CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

A non-mosaic transchromosomic mouse model of down syndrome carrying the long arm of human chromosome 21.

Open access
Kazuki, Yasuhiro, Gao, Feng J, Li, Yicong, Moyer, Anna J, Devenney, Benjamin, Hiramatsu, Kei, Miyagawa-Tomita, Sachiko, Abe, Satoshi, Kazuki, Kanako, Kajitani, Naoyo, Uno, Narumi, Takehara, Shoko, Takiguchi, Masato, Yamakawa, Miho, Hasegawa, Atsushi, Shimizu, Ritsuko, Matsukura, Satoko, Noda, Naohiro, Ogonuki, Narumi, Inoue, Kimiko, Matoba, Shogo, Ogura, Atsuo, Florea, Liliana D, Savonenko, Alena, Xiao, Meifang, Wu, Dan, Batista, Denise AS, Yang, Junhua, Qiu, Zhaozhu, Singh, Nandini, Richtsmeier, Joan T, Takeuchi, Takashi, Oshimura, Mitsuo, Reeves, Roger H·2020·eLife
DOI 10.7554/elife.56223PMC PMC7358007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Animal models of Down syndrome (DS), trisomic for human chromosome 21 (HSA21) genes or orthologs, provide insights into better understanding and treatment options. The only existing transchromosomic (Tc) mouse DS model, Tc1, carries a HSA21 with over 50 protein coding genes (PCGs) disrupted. Tc1 is mosaic, compromising interpretation of results. Here, we “clone” the 34 MB long arm of HSA21 (HSA21q) as a mouse artificial chromosome (MAC). Through multiple steps of microcell-mediated chromosome transfer, we created a new Tc DS mouse model, Tc(HSA21q;MAC)1Yakaz (“TcMAC21”). TcMAC21 is not mosaic and contains 93% of HSA21q PCGs that are expressed and regulatable. TcMAC21 recapitulates many DS phenotypes including anomalies in heart, craniofacial skeleton and brain, molecular/cellular pathologies, and impairments in learning, memory and synaptic plasticity. TcMAC21 is the most complete genetic mouse model of DS extant and has potential for supporting a wide range of basic and preclinical research.

Overview

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 · 10.7554/elife.56223

Cites

76 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Construction of TcMAC21 mice (HSA21q-MAC). (A) Schematic diagram of HSA21q-MAC construction. (B) Chimeric mice obtained via injection of mouse ES cells carrying the HSA21q-MAC. The arrow indicates a GFP-positive, TcMAC21 mouse. (C) FISH of TcMAC21 lymphocytes (n = 4 and 20 metaphases analyzed in each sample). Digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA as FISH probe for HSA21q-MAC detection. (D) G-banding based karyotype of TcMAC21 containing the HSA21q-MAC. (E) WGS showing the positions of 4 deletions in HSA21q (A, B, C, and D). These are shown normalized to PCG numbers, not physical DNA length. The regions of homology with mouse chromosomes 16, 17 and 10 are indicated. (F) Summary of genome positions of deletions and numbers of affected PCGs and non-PCGs on the HSA21q-MAC (based on GRCh38.p12, BioMart-Ensembl, May 2019), and see Figure 1—source data 1 for details.
Figure 1. Construction of TcMAC21 mice (HSA21q-MAC). (A) Schematic diagram of HSA21q-MAC construction. (B) Chimeric mice obtained via injection of mouse ES cells carrying the HSA21q-MAC. The arrow indicates a GFP-positive, TcMAC21 mouse. (C) FISH of TcMAC21 lymphocytes (n = 4 and 20 metaphases analyzed in each sample). Digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA as FISH probe for HSA21q-MAC detection. (D) G-banding based karyotype of TcMAC21 containing the HSA21q-MAC. (E) WGS showing the positions of 4 deletions in HSA21q (A, B, C, and D). These are shown normalized to PCG numbers, not physical DNA length. The regions of homology with mouse chromosomes 16, 17 and 10 are indicated. (F) Summary of genome positions of deletions and numbers of affected PCGs and non-PCGs on the HSA21q-MAC (based on GRCh38.p12, BioMart-Ensembl, May 2019), and see Figure 1—source data 1 for details.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Construction of TcMAC21 mice (HSA21q-MAC). (A) Information for vectors used to generate the hybrid chromosome, HSA21q-MAC. (B–D) FISH images to verify the critical steps: (B) before Cre-loxP mediated recombination, CHO cells containing a HSA21-loxP and a MAC; (C) after recombination, CHO cells containing the HSA21q-MAC (yellow arrow) and by-product (21p-cen) (white arrow); (D) mouse ES cell containing the HSA21q-MAC (yellow arrow). FISH probes: digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA for human chromosome detection (red, in B-D), biotin-labeled mouse COT-1 DNA for mouse chromosome detection (green, in B-C), biotin-labeled mouse minor satellite DNA for mouse centromere detection (green, in D), and chromosomal DNA counterstained with DAPI.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Construction of TcMAC21 mice (HSA21q-MAC). (A) Information for vectors used to generate the hybrid chromosome, HSA21q-MAC. (B–D) FISH images to verify the critical steps: (B) before Cre-loxP mediated recombination, CHO cells containing a HSA21-loxP and a MAC; (C) after recombination, CHO cells containing the HSA21q-MAC (yellow arrow) and by-product (21p-cen) (white arrow); (D) mouse ES cell containing the HSA21q-MAC (yellow arrow). FISH probes: digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA for human chromosome detection (red, in B-D), biotin-labeled mouse COT-1 DNA for mouse chromosome detection (green, in B-C), biotin-labeled mouse minor satellite DNA for mouse centromere detection (green, in D), and chromosomal DNA counterstained with DAPI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. HSA21 expression pattern in P1 TcMAC21 brain. (A) RNA-Seq summary of HSA21 PCG and non-PCG transcript levels in TcMAC21. (B) Transcript levels of individual PCG and non-PCGs across the length of HSA21q in TcMAC21. (C) HSA21 dosage imbalance analysis of TcMAC21 among 117 HSA21 mouse orthologs whose FPKM ≥1 in Eu. Three expression values are shown: 1. the FPKM ratio of HSA21 PCG of TcMAC21 to its ortholog of Eu (gray open squares); 2. the FPKM ratio of HSA21 mouse ortholog of TcMAC21 to that of Eu (blue dot); 3. the FPKM ratio of total expression (HSA21 PCG + its mouse ortholog) of TcMAC21 to the HSA21 mouse ortholog of Eu (red circles). The positions of deleted regions are indicated in red. Eu and Ts65Dn littermates, n = 2 per group. See also Figure 2—source data 1 for expression levels (FPKM) of all HSA21 and its orthologs in Eu and TcMAC21. (D) RNA-Seq verification by Taqman RT-PCR. Correlation between CT value from Taqman RT-PCR and Log10(FPKM) from RNA-Seq for 10 HSA21q genes and mouse actin (mACTB) in TcMAC21. (E) Taqman assay comparing expression of 10 HSA21 genes between forebrain, hindbrain, and heart using the same amount of total RNA. The sample size of Taqman assay in D and E is that n = 2 for TcMAC21 and n = 3 for Eu (negative control).
Figure 2. HSA21 expression pattern in P1 TcMAC21 brain. (A) RNA-Seq summary of HSA21 PCG and non-PCG transcript levels in TcMAC21. (B) Transcript levels of individual PCG and non-PCGs across the length of HSA21q in TcMAC21. (C) HSA21 dosage imbalance analysis of TcMAC21 among 117 HSA21 mouse orthologs whose FPKM ≥1 in Eu. Three expression values are shown: 1. the FPKM ratio of HSA21 PCG of TcMAC21 to its ortholog of Eu (gray open squares); 2. the FPKM ratio of HSA21 mouse ortholog of TcMAC21 to that of Eu (blue dot); 3. the FPKM ratio of total expression (HSA21 PCG + its mouse ortholog) of TcMAC21 to the HSA21 mouse ortholog of Eu (red circles). The positions of deleted regions are indicated in red. Eu and Ts65Dn littermates, n = 2 per group. See also Figure 2—source data 1 for expression levels (FPKM) of all HSA21 and its orthologs in Eu and TcMAC21. (D) RNA-Seq verification by Taqman RT-PCR. Correlation between CT value from Taqman RT-PCR and Log10(FPKM) from RNA-Seq for 10 HSA21q genes and mouse actin (mACTB) in TcMAC21. (E) Taqman assay comparing expression of 10 HSA21 genes between forebrain, hindbrain, and heart using the same amount of total RNA. The sample size of Taqman assay in D and E is that n = 2 for TcMAC21 and n = 3 for Eu (negative control).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Mosaicism analysis in TcMAC21. (A) UV light to illuminate GFP of nine organs from TcMAC21 (exposure time is 4 s and 0.2 s in spleen and the other tissues, respectively) (n = 2). BF, bright field. Scale bar (6 mm). (B) RT-PCR analyses for HSA21 gene expression in different TcMAC21 tissues (n = 2). (C) Representative FISH image of cells from TcMAC21 tissues with digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA as FISH probe for HSA21q-MAC (red) and with DAPI as a nuclear counterstain (blue). FISH of Eu tissues with human COT-1 showing no signal (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C). (D) Retention rate of the HSA21q-MAC in various TcMAC21 tissues analyzed by FISH (n = 2, 200 interphase cells analyzed in each sample). (E) Retention rate of the HSA21q-MAC in three lymphocyte populations analyzed by FCM (n = 2). See Figure 3—source data 2 for statistical tables used to generate D and E.(F) Mosaicism analysis of HSA21q-MAC in Purkinje cells (PC) of TcMAC21 by immunostaining. White arrows indicate cell bodies of randomly selected PC in RFP-channel, and red arrows indicate corresponding locations in GFP-channel. N = 3 per group, one 30 um brain slice per animal, and 100 randomly selected PCs per slice.
Figure 3. Mosaicism analysis in TcMAC21. (A) UV light to illuminate GFP of nine organs from TcMAC21 (exposure time is 4 s and 0.2 s in spleen and the other tissues, respectively) (n = 2). BF, bright field. Scale bar (6 mm). (B) RT-PCR analyses for HSA21 gene expression in different TcMAC21 tissues (n = 2). (C) Representative FISH image of cells from TcMAC21 tissues with digoxigenin-labeled human COT-1 DNA as FISH probe for HSA21q-MAC (red) and with DAPI as a nuclear counterstain (blue). FISH of Eu tissues with human COT-1 showing no signal (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C). (D) Retention rate of the HSA21q-MAC in various TcMAC21 tissues analyzed by FISH (n = 2, 200 interphase cells analyzed in each sample). (E) Retention rate of the HSA21q-MAC in three lymphocyte populations analyzed by FCM (n = 2). See Figure 3—source data 2 for statistical tables used to generate D and E.(F) Mosaicism analysis of HSA21q-MAC in Purkinje cells (PC) of TcMAC21 by immunostaining. White arrows indicate cell bodies of randomly selected PC in RFP-channel, and red arrows indicate corresponding locations in GFP-channel. N = 3 per group, one 30 um brain slice per animal, and 100 randomly selected PCs per slice.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Mosaicism analysis. (A) Tails from GFP negative and positive TcMAC21 littermates are analyzed using Taqman RT-PCR assay for testing expression of human-APP (hAPP, centromere-proximal), human-PRMT2 (hPRMT2, telomere-proximal), and mouse actin (mActin, endogenous control). N = 12 per group. (B) TcMAC21 and Eu pups are visualized with GFP flashlights. (C) FISH of kidney cells of Eu and TcMAC21 with human COT-1 (red), and chromosomal DNA counterstained with DAPI.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Mosaicism analysis. (A) Tails from GFP negative and positive TcMAC21 littermates are analyzed using Taqman RT-PCR assay for testing expression of human-APP (hAPP, centromere-proximal), human-PRMT2 (hPRMT2, telomere-proximal), and mouse actin (mActin, endogenous control). N = 12 per group. (B) TcMAC21 and Eu pups are visualized with GFP flashlights. (C) FISH of kidney cells of Eu and TcMAC21 with human COT-1 (red), and chromosomal DNA counterstained with DAPI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Morphological analysis of the heart, brain and skull in TcMAC21. (A–C) CHD analysis. (A) Wet dissection of hearts from E18.5 Eu (top, normal) and TcMAC21(bottom, DORV and VSD (black arrow)), and a small slit-like conus VSD also seen in TcMAC21. Eu (n = 19), TcMAC21 (n = 21). (B) Histology of E14.5 Eu (normal) and two TcMAC21 mice with different heart defects, VSD and AVSD (black arrow indicating locations of defects); AO, aorta; AoV, aortic valve; LA, left atrium; LV, left ventricle; PT, pulmonary trunk; PulV, pulmonary valve; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle. Eu (n = 20), TcMAC21 (n = 21). (C) Summary data of CHD analysis. (D) Representative T2-weighted MR images (top, ex vivo) and statistical analysis of whole brain volume, percentage of cerebellum and hippocampus relative to brain; mid-sagittal slices from Eu (S1) and TcMAC21 (S2) and coronal slices from Eu (C1) and TcMAC21 (C2), scale bar (5 mm); n = 7 per group and data are analyzed by two-way ANOVA and expressed as mean ± SEM. (E–F) Results of a principal components analysis (PCA) of 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Eu and TcMAC21 cranial shape. PC1 shows a 24.2% separation between Eu and TcMAC21 mice while PC2 captures variation in each genotype. Eu (n = 10), TcMAC21 (n = 9).
Figure 4. Morphological analysis of the heart, brain and skull in TcMAC21. (A–C) CHD analysis. (A) Wet dissection of hearts from E18.5 Eu (top, normal) and TcMAC21(bottom, DORV and VSD (black arrow)), and a small slit-like conus VSD also seen in TcMAC21. Eu (n = 19), TcMAC21 (n = 21). (B) Histology of E14.5 Eu (normal) and two TcMAC21 mice with different heart defects, VSD and AVSD (black arrow indicating locations of defects); AO, aorta; AoV, aortic valve; LA, left atrium; LV, left ventricle; PT, pulmonary trunk; PulV, pulmonary valve; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle. Eu (n = 20), TcMAC21 (n = 21). (C) Summary data of CHD analysis. (D) Representative T2-weighted MR images (top, ex vivo) and statistical analysis of whole brain volume, percentage of cerebellum and hippocampus relative to brain; mid-sagittal slices from Eu (S1) and TcMAC21 (S2) and coronal slices from Eu (C1) and TcMAC21 (C2), scale bar (5 mm); n = 7 per group and data are analyzed by two-way ANOVA and expressed as mean ± SEM. (E–F) Results of a principal components analysis (PCA) of 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Eu and TcMAC21 cranial shape. PC1 shows a 24.2% separation between Eu and TcMAC21 mice while PC2 captures variation in each genotype. Eu (n = 10), TcMAC21 (n = 9).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Lateral ventricle in ex vivo and in vivo MRI. (A) 3D rendering of Eu and TcMAC21 brains MRI images. No clear ventricle space is seen in PFA-fixed samples (ex vivo MRI) and clear ventricles and CSF are seen in live samples (in vivo MRI). LV: lateral ventricle, 3/4 V: the third and fourth ventricle; scale bar (5 mm) (B) Quantitative analysis of LV volume of live Eu and TcMAC21 mice. LV are visualized in four matching transverse levels of MRI images from the dorsal to the ventral (adjacent levels spaced 312.5 um apart, scale bar (5 mm)). Absolute and percentage of brain volumes of LV are compared (N = 3 pairs and data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SEM).
Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Lateral ventricle in ex vivo and in vivo MRI. (A) 3D rendering of Eu and TcMAC21 brains MRI images. No clear ventricle space is seen in PFA-fixed samples (ex vivo MRI) and clear ventricles and CSF are seen in live samples (in vivo MRI). LV: lateral ventricle, 3/4 V: the third and fourth ventricle; scale bar (5 mm) (B) Quantitative analysis of LV volume of live Eu and TcMAC21 mice. LV are visualized in four matching transverse levels of MRI images from the dorsal to the ventral (adjacent levels spaced 312.5 um apart, scale bar (5 mm)). Absolute and percentage of brain volumes of LV are compared (N = 3 pairs and data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SEM).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Evaluation of DS-like pathology in TcMAC21. (A–C) APP protein levels and amyloid plaques in brains of 15–24 month-old TcMAC21 and Eu (n = 6 per group). (A) western blot of total APP in hippocampus and cortex. (B) ELISA of total Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels in hippocampus and cortex. (C) amyloid plaques visualized by immunostaining with β-amyloid antibody 6E10; APPswe/PS1∆E9 mouse is a positive control for plaque formation, scale bar (1 mm). (D) CFU level of GM and GEMM in TcMAC21 spleen and bone marrow (n = 6 per group). GM, granulocyte/macrophage; GEMM, granulocyte/erythroid/monocyte/megakaryocyte. (E–G) Chromatid and chromosome aberrations in bone marrow cells after X-ray irradiation (n = 3 per group). (E) Chromatid aberration. (F) Chromosome aberration. (G) Chromatid and/or chromosome exchange. chtg (chromatid gap); chtb (chromatid break); chrg (chromosome gap); chrb (chromosome break); ace (acentric fragment); chte (chromatid exchange); chre (chromosome exchange); mar (marker chromosome, including dicentric chromosome, ring chromosome, robertsonian translocation, and other abnormal size of chromosome). All data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SEM.
Figure 5. Evaluation of DS-like pathology in TcMAC21. (A–C) APP protein levels and amyloid plaques in brains of 15–24 month-old TcMAC21 and Eu (n = 6 per group). (A) western blot of total APP in hippocampus and cortex. (B) ELISA of total Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels in hippocampus and cortex. (C) amyloid plaques visualized by immunostaining with β-amyloid antibody 6E10; APPswe/PS1∆E9 mouse is a positive control for plaque formation, scale bar (1 mm). (D) CFU level of GM and GEMM in TcMAC21 spleen and bone marrow (n = 6 per group). GM, granulocyte/macrophage; GEMM, granulocyte/erythroid/monocyte/megakaryocyte. (E–G) Chromatid and chromosome aberrations in bone marrow cells after X-ray irradiation (n = 3 per group). (E) Chromatid aberration. (F) Chromosome aberration. (G) Chromatid and/or chromosome exchange. chtg (chromatid gap); chtb (chromatid break); chrg (chromosome gap); chrb (chromosome break); ace (acentric fragment); chte (chromatid exchange); chre (chromosome exchange); mar (marker chromosome, including dicentric chromosome, ring chromosome, robertsonian translocation, and other abnormal size of chromosome). All data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Hematological phenotypes. (A) Histological analysis of spleen (R and W indicate red pulp and white pulp, respectively). (B–D) Colony assay of spleen and bone marrow. (B) representative colony images of bone marrow; statistical analysis of colony-formation unites (CFU) of erythroid (E), granulocyte/erythroid/monocyte/megakaryocyte (GEMM), granulocyte/macrophage (GM), macrophage (M) and megakaryocyte (Meg) in bone marrow (C) and spleen (D), n = 6 per group unless otherwise stated in figures, and data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Hematological phenotypes. (A) Histological analysis of spleen (R and W indicate red pulp and white pulp, respectively). (B–D) Colony assay of spleen and bone marrow. (B) representative colony images of bone marrow; statistical analysis of colony-formation unites (CFU) of erythroid (E), granulocyte/erythroid/monocyte/megakaryocyte (GEMM), granulocyte/macrophage (GM), macrophage (M) and megakaryocyte (Meg) in bone marrow (C) and spleen (D), n = 6 per group unless otherwise stated in figures, and data are analyzed by two-tailed t-test and expressed as mean ± SD.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Growth profile, nesting and open field in TcMAC21. (A) The mass of TcMAC21 and Eu at P1, P6, P14, P20, P27, P35 and P90 (n ≥ 9 per group; two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (B) Nesting (female: Eu (n = 19), TcMAC21 (n = 13); male: Eu (n = 7), TcMAC21 (n = 7); one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (C–D) 30 min open field (female: Eu (n = 12), TcMAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), TcMAC21 (n = 12)). (C) Total travel distance (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (D) Dynamics of % of time spent in the central zone, and dash lines shows that the center zone covers 34% of the whole open field (repeated measures ANOVA with LSD-post-hoc). All data are expressed as mean ± SEM and see Figure 6—source data 2 for detailed statistical analysis.
Figure 6. Growth profile, nesting and open field in TcMAC21. (A) The mass of TcMAC21 and Eu at P1, P6, P14, P20, P27, P35 and P90 (n ≥ 9 per group; two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (B) Nesting (female: Eu (n = 19), TcMAC21 (n = 13); male: Eu (n = 7), TcMAC21 (n = 7); one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (C–D) 30 min open field (female: Eu (n = 12), TcMAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), TcMAC21 (n = 12)). (C) Total travel distance (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc). (D) Dynamics of % of time spent in the central zone, and dash lines shows that the center zone covers 34% of the whole open field (repeated measures ANOVA with LSD-post-hoc). All data are expressed as mean ± SEM and see Figure 6—source data 2 for detailed statistical analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6—figure supplement 1. The experimental design for behavioral tests and electrophysiology to assess learning and memory in both Eu and TcMAC21.
Figure 6—figure supplement 1. The experimental design for behavioral tests and electrophysiology to assess learning and memory in both Eu and TcMAC21.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Learning and memory deficits in TcMAC21. (A) MWM: acquisition trials (left, escape latency and escape distance), short delay probe (middle) and long delay probe (right). Red dash lines indicate 17% chance level (female: Eu (n=10), TcMAC21 (n=11); male: Eu (n=11), TcMAC21 (n=12)). (B–D) RRWM (female: Eu (n=8), TcMAC21 (n=9)). (B) Representative tracking plots of long delay probe trials of day 1 to day 3 of RRWM to visualize the progress of forgetting old platform SE position and learning new platform NW position. (C) Quantitative analysis of forgetting old platform SE position. Before RRWM training, each mouse’s “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 1” is normalized as 100%. After RRWM day 1 training, “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 2” of the mouse = “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 2” / “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 1” × 100%. After RRWM day 2 training, “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 3” of the mouse = “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 3” / “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 1” × 100%. (D) Long delay probe trials from day 1 to day 3 of RRWM for comparing abilities of learning and memorizing new target platform NW position. (E–F) TBS-induced LTP at SC-CA1 synapses (male: Eu (n=5, 13 total slices), TcMAC21 (n=5, 14 total slices)). (E) Normalized fEPSP slopes are plotted every 1 min. Sample traces represent fEPSPs taken before TBS stimulation “1” and 60 min after TBS stimulation “2”. Arrow indicates LTP induction, and scale bars represent 0.5 mV (vertical), 5 ms (horizontal). (F) The amplitude of fEPSP slopes are averaged at 60 min after the stimulation. Repeated measures ANOVA with LSD-post hoc test in (A–D) and two-tailed t-test in (E–F), and data are expressed as mean ± SEM and see Figure 7—source data 1 for detailed statistical analysis.
Figure 7. Learning and memory deficits in TcMAC21. (A) MWM: acquisition trials (left, escape latency and escape distance), short delay probe (middle) and long delay probe (right). Red dash lines indicate 17% chance level (female: Eu (n=10), TcMAC21 (n=11); male: Eu (n=11), TcMAC21 (n=12)). (B–D) RRWM (female: Eu (n=8), TcMAC21 (n=9)). (B) Representative tracking plots of long delay probe trials of day 1 to day 3 of RRWM to visualize the progress of forgetting old platform SE position and learning new platform NW position. (C) Quantitative analysis of forgetting old platform SE position. Before RRWM training, each mouse’s “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 1” is normalized as 100%. After RRWM day 1 training, “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 2” of the mouse = “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 2” / “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 1” × 100%. After RRWM day 2 training, “% of retained memory of SE of trial 1 of R day 3” of the mouse = “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 3” / “% of time in SE area in trial 1 of R day 1” × 100%. (D) Long delay probe trials from day 1 to day 3 of RRWM for comparing abilities of learning and memorizing new target platform NW position. (E–F) TBS-induced LTP at SC-CA1 synapses (male: Eu (n=5, 13 total slices), TcMAC21 (n=5, 14 total slices)). (E) Normalized fEPSP slopes are plotted every 1 min. Sample traces represent fEPSPs taken before TBS stimulation “1” and 60 min after TBS stimulation “2”. Arrow indicates LTP induction, and scale bars represent 0.5 mV (vertical), 5 ms (horizontal). (F) The amplitude of fEPSP slopes are averaged at 60 min after the stimulation. Repeated measures ANOVA with LSD-post hoc test in (A–D) and two-tailed t-test in (E–F), and data are expressed as mean ± SEM and see Figure 7—source data 1 for detailed statistical analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7—figure supplement 1. Visual discrimination. (A) Water tank specifications. The inner circle, the target area, is defined as a circle inscribed in the platform quadrant, covering ~17% of water maze tank. (B) Design of visual discrimination: platform changes every two trials from W, to E, and to S. (C–D) Visual discrimination performance of TcMAC21 and Eu measured by escape latency (p=0.27, (C) and escape distance (p=0.19, (D). Female: Eu (n = 13), MAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), MAC21 (n = 12). Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM. See Figure 7—source data 1A for detailed statistical analysis.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1. Visual discrimination. (A) Water tank specifications. The inner circle, the target area, is defined as a circle inscribed in the platform quadrant, covering ~17% of water maze tank. (B) Design of visual discrimination: platform changes every two trials from W, to E, and to S. (C–D) Visual discrimination performance of TcMAC21 and Eu measured by escape latency (p=0.27, (C) and escape distance (p=0.19, (D). Female: Eu (n = 13), MAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), MAC21 (n = 12). Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM. See Figure 7—source data 1A for detailed statistical analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7—figure supplement 2. MWM. (A) Scheme for classic MWM: four full days of training, each day has 10 trials including eight acquisition trials (trial 1–4 and trial 6–9 in day 1, trial 2–9 in day 2–4), short delay probe trials (~30 min delay, trial 10 in day 1–4), and long delay probe trials (24 hr long delay, trial 1 in day 2–4; 72 hr long delay, trial 1 in day 7). Trial 5 of day one is a probe trial drill and no data from trial 5 of Day one is used for analysis: the platform is lowered to a position that mice are not able to climb onto, and mice are allowed to swim for 10 s, and then a tester raises the platform and guide mice to the platform. (B) Swimming speed in MWM acquisition trials. (C–E) Analysis of MWM acquisition, short delay probe and long delay probe, and Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM of consolidated female and male. Female: Eu (n = 10), MAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), MAC21 (n = 12). See Figure 7—source data 1B for detailed statistical analysis.
Figure 7—figure supplement 2. MWM. (A) Scheme for classic MWM: four full days of training, each day has 10 trials including eight acquisition trials (trial 1–4 and trial 6–9 in day 1, trial 2–9 in day 2–4), short delay probe trials (~30 min delay, trial 10 in day 1–4), and long delay probe trials (24 hr long delay, trial 1 in day 2–4; 72 hr long delay, trial 1 in day 7). Trial 5 of day one is a probe trial drill and no data from trial 5 of Day one is used for analysis: the platform is lowered to a position that mice are not able to climb onto, and mice are allowed to swim for 10 s, and then a tester raises the platform and guide mice to the platform. (B) Swimming speed in MWM acquisition trials. (C–E) Analysis of MWM acquisition, short delay probe and long delay probe, and Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM of consolidated female and male. Female: Eu (n = 10), MAC21 (n = 11); male: Eu (n = 11), MAC21 (n = 12). See Figure 7—source data 1B for detailed statistical analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7—figure supplement 3. RRWM. (A) RRWM scheme: four full days of training, the targeting platform is in NW (relocated from SE of MWM) during reversal session 1 (R day one and R day 2) and then relocated to SW during reversal session 2 (R day three and R day 4). Each day has 10 trials, including eight acquisition trials (trial 2–9) and two probe trials (trial 10 of R day 1–4 is 30 min short delay, Trial 1 of R day one also known as the 72 hr delay probe trial of MWM, Trial 1 of R day 2–4 is 24 hr long delay). (B) Acquisition and short delay probe trials in reversal 1. (C) Acquisition, short delay probe and long delay probe trials in reversal 2. Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM. Female: Eu (n = 8), TcMAC21 (n = 9), and see Figure 7—source data 1C for detailed statistical analysis.
Figure 7—figure supplement 3. RRWM. (A) RRWM scheme: four full days of training, the targeting platform is in NW (relocated from SE of MWM) during reversal session 1 (R day one and R day 2) and then relocated to SW during reversal session 2 (R day three and R day 4). Each day has 10 trials, including eight acquisition trials (trial 2–9) and two probe trials (trial 10 of R day 1–4 is 30 min short delay, Trial 1 of R day one also known as the 72 hr delay probe trial of MWM, Trial 1 of R day 2–4 is 24 hr long delay). (B) Acquisition and short delay probe trials in reversal 1. (C) Acquisition, short delay probe and long delay probe trials in reversal 2. Data are analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post-hoc and expressed as mean ± SEM. Female: Eu (n = 8), TcMAC21 (n = 9), and see Figure 7—source data 1C for detailed statistical analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 77 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Besson V. 2005. Studying dosage effects for human chromosome 21 homologous genes using chromosomal engineering in the mouse. 19th International Mouse Genome Conference.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kazuki, Y., Gao, F. J., Li, Y., Moyer, A. J., Devenney, B., Hiramatsu, K., Miyagawa-Tomita, S., Abe, S., Kazuki, K., Kajitani, N., Uno, N., Takehara, S., Takiguchi, M., Yamakawa, M., Hasegawa, A., Shimizu, R., Matsukura, S., Noda, N., Ogonuki, N., Inoue, K., Matoba, S., Ogura, A., Florea, L. D., Savonenko, A., Xiao, M., Wu, D., Batista, D. A., Yang, J., Qiu, Z., Singh, N., Richtsmeier, J. T., Takeuchi, T., Oshimura, M., & Reeves, R. H.
Affiliations
  • Chromosome Engineering Research Center (JP)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Tottori University (JP)
  • Department of Animal Nursing Science, Yamazaki University of Animal Health Technology, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan
  • Tohoku University (JP)
  • National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (JP)
  • RIKEN BioResource Research Center (JP)
  • Department of Neuroscience, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • California State University, Sacramento (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kazuki, Yasuhiro
  • Reeves, Roger H
ORCID
Venue
eLife
Publisher
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Published
2020-06-29
Volume
9
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7554/elife.56223
PMC
PMC7358007
OpenAlex
W3037987616
Cited by
125
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 6
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD098540-01, R01HD038384)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25221308)
  • Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (JPMJCR18S4)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Keywords
Down syndrome, artificial chromosomes, microcell-mediated chromosome transfer, cardiac anomalies, craniofacial anomalies, brain anomalies, learning and memory impairment, synaptic plasticity, gene expression
MeSH terms
Whole Genome Sequencing, Animals, Brain, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 21, Disease Models, Animal, Down Syndrome, Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Trisomy, Mice

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