Skip to main content

Assessing the Quality of Donor Cells: Karyotyping Methods

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Nuclear Reprogramming

Abstract

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) has a low success rate that rarely exceeds 5 %. Moreover, SCNT requires highly technical skills and may be influenced by the biological material used (oocyte and donor cell quality). Hence, it is crucial to check the normality of the donor cell’s karyotype. Numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities are detected by cytogenetic analysis at minimum using G-banding to identify the chromosomes. Here, we describe the classical protocols that are needed to perform complete cytogenetic analyses, i.e., G-banding to identify chromosome aberrations, followed by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) of specific probes for a more sensitive detection and precise identification of the rearrangement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fulka J Jr, Fulka H (2007) Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) in mammals: the cytoplast and its reprogramming activities. Adv Exp Med Biol 591:93–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guo J, Jauch A, Heidi HG et al (2005) Multicolor karyotype analyses of mouse embryonic stem cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 41:278–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sugawara A, Goto K, Sotomaru Y et al (2006) Current status of chromosomal abnormalities in mouse embryonic stem cell lines used in Japan. Comp Med 56:31–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sumner AT (1972) A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp Cell Res 75:304–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Seabright M (1971) A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lancet 2:971–972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ducos A, Pinton A, Yerle M et al (2002) Cytogenetic and molecular characterization of eight new reciprocal translocations in the pig species. Estimation of their incidence in French populations. Genet Sel Evol 34:389–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Jouneau A, Ciaudo C, Sismeiro O et al (2012) Naive and primed murine pluripotent stem cells have distinct miRNA expression profiles. RNA 18:253–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Maruotti J, Dai XP, Brochard V et al (2010) Nuclear transfer-derived epiblast stem cells are transcriptionally and epigenetically distinguishable from their fertilized-derived counterparts. Stem Cells 28:743–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. MacLeod RA, Drexler HG (2013) Classical and molecular cytogenetic analysis. Methods Mol Biol 946:39–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meisner LF, Johnson JA (2008) Protocols for cytogenetic studies of human embryonic stem cells. Methods 45:133–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ducos A, Revay T, Kovacs A et al (2008) Cytogenetic screening of livestock populations in Europe: an overview. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:26–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kubickova S, Cernohorska H, Musilova P et al (2002) The use of laser microdissection for the preparation of chromosome-specific painting probes in farm animals. Chromosome Res 10:571–577

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M (2003) Chromosomal rearrangements in cattle and pigs revealed by chromosome microdissection and chromosome painting. Genet Sel Evol 35:685–696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rubes J, Pinton A, Bonnet-Garnier A et al (2009) Fluorescence in situ hybridization applied to domestic animal cytogenetics. Cytogenet Genome Res 126:34–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Josette Catalan and the CeMEB Cytogenomics platform for their assistance in mouse stem cell karyotype analysis, Vincent Brochard and Sylvie Ruffini for their technical help in stem cells culturing and bovine fibroblast cultures respectively and Anne Calgaro and Alain Pinton for their advice on bovine karyotype analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amélie Bonnet-Garnier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Bonnet-Garnier, A., Veillard, AC., Bed’Hom, B., Hayes, H., Britton-Davidian, J. (2015). Assessing the Quality of Donor Cells: Karyotyping Methods. In: Beaujean, N., Jammes, H., Jouneau, A. (eds) Nuclear Reprogramming. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1222. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1594-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1594-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1593-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1594-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics