CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9melanin and skin pigmentationDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications

Generation of no‐yellow‐pigment Xenopus tropicalis by slc2a7 gene knockout

Open access
Nakajima, Keisuke, Shimamura, Masaki, Furuno, Nobuaki·2021·Developmental Dynamics
DOI 10.1002/dvdy.334
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Amphibians possess three kinds of dermal chromatophore: melanophores, iridophores, and xanthophores. Knockout Xenopus tropicalis that lack the pigmentation of melanophores and iridophores have been reported. The identification of the causal genes for xanthophore pigmentation or differentiation could lead to the creation of a see‐through frog without three chromatophores. The genes causing xanthophore differentiation mutants are slc2a11b and slc2a15b in Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Results: To obtain a heritable line of X tropicalis mutants without yellow pigment, we generated slc2a7 and slc2a15a knockout animals because they have the greatest similarity to the O latipes slc2a11b and slc2a15b genes. The slc2a7 knockout frog had a bluish skin and there were no visible yellow pigments in stereo microscope and skin section observations. Furthermore, no pterinosomes, which are characteristic of xanthophores, were observed via transmission electron microscopy in the skin of knockout animals. Conclusions: We report the successful generation of a heritable no‐yellow‐pigment X tropicalis mutant after knock out of the slc2a7 gene. This finding will enable the creation of a see‐through frog with no chromatophores.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dvdy.334

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparent tetrapod models are basically unpigmented mutants that are not transparent.

    “Furthermore, transparent tetrapod models are basically unpigmented mutants that are not transparent [e.g., (30–32)].”

    From Glassfrogs conceal blood in their liver to maintain transparency (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results and Discussion describe this paper’s slc2a7-knockout frog as lacking yellow pigment; they present a see-through frog as a future goal, supporting this mutant as an example of a pigmentation mutant that is not yet transparent. But the Introduction also describes genuinely transparent frogs and virtually transparent mutant embryos, so the paper does not support the categorical claim that transparent tetrapod models are not transparent. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Bagnara JT, Taylor JD, Hadley ME. The dermal chromatophore unit. J Cell Biol. 1968;38(1):67-79. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb. 38.1.67. · DOI
  2. Sumida M, Islam MM, Igawa T, et al. The first see-through frog created by breeding: description, inheritance patterns, and der- mal chromatophore structure. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24431. https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep24431. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Kashiwagi K, Kashiwagi A, Kurabayashi A, et al. Xenopus tropicalis: an ideal experimental animal in amphibia. Exp Anim. 2010;59(4):395-405.
  4. Karimi K, Fortriede JD, Lotay VS, et al. Xenbase: a genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic model organism database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D861-D868. https://doi.org/10. 1093/nar/gkx936. · DOI
  5. Horb M, Wlizla M, Abu-Daya A, et al. Xenopus resources: transgenic, inbred and mutant animals, training opportunities, and web-based support. Front Physiol. 2019;10:387. https://doi. org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00387. · DOI
  6. Nakajima K, Nakajima T, Takase M, Yaoita Y. Generation of albino Xenopus tropicalis using zinc-finger nucleases. Dev Growth Differ. 2012;54(9):777-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12006. · DOI
  7. Ishibashi S, Cliffe R, Amaya E. Highly efficient bi-allelic muta- tion rates using TALENs in Xenopus tropicalis. Biol Open. 2012; 1(12):1273-1276. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.20123228. · DOI
  8. Nakajima K, Nakai Y, Okada M, Yaoita Y. Targeted gene dis- ruption in the Xenopus tropicalis genome using designed TALE nucleases. Zool Sci. 2013;30(6):455-460. https://doi.org/10.2108/ zsj.30.455. · DOI
  9. Blitz IL, Biesinger J, Xie X, Cho KW. Biallelic genome modifi- cation in F0 Xenopus tropicalis embryos using the CRISPR/Cas system. Genesis. 2013;51(12):827-834. https://doi.org/10.1002/ dvg.22719. · DOI
  10. Nakayama T, Fish MB, Fisher M, Oomen-Hajagos J, Thomsen GH, Grainger RM. Simple and efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Xenopus tropicalis. Genesis. 2013;51(12): 835-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvg.22720. · DOI
  11. Kinnear PE, Jay B, Witkop CJ Jr. Albinism. Surv Ophthalmol. 1985;30(2):75-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(85)90077-3. · DOI
  12. Segerdell E, Ponferrada VG, James-Zorn C, et al. Enhanced XAO: the ontology of Xenopus anatomy and development underpins more accurate annotation of gene expression and queries on Xenbase. J Biomed Semantics. 2013;4(1):31. https:// doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-4-31. · DOI
  13. Hermansky F, Pudlak P. Albinism associated with hemorrhagic diathesis and unusual pigmented reticular cells in the bone marrow: report of two cases with histochemical studies. Blood. 1959;14:162-169.
  14. Nakayama T, Nakajima K, Cox A, et al. No privacy, a Xenopus tropicalis mutant, is a model of human Hermansky-Pudlak syn- drome and allows visualization of internal organogenesis dur- ing tadpole development. Dev Biol. 2017;426(2):472-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.08.020. · DOI
  15. Khokha MK, Krylov V, Reilly MJ, et al. Rapid gynogenetic map- ping of Xenopus tropicalis mutations to chromosomes. Dev Dyn. 2009;238(6):1398-1406. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.21965. · DOI
  16. Droin A. Genetic and experimental studies on a new pigment mutant in Xenopus laevis. J Exp Zool. 1992;264(2):196-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402640212. · DOI
  17. Fujii R. Cytophysiology of fish chromatophores. Int Rev Cytol. 1993;143:191-216.
  18. Tomita H. The lists of the mutants and strains of the medaka, common gambusia, silver crucian carp, goldfish, and golden venus fish maintained in the Laboratory of Fresh water Fish Stocks, Nagoya University. The Fish Biol J MEDAKA. 1992;4: 45-47.
  19. Kelsh RN, Inoue C, Momoi A, et al. The Tomita collection of medaka pigmentation mutants as a resource for understanding neural crest cell development. Mech Dev. 2004;121(7-8):841- 859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2004.01.004. · DOI
  20. Kimura T, Nagao Y, Hashimoto H, et al. Leucophores are simi- lar to xanthophores in their specification and differentiation processes in medaka. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(20): 7343-7348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1311254111. · DOI
  21. Mueckler M, Thorens B. The SLC2 (GLUT) family of mem- brane transporters. Mol Aspects Med. 2013;34(2-3):121-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2012.07.001. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Makino S, Fukumura R, Gondo Y. Illegitimate translation cau- ses unexpected gene expression from on-target out-of-frame alleles created by CRISPR-Cas9. Sci Rep. 2016;6:39608. https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep39608. · DOI
  23. Hentze MW, Kulozik AE. A perfect message: RNA surveilance and nonsense-mediated decay. Cell. 1999;96:307-310.
  24. Maquat LE, Carmichael GG. Quality control of mRNA function [mini review]. Cell. 2001;104:173-176.
  25. Lambert JM, Ashi MO, Srour N, Delpy L, Sauliere J. Mecha- nisms and regulation of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay and nonsense-associated altered splicing in lymphocytes. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21041335. · DOI
  26. Matsumoto J. Studies on fine structure and cytochemical prop- erties of erythrophores in swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri, with special reference to their pigment granules (Pterinosomes). J Cell Biol. 1965;27(3):493-504. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.27. 3.493. · DOI
  27. Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C, et al. High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):822-826. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt. 2623. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hsu PD, Scott DA, Weinstein JA, et al. DNA targeting specific- ity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9): 827-832. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2647. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kataoka K, Yamaguchi T, Orii H, Tazaki A, Watanabe K, Mochii M. Visualization of the Xenopus primordial germ cells using a green fluorescent protein controlled by cis elements of the 3 0 untranslated region of the DEADSouth gene. Mech Dev. 2006; 123(10):746-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2006.07.006. · DOI
  30. Nakajima K, Yaoita Y. Development of a new approach for targeted gene editing in primordial germ cells using TALENs in Xenopus. Biol Open. 2015;4(3):259-266. https://doi.org/10. 1242/bio.201410926. · DOI
  31. Butler AM, Owens DA, Wang L, King ML. A novel role for sox7 in Xenopus early primordial germ cell development: min- ing the PGC transcriptome. Development. 2018;145(1): dev155978. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.155978. · DOI
  32. Nakajima K, Yaoita Y. Highly efficient gene knockout by injec- tion of TALEN mRNAs into oocytes and host transfer in Xenopus laevis. Biol Open. 2015;4(2):180-185. https://doi.org/10. 1242/bio.201410009. · DOI
  33. Bartoccioni P, Del Rio C, Ratera M, et al. Role of transmem- brane domain 8 in substrate selectivity and translocation of SteT, a member of the L-amino acid transporter (LAT) family. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(37):28764-28776. https://doi.org/10. 1074/jbc.M110.116632. · DOI
  34. Nishioka M, Ueda H. Blue variants in Hyla arborea japonica. Sci Rep Lab Amphibian Biol, Hiroshima Univ. 1985;7:181-197.
  35. Cermak T, Doyle EL, Christian M, et al. Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(12): e82. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr218. · DOI
  36. Nakajima K, Yaoita Y. Comparison of TALEN scaffolds in Xenopus tropicalis. Biol Open. 2013;2(12):1364-1370. https://doi. org/10.1242/bio.20136676. · DOI
  37. Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. EMBOSS: the European molecu- lar biology open software suite. Trends Genet. 2000;16(6):276- 277. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9525(00)02024-2. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Nakayama T, Fisher M, Nakajima K, et al. Xenopus pax6 mutants affect eye development and other organ systems, and have phenotypic similarities to human aniridia patients. Dev Biol. 2015;408(2):328-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2015. 02.012. · DOI
  39. Chang N, Sun C, Gao L, et al. Genome editing with RNA- guided Cas9 nuclease in zebrafish embryos. Cell Res. 2013;23 (4):465-472. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2013.45. · DOI
  40. Josephs EA, Kocak DD, Fitzgibbon CJ, McMenemy J, Gersbach CA, Marszalek PE. Structure and specificity of the RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9 during DNA interrogation, target binding and cleavage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(18): 8924-8941. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv892. · DOI
  41. Jiang F, Doudna JA. CRISPR-Cas9 structures and mechanisms. Annu Rev Biophys. 2017;46:505-529. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-biophys-062215-010822. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Young JJ, Cherone JM, Doyon Y, et al. Efficient targeted gene dis- ruption in the soma and germ line of the frog Xenopus tropicalis using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(17):7052-7057. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102030108. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakajima, K., Shimamura, M., & Furuno, N.
Affiliations
  • Amphibian Research Center, Hiroshima University (JP)
  • Hiroshima University (JP)
Corresponding author
Nakajima, Keisuke
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Dynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-14
Volume
250
Issue
10
Pages
1420-1431
ISSN
  • 1058-8388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0177
DOI
10.1002/dvdy.334
OpenAlex
W3136426176
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Developmental Dynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19K06740)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Zebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Keywords
Xenopus tropicalis, melanophores, iridophores, knockout mutants, amphibian pigmentation
MeSH terms
Animals, Chromatophores, Melanophores, Pigmentation, Xenopus, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Animals, Genetically Modified, Glucose Transport Proteins, Facilitative, Gene Knockout Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review