Oocytes of the South African clawed toad, Xenopus laevis, are an excellent model system for the study of various proto-oncogenes, including myc (1–4), src (5), and ras. The large size of Xenopus oocytes (~1.3 mm in diameter) permits the microinjection of biological material into these cells and subsequent biochemical analysis. In addition, the developmental processes of oogenesis and embryogenesis are easily monitored in the laboratory. In this communication, we summarize the effects of endogenous and exogenous ras protein on meiosis in oocytes. In addition, we present our preliminary characterization of the Xenopus homolog of mammalian Kirsten ras.
KeywordsAdenylate Cyclase Xenopus Laevis Xenopus Oocyte Oocyte Maturation Xenopus Laevis Oocyte
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Taylor, M.V., Gusse, M., Evan, G. I., Dathan, N., and Mechali, M., Xenopus myc proto-oncogene during development: expression as a stable maternal mRNA uncoupled from cell division, EMBO 5, 3563–3570 (1986).Google Scholar
- 2.Godeau, F., Persson, H., Gray, H. E., and Pardee, A.B., c-myc expression is dissociated from DNA synthesis and cell division in Xenopus oocyte and early embryonic development, EMBO 5, 3571–3577 (1986).Google Scholar
- 6.Maller, J.L., Interaction of steroids with the cyclic nucleotide system in amphibian oocytes, Adv. in Cyclic Nucleotide Research 15, 295–336 (1983).Google Scholar
- 7.Wasserman, W. J., Penna, M. J, and Houle, J.G., The regulation of Xenopus laevis oocyte maturation, in: “Gametogenesis and the Early Embryo,” J.G. Gall, ed., Alan R. Liss, Inc. N.Y. (1986).Google Scholar
- 13.Spivack, J.G., Erikson, R. L., and Maller, J.L., Microinjection of pp60 v-src into Xenopus oocytes increases phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 and accelerates the rate of progesterone-induced meiotic maturation, Mol. Cell. Bio. 4, 1631–1634 (1984).Google Scholar
- 21.Deshpande, A.K., and Kung, H., Insulin induction of Xenopus laevis oocyte maturation is inhibited by monoclonal antibody against p21 ras proteins, Mol. Cell. Bio1. 7, 1285–1288 (1987).Google Scholar