Transgenesis and web resources in quail

  1. Olivier Serralbo  Is a corresponding author
  2. David Salgado
  3. Nadège Véron
  4. Caitlin Cooper
  5. Marie-Julie Dejardin
  6. Timothy Doran
  7. Jérome Gros  Is a corresponding author
  8. Christophe Marcelle  Is a corresponding author
  1. Monash University, Australia
  2. Aix Marseille University, France
  3. CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, Australia
  4. University of Lyon 1 UCBL, France
  5. Pasteur Institute, CNRS UMR3738, France

Abstract

Due to its amenability to manipulations, to live observation and its striking similarities to mammals, the chicken embryo has been one of the major animal models in biomedical research. Although it is technically possible to genome-edit the chicken, its long generation time (6 months to sexual maturity) makes it an impractical lab model and has prevented it widespread use in research. The Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) is an attractive alternative, very similar to the chicken, but with the decisive asset of a much shorter generation time (1.5 months). In recent years, transgenic quail lines have been described. Most of them were generated using replication-deficient lentiviruses, a technique that presents diverse limitations. Here, we introduce a novel technology to perform transgenesis in quail, based on the in vivo transfection of plasmids in circulating Primordial Germ Cells (PGCs). This technique is simple, efficient and allows using the infinite variety of genome engineering approaches developed in other models. Furthermore, we present a website centralizing quail genomic and technological information to facilitate the design of genome-editing strategies, showcase the past and future transgenic quail lines and foster collaborative work within the avian community.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Olivier Serralbo

    Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
    For correspondence
    olivier.serralbo@monash.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0808-3464
  2. David Salgado

    INSERM, MMG, U1251, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nadège Véron

    Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Caitlin Cooper

    Australian Animal Health Laboratory, CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, Geelong, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Marie-Julie Dejardin

    NeuroMyoGene Institute, University of Lyon 1 UCBL, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Timothy Doran

    Australian Animal Health Laboratory, CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, Geelong, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jérome Gros

    Department of Developmental and Stem Cell Biology, Pasteur Institute, CNRS UMR3738, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    jgros@pasteur.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Christophe Marcelle

    Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
    For correspondence
    christophe.marcelle@monash.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9612-7609

Funding

AFM-Téléthon (Research grant)

  • Christophe Marcelle

Stem Cells Australia (Research grant)

  • Olivier Serralbo

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were approved by a Monash University Animal Ethics Committee (ERM ID 15002, ERM ID 18809) in accordance with the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (8th Edition, 2013).

Copyright

© 2020, Serralbo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,889
    views
  • 378
    downloads
  • 18
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Olivier Serralbo
  2. David Salgado
  3. Nadège Véron
  4. Caitlin Cooper
  5. Marie-Julie Dejardin
  6. Timothy Doran
  7. Jérome Gros
  8. Christophe Marcelle
(2020)
Transgenesis and web resources in quail
eLife 9:e56312.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56312

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56312

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Jorge Blanco Mendana, Margaret Donovan ... Daryl M Gohl
    Tools and Resources

    Advances in single-cell sequencing technologies have provided novel insights into the dynamics of gene expression and cellular heterogeneity within tissues and have enabled the construction of transcriptomic cell atlases. However, linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data and positively identifying the cell types that correspond to gene expression clusters in single-cell sequencing data sets remains a challenge. We describe a straightforward genetic barcoding approach that takes advantage of the powerful genetic tools in Drosophila to allow in vivo tagging of defined cell populations. This method, called Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing (TaG-EM), involves inserting a DNA barcode just upstream of the polyadenylation site in a Gal4-inducible UAS-GFP construct so that the barcode sequence can be read out during single-cell sequencing, labeling a cell population of interest. By creating many such independently barcoded fly strains, TaG-EM enables positive identification of cell types in cell atlas projects, identification of multiplet droplets, and barcoding of experimental timepoints, conditions, and replicates. Furthermore, we demonstrate that TaG-EM barcodes can be read out using next-generation sequencing to facilitate population-scale behavioral measurements. Thus, TaG-EM has the potential to enable large-scale behavioral screens in addition to improving the ability to multiplex and reliably annotate single-cell transcriptomic experiments.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.