fail to provide homozygous mutant offspring by E14.5, with half of those causing lethality prior to E9.5 [see also 2]. The data here therefore comes from a subset of lethal lines. Furthermore, phenotypes observed at a single time point most likely combine more immediate consequences of individual gene loss with more distant or secondary consequences. Teasing out the role of regulative or compensatory changes from primary effects of gene loss is likely to be difficult. Despite these caveats, there are, nevertheless, several striking findings that emerge from detailed phenotype analysis.

Our finding that some manifestation of edema (generally subcutaneous) is the most common phenotype could indicate an unappreciated complexity in the genetic controls regulating fluid balance or tissue integrity of vascular or lymphatic components. Edema may also represent a common outcome for a wide range of pathophysiological perturbations, as has been proposed for the association of non-immune hydrops fetalis with human fetal loss 10, 11. The prevalence of cardiovascular defects is also consistent with the well established finding that cardiac abnormalities are the most common congenital defect in human newborns 12. Some caution is necessary in considering the mouse data, since as we have shown, a significant proportion of cardiovascular phenotypes comprise apparently minor alterations in blood vessel topology, the impact of which on normal development remains unclear. However, in addition to these, the lines we have studied show a range of severe abnormalities in cardiac structure that are both relatively prevalent and mirror the range of congenital abnormalities seen in humans. Despite the largely random selection of genes studied in screens such as DMDD, their identification as embryonic lethal therefore provides a dramatic enrichment for potential cardiac developmental disease alleles. Phenotypes affecting neural tissue also prove to be relatively prevalent in mutant embryos. We are limited in the present analysis to identifying a subset of neural deficits readily identified from HREM imaging. This restricts identifiable phenotypes to relatively gross alterations in brain and neural tube morphology, or changes affecting major nerves. Amongst the latter, the frequency with which abnormalities affecting the hypoglossal nerve have been detected is perhaps not so surprising, since these (like abnormalities detected in the motoric portion of the trigeminal nerve) may compromise suckling and lead to perinatal lethality.

The multiplicity of phenotypes frequently detected in individual mutant embryos is not unexpected, given the nature of a single time point screening procedure combined with the likely pleiotropic effects of individual gene loss. However, the most striking and surprising finding to emerge from the DMDD phenotype data is that virtually all phenotypes are incompletely (and frequently poorly) penetrant, despite the use of the isogenic C57BL/6N mouse strain. Combined with the observation of overlapping but distinct spectra of phenotypes between individual embryos from a single line, these findings are challenging to understand, and at a minimum point towards unknown stochastic components affecting the etiology of each phenotype or the compensatory responses they elicit 2. They also demonstrate that efforts to identify linkage between mouse embryo phenotypes and human developmental disease are likely to require sophisticated bioinformatic analysis beyond the obvious issues raised by species differences in anatomy and physiology.

It is also worth noting the several practical lessons which have become evident through the course of DMDD studies and which may be of value for similar embryo phenotyping programmes. The most pressing of these is basing phenotype detection on comparison of each mutant embryo with an appropriately staged normal counterpart 13. Embryos harvested at E14.5 vary markedly in their developmental progress and many tissues and organs are actively remodelled during this period. This is most obvious for the topology of the intestine, the position of the palatal shelves and the interventricular communication between left and right sides of the heart. Only with precise developmental staging is accurate phenotyping of these features possible (Geyer, Reissig, Rose, Wilson, Prin, Szumska, Ramirez-Solis, Tudor, White, Mohun and Weninger, unpublished report, ).

Whilst the precise range and detail of phenotypes that can be scored will necessarily be dictated by the nature of the imaging modality and the method of phenotype identification (compare, for example, 14, 15 with the manual annotation used in the present study), a common challenge is the development of protocols to minimise occurrence or subsequent scoring of apparent abnormalities that are more likely artefacts of sample preparation or processing. These can range from the more obvious ruptures of the embryo skin or damaged external features during dissection, to tissue shrinkage or swelling (causing organ deformation) as a result of dehydration, fixation or embedding. In addition to such artefacts, our study has demonstrated that a number of apparent abnormalities are common to both homozygous mutant embryos and wild-type controls from the C57BL/6N mouse strain. These include splitting of the tail tip, persistence of the craniopharyngeal duct with associated fenestration of head bones and the presence of vesicles in the lens of the eye ( Figure 4, panels C-E). A systematic appraisal of such phenotypes is currently in preparation.

Finally, the power of phenotypic screens such as DMDD to inform our understanding of developmental disease rests heavily on the detail with which abnormalities are scored. However, the very complexity we have seen this generates makes it all the more urgent to distinguish phenotypes not just through the nature of the morphological abnormality, but through its capacity, individually or in concert with others, to compromise subsequent fetal survival.

Data availability

Dataset 1 Zenodo: All phenotypes from lethal and sub-viable lines scored by DMDD to date (Nov 2016), 10.5281/zenodo.163506 17

The cumulative list of all scored phenotypes analysed in this study is presented in Dataset 1. The intermediate and high level slims of the MP ontology used in the analysis are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. All data used in this study is also available from the DMDD web site ( https://dmdd.org.uk) where phenotype annotations are available in tabular format by embryo and by line. In addition, they are identified at their appropriate locations within each 3D dataset of embryo images, which can be viewed in all three orthogonal section planes.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the contributions made by past and present members of the DMDD consortium and the support of their institutions, without which the DMDD programme would not be possible.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust [100160], [FC001157], [FC001117]; Cancer Research UK [FC001157], [FC001117]; and the UK Medical Research Council [FC001157], [FC001117].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Supplementary material

Supplementary Figure 1: Embryo numbers analysed for each mutant line.

The number of annotated embryos scored for each of the 42 lines was used to plot the variation in numbers of embryos analysed per line.

Supplementary Figure 2: Distribution of phenotypes amongst DMDD mutant lines (high level MP ontology slim).

Data from the global analysis of the frequency of phenotype terms (see Materials and Methods) is plotted to show the penetrance of phenotypes scored for each line, indicated by a colour gradient from light yellow (no penetrance) to dark red (100% penetrance). Each line is labelled after the symbol of the gene disrupted (see also Table 1), and the number of homozygous mutant embryos analysed for each line is shown. Phenotype annotations are summarised using the high level DMDD ontology slim.

Supplementary Figure 3: Distribution of phenotypes amongst DMDD mutant lines (intermediate level MP ontology slim).

As in Supplementary Figure 2, except that phenotype annotations are summarised using the intermediate level DMDD ontology slim.

Supplementary Table 1: Embryo phenotypes, organised by frequency.

The data from the global analysis of the frequency of phenotype terms (see Materials and methods) is presented in a structured fashion showing the relationship between Mammalian Phenotype Ontology terms included in the DMDD high level ontology slim, the DMDD intermediate level ontology slim, and the original annotation terms. The first three columns list the ID, term and frequency of DMDD high level ontology slim terms, columns 4–6 list the ID, term and frequency of the intermediate level ontology slim terms that cluster under the high level term listed in column 1, and for each intermediate level term the annotation phenotype terms are shown in order of frequency in columns 7–9. Column 10 lists the lines in which the phenotype listed in columns 7 was observed. The table rows are ordered according to the frequency of the high level ontology terms, intermediate ontology terms and original annotation terms.

References

  • 1. Adams D, Baldock R, Bhattacharya S, et al. : Bloomsbury report on mouse embryo phenotyping: recommendations from the IMPC workshop on embryonic lethal screening. Dis Model Mech. 2013;6(3):571–9. 10.1242/dmm.011833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Dickinson ME, Flenniken AM, Ji X, et al. : High-throughput discovery of novel developmental phenotypes. Nature. 2016;537(7621):508–514. 10.1038/nature19356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mohun T, Adams DJ, Baldock R, et al. : Deciphering the Mechanisms of Developmental Disorders (DMDD): a new programme for phenotyping embryonic lethal mice. Dis Model Mech. 2013;6(3):562–6. 10.1242/dmm.011957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Mohun TJ, Weninger WJ: Imaging heart development using high-resolution episcopic microscopy. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2011;21(5):573–8. 10.1016/j.gde.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Mohun TJ, Weninger WJ: Embedding embryos for high-resolution episcopic microscopy (HREM). Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2012;2012(6):678–80. 10.1101/pdb.prot069583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Weninger WJ, Geyer SH, Mohun TJ, et al. : High-resolution episcopic microscopy: a rapid technique for high detailed 3D analysis of gene activity in the context of tissue architecture and morphology. Anat Embryol (Berl). 2006;211(3):213–21. 10.1007/s00429-005-0073-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Mohun TJ, Weninger WJ: Generation of volume data by episcopic three-dimensional imaging of embryos. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2012;2012(6):681–2. 10.1101/pdb.prot069591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Weninger WJ, Geyer SH, Martineau A, et al. : Phenotyping structural abnormalities in mouse embryos using high-resolution episcopic microscopy. Dis Model Mech. 2014;7(10):1143–52. 10.1242/dmm.016337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Smith CL, Eppig JT: The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology as a unifying standard for experimental and high-throughput phenotyping data. Mamm Genome. 2012;23(9–10):653–68. 10.1007/s00335-012-9421-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Boycott KM, Vanstone MR, Bulman DE, et al. : Rare-disease genetics in the era of next-generation sequencing: discovery to translation. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(10):681–91. 10.1038/nrg3555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Shamseldin HE, Tulbah M, Kurdi W, et al. : Identification of embryonic lethal genes in humans by autozygosity mapping and exome sequencing in consanguineous families. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):116. 10.1186/s13059-015-0681-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Hoffman JI, Kaplan S: The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(12):1890–900. 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01886-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wong MD, van Eede MC, Spring S, et al. : 4D atlas of the mouse embryo for precise morphological staging. Development. 2015;142(20):3583–91. 10.1242/dev.125872 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Wong MD, Dorr AE, Walls JR, et al. : A novel 3D mouse embryo atlas based on micro-CT. Development. 2012;139(17):3248–56. 10.1242/dev.082016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Wong MD, Maezawa Y, Lerch JP, et al. : Automated pipeline for anatomical phenotyping of mouse embryos using micro-CT. Development. 2014;141(12):2533–41. 10.1242/dev.107722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Geyer SH, Weninger WJ: Some mice feature 5th pharyngeal arch arteries and double-lumen aortic arch malformations. Cells Tissues Organs. 2012;196(1):90–8. 10.1159/000330789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Wilson R: Table 4: All pheotypes from lethal and subviable lines scored by DMDD to date (Nove 2016) [Data set]. Zenodo. 2016. Data Source
Wellcome Open Res. 2016 Dec 12. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.10670.r18405

Referee response for version 1

Lydia Teboul 1

The Deciphering Mechanisms of Developmental Disorders consortium presents a systematic study of the morphology of mutant embryos from 42 lines developed in the frame of the International Phenotyping Consortium. The lines chosen for this study were selected as they are homozygous lethal or subviable at weaning but viable at E14.5.

The authors employ High Resolution Episcopic Microscopy to capture 3D images of the embryos, providing exquisitely detailed documentation of embryo morphologies. They exploit this rich dataset with a systematic and in depth annotation of morphological defects which they record using appropriate levels of MP terms.

The result is a survey of impressive scope in terms of annotation depth and volume of data, and a superb effort of data organisation and analysis so the great complexity of the dataset can be distilled to overall observations and discussion points. This organisation effort yielded a really useful framework for systematic analysis of the morphology of mouse mutant of that stage.

The authors conclude that a salient point of the work is the great variability of penetrance of the morphological phenotypes they find among these mutant embryos of the same isogenic genetic background.

Although the variable expressivity of phenotype between different individuals of a same mutant line isn’t a new concept, the unexpected result of the study is the extend to which phenotypes (even when grouped in broad categories such as “organ affected”) vary in penetrance, albeit that these mutants share the broadest of phenotype which is lethality.

However, the authors restrict their analysis to the variability amongst mutants and they mention in the discussion an on-going systematic analysis of WT embryos, which will provide key information to put in context the observations collated in this article.

Whereas the article is an excellent effort of presenting a complex dataset with clarity and granularity and documenting variability of morphology amongst samples, the data presented do not allow the reader to identify the reason(s) of this variability in the absence of key information. Three major points should be addressed:

  • The authors made the unusual choice of not presenting baseline data on the morphology of wild-type mutants (littermates) produced in the study. Such data, surveying significant groups of control embryos, would be essential to establish the link between mutations and described phenotypes. In the absence of this data, any reference to a causal link between phenotypes and mutation should be removed from the article.

  • Both targeted traps (tm1a) and null (tm1b and CRISPR induced deletions) alleles are employed in the study. Both the presence of a selection cassette and the unpredictability of efficiency of trapping cassette(s) could form the basis of at least some of the variability shown in this study. An evaluation of variability (particularly using slim terms) within each of these 2 groups of alleles would help to address this point.

  • Subviable lines show by definition a partially penetrant phenotype and contribute to a quarter of the mutant studied. An evaluation of variability (particularly using slim terms) within lethal and subviable as separate alleles groups would discriminate whether variability of morphology is particularly occurring among subviable lines.

 

Minor points:

  • Methods should detail information that permit the appraisal of materials used in the study, detailing the genetic background of stem cells and animals employed for germline transmission, and further breeding, including whether homozygotes were used to produce embryos to analyse subviable lines.

  • Methods should outline the steps taken to limit manual annotation variability (i.e. secondary calling or benchmarking between annotators).

  • All titles and text should precisely detail when lethal or both lethal and subviable mutations are presented.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Mar 6.
Tim Mohun 1

The authors made the unusual choice of not presenting baseline data on the morphology of wild-type mutants (littermates) produced in the study. Such data, surveying significant groups of control embryos, would be essential to establish the link between mutations and described phenotypes. In the absence of this data, any reference to a causal link between phenotypes and mutation should be removed from the article.

We have included the wild type phenotype data in the revised version of the manuscript (see the detailed response to Rosenthal/Murray for more details).

Both targeted traps (tm1a) and null (tm1b and CRISPR induced deletions) alleles are employed in the study. Both the presence of a selection cassette and the unpredictability of efficiency of trapping cassette(s) could form the basis of at least some of the variability shown in this study. An evaluation of variability (particularly using slim terms) within each of these 2 groups of alleles would help to address this point.

The revised manuscript now includes separate analysis of phenotypes for the 22 tm1a alleles compared with 20 complete nulls (19 tm1b and 1 CRISPR). With either allele, blood vessel, heart and brain morphology remain amongst the most commonly observed abnormalities. However, with such relatively small numbers, we feel there is little more that can usefully be concluded from comparison of individual phenotype prevalence, since this will be heavily influenced by the distinct gene identities within each allele group. In contrast, there is a clear difference in phenotype penetrance between the two groups: phenotypes are clearly more penetrant from tm1b alleles (see new Figure 8A and 8B). We presume that this reflects the fact that whilst mutations based on tm1a alleles have the potential to be hypomorphic, those converted from tm1a to tm1b contain an exon deletion (and no longer carry the neo selection cassette).

Subviable lines show by definition a partially penetrant phenotype and contribute to a quarter of the mutant studied. An evaluation of variability (particularly using slim terms) within lethal and subviable as separate alleles groups would discriminate whether variability of morphology is particularly occurring among subviable lines.

We presume that the reviewer is wondering whether the difference between lethal and subviable lines is a result of differing degrees of penetrance of phenotypes that result in embryo death. Answering this point is not as simple as it might appear as it touches on a much more profound issue raised by studies such as ours. Whilst we are able to distinguish a remarkable number of different structural abnormalities by virtue of the resolution HREM imaging affords, it may not be at all clear which of these results in embryo lethality. Many profound abnormalities may be compatible with life and lethality may also result from structurally subtle changes. Without knowing which of the scored phenotypes are likely to cause lethality, it will be difficult if not impossible to establish of differences in their penetrance distinguish subviable from lethal lines. Add to this the additional difficulty that dams have a propensity to eat newborns that are not thriving well and there is a further complication in interpreting the data.

We have nevertheless reexamined the phenotype data in order to compare the results separately for lethal and subviable lines (new Supplementary Figure 4). From this it is clear that there is insufficient data from subviable lines to draw unequivocal conclusions. Overall, the approximate prevalence of particular phenotype terms (using the intermediate slim) appears broadly similar to that of lethals, but for most of these, the numbers of affected lines are too few to make useful estimates of penetrance.

Minor points:

1. Full details of genetic background and mutant allele are now provided for each line (revised Table 1).

2. All phenotyping was performed according to a standardised and sequential procedure, as mentioned in Material and methods. The data from each embryo was independently reviewed by a second anatomist and any discrepancies resolved by joint agreement.

3. We have amended titles and text to ensure that the distinction between lethal and subviable lines is clear where necessary.

Wellcome Open Res. 2016 Dec 8. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.10670.r18334

Referee response for version 1

Nadia Rosenthal 1, Steve Murray 2

This manuscript describes the findings of the DMDD consortium, analyzing 42 lethal and subviable genes at E14.5 using high-resolution 3D imaging (HREM) coupled with detailed annotation of the specific phenotypes revealed. The level of granularity in the scoring of the phenotypes is a major strength of the paper, and reflects the deep and unique expertise of the team. This has facilitated the discovery of widespread variable penetrance in mutant embryos at a level of detail not previously described. Furthermore, the effort to organize the MP into a series of “slims” is quite useful for organizing the calls into easier to analyze groups, and such work will likely benefit other groups such as the IMPC. 

The manuscript is clearly written and, importantly, goes to great lengths to ensure full access to all data. In addition to minor issues detailed below, there are two major gaps, however, that must be addressed.

  1. There is no description of the number of control embryos screened or the incidental rate of hits for each phenotype in the DMDD list. Given the focus of the paper on the variability of phenotype penetrance and the number of phenotypes with an “n=1”, it is impossible to draw conclusions without this information. While the authors allude to a manuscript in preparation, it is actually essential data for this paper.

  2. Similarly, there is no description of how the authors account for global developmental delay in mutants, which can lead to many “phenotypes” that are merely the result of slowed/retarded development or variability in developmental timing between litters. For example, at E14.5, one would expect a high rate of cleft palate in mutants that have some level of overall delay, or in entire delayed litters, as the palate is elevating and fusing at that time point. This raises the following questions: are controls from each litter collected? How is uniform staging assured? Are “delayed” embryos compared to a stage-matched control? Again, the authors allude to another manuscript, but some of this information needs to be included here to assure the MP calls do not have trivial explanations.

 

Minor points:

  1.  While the brief description of the animal resource and use of website citation is acceptable, given the main finding of variable penetrance, the authors should make a point of describing the isogenic genetic background and the nature of the alleles (tm1a or tm1b) in the methods and results.

  2. It’s not entirely clear if this was a set of 42 genes that were lethal/subviable at wean, or if this was a select set of lethal genes that were viable/subviable (present) at E14.5. Given the comments in the discussion about lines lethal at E9.5 or earlier, I assume the latter. This should be spelled out.

  3. Mouse gene symbols should be italicized.

  4. Apart from Table 1, the tables are too large and make reading a PDF a somewhat painful process. These might not be easily compressed, so most of the information should be moved to a supplemental file.

We have read this submission. We believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Mar 6.
Tim Mohun 1

There is no description of the number of control embryos screened or the incidental rate of hits for each phenotype in the DMDD list. Given the focus of the paper on the variability of phenotype penetrance and the number of phenotypes with an “n=1”, it is impossible to draw conclusions without this information. While the authors allude to a manuscript in preparation, it is actually essential data for this paper.

The revised manuscript now includes the complete phenotype data obtained for 114 wild type embryos. This comprises 56 phenotype calls, affecting 32 embryos, originating from 28 lines (revised Tables 1, 2B and Supplementary Table 5). 21 of the 56 phenotype calls (38%) are accounted for by only 6 embryos, (indicating the skewing effect of a small number of abnormal embryos), most affected embryos showing only a single phenotype. This is in marked contrast to the finding of many different phenotypes in individual mutant embryos. The phenotypes of wild types vary in character, ranging from apparently minor differences (e.g. in blood vessel morphology) to a few major abnormalities (e.g. absent kidney). Each one is rare amongst the population of wild type embryos analysed and affects only a single wild type embryo within the line. Only 10 phenotypes (15 phenotype calls) overlap between mutant embryos and their wild type siblings and these affect only 10 of the 41 lines for which wild type embryos have been assessed (Table 3). As we discuss in the revised Results and Discussion sections, these data raise 3 related questions: Why are phenotypes detected in genetically wild type embryos? Are there “background” phenotypes associated with the C57BL/6N line that contribute to the mutant phenotypes scored? Is there any evidence for “background” phenotypes associated with an individual knockout line?

We think there are several possible explanations for finding phenotypes amongst wild type embryos. One possibility is that the mouse strain that has been used for engineering knockout lines carries a “background load” of abnormalities, previously unappreciated. Ours is the first systematic study on sufficiently large scale and employing sufficiently high resolution imaging to detect such abnormalities. Amongst the phenotypes identified, none shows significant prevalence that might be expected if it was a strain-specific abnormality. Another possible explanation is that abnormalities arise as a consequence of de novo mutation and the frequency we detect reflects the high sensitivity that results from HREM imaging. Lastly, at least with the less apparently severe abnormalities, it is possible that some of these in fact represent outliers on spectrum of normal morphological variation and should not be considered genuine abnormalities. This highlights an important issue confronting phenotyping studies: the dearth of large-scale and systematic studies examining normal embryo morphology that can set a reliable benchmark for distinguishing abnormalities from normal variation. In this light, phenotype data may need revision as cumulative experience improves our ability to distinguish abnormalities from variation amongst wild types.

Whatever the explanation, it is clear that neither the frequency, prevalence nor nature of the phenotypes identified in wild type embryos impact significantly on the assignation of phenotypes amongst the homozygous mutant embryos.

Similarly, there is no description of how the authors account for global developmental delay in mutants, which can lead to many “phenotypes” that are merely the result of slowed/retarded development or variability in developmental timing between litters. For example, at E14.5, one would expect a high rate of cleft palate in mutants that have some level of overall delay, or in entire delayed litters, as the palate is elevating and fusing at that time point. This raises the following questions: are controls from each litter collected? How is uniform staging assured? Are “delayed” embryos compared to a stage-matched control? Again, the authors allude to another manuscript, but some of this information needs to be included here to assure the MP calls do not have trivial explanations.

We believe it is important to distinguish between the effect of precise developmental stage of phenotyping and the issue of developmental retardation or delay. We can now reference the published study we mentioned that addresses these very questions (Geyer et al. 2017, J. Anat. in press). We do indeed collect wild type controls from each litter but our experience has demonstrated that precise stage matching of mutants with controls is essential to underpin accurate phenotyping. To facilitate this, we have analysed a large number of wild type embryos from the same genetic background as the that used for engineering of mutant lines. We have developed a system that can reliably distinguish five sub-stages within the span of Theiler stages 21 to 22 that are collected during E14.5, enabling us to compare each mutant embryo against precise, developmental stage-matched controls. Careful study and comparison of these has identified those changes (such as fusion of palatal shelves) which occur during the window of development that we observe. By combining qualitative comparisons with quantitative morphometry and statistical analysis, we are able to distinguish what can be considered genuine abnormalities from features that show either rapid developmental change or significant variability in the developmental timing of their appearance.

A more precise staging system also allows us to phenotype homozygous mutant embryos accurately, even though they frequently show some developmental delay, since we are able to compare them to controls at the equivalent stage of development. It also allows us to score instances of heterochrony where this affects individual (or a limited subset of) organs or tissues. By analysing a large number of wild type embryos harvested at E14.5, we have identified the spread and distribution of individual developmental sub stages that might be expected, and on this basis have a robust, statistical definition for global developmental retardation. Our studies do not allow us to identify why such retardation is relatively common amongst mutant embryos, but do offer some interesting pointers that we have commented upon. Retardation is, for example, much more common in mutant embryos showing cardiovascular defects (Geyer et al. 2017, J. Anat. in press). Furthermore, a surprisingly large proportion of mutants show abnormalities in their placental structure, and this may perhaps impact on their overall growth and development (unpublished data).

Minor points

1. The genetic background and details of each allele are now included in revised Table 1. 39 of the 42 lines analysed are on an identical background (C57BL/6N;C57BL/6NTac). 22 lines contain the tm1a allele, 19 contain tm1b and 1 line was produced using CRISPR.

2. The “Embryos” section of Materials and Methods details how the 42 lines were designated as lethal or subviable at wean (P14).

3. Mouse gene symbols have been italicised.

4. It was not possible for the larger tables to be moved to supplementary files; this is an unfortunate limitation of the online presentation method. Wellcome Open Research requested that the tables were included as figures rather than supplementary data and we agree that it is helpful for the reader to see the nature of the data. We had hoped that the individual files could also be downloaded in their spreadsheet format to allow full interrogation but the interface does not currently allow this. We have requested this change but in the meantime large tables are now also included in supplemental spreadsheet files to allow the reader to search and filter the data as required.

Wellcome Open Res. 2016 Dec 5. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.10670.r17602

Referee response for version 1

David Brook 1

We live in interesting times. Election outcomes are unpredictable. People are unpredictable and now as Wilson et al. report even the consequences of specific mutations are significantly less predictable than we might expect.

The Deciphering the Mechanisms of Developmental Disorders (DMDD) programme aims to analyse 240 embryonic lethal mouse knockout lines over a five-year period to study genes essential for mouse embryonic development and survival. This paper provides the first report on results gathered thus far. Wilson et al performed a detailed assessment of morphological abnormalities at stage E14.5 in 220 embryos from 42 novel mouse gene knockout lines. High Resolution Episcopic Microscopy was used to detect abnormalities at a scale from whole organs and tissues down to individual nerves and blood vessels. They report multiple abnormalities in virtually all of the embryos studied. They generated a wealth of information; in excess of 1.6 million images including more than 700,000 transverse sections to detail the incidence of structural abnormalities in 209 of the 220 embryos analysed. Eleven of the embryos from nine different lines were apparently normal.

To provide systematic phenotypic data Mammalian Phenotype (MP) ontology terms were used to classify abnormalities with high and intermediate levels. This allowed the authors to calculate a penetrance score for the terms in each of the mutant lines and to assign these to a quartile percentage group. Only 3 phenotypes were 100% penetrant and over half of the abnormalities had a penetrance score under 25%.    

Approximately one third of mouse gene knockouts are lethal and 60% of lethal lines entering the DMDD programme fail to provide homozygous mutant offspring by E14.5 with half of those being lethal prior to E9.5. Thus, as the authors point out, the data presented are from a subset of lethal lines. However, the most striking aspect of this study is the variability in penetrance of virtually all of the phenotypes analysed.

Recent studies sequencing human exome DNA has identified a high frequency of loss of function mutations. A study by Lek et al 2016 1 examined more than 60,000 human exomes and reported predicted homozygous loss of function genotypes in 1775 genes. On average there are 35 homozygous gene deletions in each human. Thus the comment by Wilson et al in the present paper is particularly pertinent; relating these findings to human developmental disease will require further sophisticated analysis. It would appear that homozygous loss of function mutations are more common than previously realised and, furthermore, the consequences of loss of function mutations are much more variable than previously realised. It will not be trivial to unmask the causes of this variability. We are only just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding the consequences of loss of function mutations in both mice and humans.

I have only one minor suggestion. On p4 3 lines from the bottom, the sentence starting "The Brd2 and Tcf712 alleles showed a similar, but less pronounced, conservation of phenotype.." requires clarification. Do they mean similar to Atp11a, to each other, or to both?

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

  • 1. Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, O'Donnell-Luria AH, Ware JS, Hill AJ, Cummings BB, Tukiainen T, Birnbaum DP, Kosmicki JA, Duncan LE, Estrada K, Zhao F, Zou J, Pierce-Hoffman E, Berghout J, Cooper DN, Deflaux N, DePristo M, Do R, Flannick J, Fromer M, Gauthier L, Goldstein J, Gupta N, Howrigan D, Kiezun A, Kurki MI, Moonshine AL, Natarajan P, Orozco L, Peloso GM, Poplin R, Rivas MA, Ruano-Rubio V, Rose SA, Ruderfer DM, Shakir K, Stenson PD, Stevens C, Thomas BP, Tiao G, Tusie-Luna MT, Weisburd B, Won HH, Yu D, Altshuler DM, Ardissino D, Boehnke M, Danesh J, Donnelly S, Elosua R, Florez JC, Gabriel SB, Getz G, Glatt SJ, Hultman CM, Kathiresan S, Laakso M, McCarroll S, McCarthy MI, McGovern D, McPherson R, Neale BM, Palotie A, Purcell SM, Saleheen D, Scharf JM, Sklar P, Sullivan PF, Tuomilehto J, Tsuang MT, Watkins HC, Wilson JG, Daly MJ, MacArthur DG: Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature.2016;536(7616) : 10.1038/nature19057 285-91 10.1038/nature19057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Mar 6.
Tim Mohun 1

The sentence on p4 referenced in the reviewer's comment describes a trend in the similarity of phenotypes across all of the embryos within a particular mutant line. So we are not comparing the phenotypes between lines, but whether there is consistency between different embryos within any individual line.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Wilson R: Table 4: All pheotypes from lethal and subviable lines scored by DMDD to date (Nove 2016) [Data set]. Zenodo. 2016. Data Source

    Supplementary Materials

    Data Availability Statement

    Dataset 1 Zenodo: All phenotypes from lethal and sub-viable lines scored by DMDD to date (Nov 2016), 10.5281/zenodo.163506 17

    The cumulative list of all scored phenotypes analysed in this study is presented in Dataset 1. The intermediate and high level slims of the MP ontology used in the analysis are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. All data used in this study is also available from the DMDD web site ( https://dmdd.org.uk) where phenotype annotations are available in tabular format by embryo and by line. In addition, they are identified at their appropriate locations within each 3D dataset of embryo images, which can be viewed in all three orthogonal section planes.


    Articles from Wellcome Open Research are provided here courtesy of The Wellcome Trust

    RESOURCES