Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Short Report
  • Published:

Comparison of mammary gland involution between 129S1 and C57BL/6 inbred mouse strains: differential regulation of Bcl2a1, Trp53, Cebpb, and Cebpd expression

Oncogene volume 23, pages 2548–2553 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Genetic engineering has made the mouse an invaluable tool to address the function of individual genes in a targeted manner. Over the last decade it has become apparent that the genetic mouse strain background can significantly influence the phenotype of an engineered mouse. Therefore, it is essential to characterize the biology of the different wild-type background strains. In this study, we have compared mouse mammary gland involution in the 129S1 and C57BL/6 inbred strains and report significant differences at the molecular level with differential expression of Bcl2a1 (Bfl1), Trp53 (p53), Cebpb (C/EBPβ), and Cebpd (C/EBPδ). The C57BL/6 strain exhibits dynamic responses with induction of Trp53 and Cebpd and concomitant downregulation of Bcl2a1 during the first phase of involution. In contrast, expression of these genes does not change significantly in 129S1 mice. During the second phase, C57BL/6 glands contain more Cebpb than 129S1 glands. Nevertheless, involution proceeds morphologically with similar kinetics in both strains. The data demonstrate that the genetic response of mammary tissue varies significantly between 129S1 and C57BL/6. These results may provide a basis for the interpretation of strain-specific phenotypes in engineered mice and underline the importance of pure strains for large-scale expression studies with mutant mice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck JA, Lloyd S, Hafezparast M, Lennon-Pierce M, Eppig JT, Festing MF and Fisher EM . (2000). Nat. Genet., 24, 23–25.

  • Darlington GJ, Ross SE and MacDougald OA . (1998). J. Biol. Chem., 273, 30057–30060.

  • D'Sa-Eipper C and Chinnadurai G . (1998). Oncogene, 16, 3105–3114.

  • D'Sa-Eipper C, Subramanian T and Chinnadurai G . (1996). Cancer Res., 56, 3879–3882.

  • Furth PA . (1999). J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia, 4, 123–127.

  • Gigliotti AP and DeWille JW . (1998). J. Cell Physiol., 174, 232–239.

  • Gigliotti AP, Johnson PF, Sterneck E and Dewille JW . (2003). Exp. Biol. Med., (Maywood), 228, 278–285.

  • Gross A, McDonnell JM and Korsmeyer SJ . (1999). Genes Dev., 13, 1899–1911.

  • Heermeier K, Benedict M, Li M, Furth P, Nunez G and Hennighausen L . (1996). Mech. Dev., 56, 197–207.

  • Hennighausen L and Robinson GW . (1998). Genes Dev., 12, 449–455.

  • Hodge DL, Martinez A, Julias JG, Taylor LS and Young HA . (2002). Mol. Cell Biol., 22, 1742–1753.

  • Howlett AR and Bissell MJ . (1993). Epithelial Cell Biol., 2, 79–89.

  • Jager R, Herzer U, Schenkel J and Weiher H . (1997). Oncogene, 15, 1787–1795.

  • Jerry DJ, Kuperwasser C, Downing SR, Pinkas J, He C, Dickinson E, Marconi S and Naber SP . (1998). Oncogene, 17, 2305–2312.

  • Li M, Hu J, Heermeier K, Hennighausen L and Furth PA . (1996). Cell Growth Differ., 7, 13–20.

  • Lund LR, Romer J, Thomasset N, Solberg H, Pyke C, Bissell MJ, Dano K and Werb Z . (1996). Development, 122, 181–193.

  • O'Reilly MA, Staversky RJ, Huyck HL, Watkins RH, LoMonaco MB, D'Angio CT, Baggs RB, Maniscalco WM and Pryhuber GS . (2000). Lab. Invest., 80, 1845–1854.

  • O'Rourke JP, Newbound GC, Hutt JA and DeWille J . (1999). J. Biol. Chem., 274, 16582–16589.

  • Quarrie LH, Addey CV and Wilde CJ . (1995). Cell Tissue Res., 281, 413–419.

  • Robinson GW, Johnson PF, Hennighausen L and Sterneck E . (1998). Genes Dev., 12, 1907–1916.

  • Schorr K, Li M, Bar-Peled U, Lewis A, Heredia A, Lewis B, Knudson CM, Korsmeyer SJ, Jager R, Weiher H and Furth PA . (1999a). Cancer Res, 59, 2541–2545.

  • Schorr K, Li M, Krajewski S, Reed JC and Furth PA . (1999b). J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia, 4, 153–164.

  • Seagroves TN, Krnacik S, Raught B, Gay J, Burgess-Beusse B, Darlington GJ and Rosen JM . (1998). Genes Dev., 12, 1917–1928.

  • Sibilia M and Wagner EF . (1995). Science, 269, 234–238.

  • Strange R, Friis RR, Bemis LT and Geske FJ . (1995). Methods in Cell Biology, Vol. 46. Schwartz LM, Osborne BA (eds) Academic Press: San Diego, pp. 355–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange R, Li F, Saurer S, Burkhardt A and Friis RR . (1992). Development, 115, 49–58.

  • Takiguchi M . (1998). Int. J. Exp. Pathol., 79, 369–391.

  • Threadgill DW, Dlugosz AA, Hansen LA, Tennenbaum T, Lichti U, Yee D, LaMantia C, Mourton T, Herrup K, Harris RC, Barnard JA, Yuspa SH, Coffey RJ and Magnuson T . (1995). Science, 269, 230–234.

  • Werner AB, de Vries E, Tait SW, Bontjer I and Borst J . (2002). J. Biol. Chem., 277, 22781–22788.

  • Wiseman BS and Werb Z . (2002). Science, 296, 1046–1049.

  • Zhang S, Ramsay ES and Mock BA . (1998). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 95, 2429–2434.

  • Zhang SL, DuBois W, Ramsay ES, Bliskovski V, Morse III HC, Taddesse-Heath L, Vass WC, DePinho RA and Mock BA . (2001). Mol. Cell Biol., 21, 310–318.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lori Warg and Barbara Shankle for expert technical assistance, Doug Powell for statistical analysis, Karen Vousden and Lothar Hennighausen for cDNA probes, and Lino Tessarollo for critical reading of the manuscript. The cDNAs for Mmp3, Plat, and Clu were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Regulation of Cell Growth Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, NIH, PO Box B, Frederick, 21702, MD, USA

    Muthusamy Thangaraju, Shikha Sharan & Esta Sterneck

Authors
  1. Muthusamy Thangaraju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shikha Sharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esta Sterneck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esta Sterneck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thangaraju, M., Sharan, S. & Sterneck, E. Comparison of mammary gland involution between 129S1 and C57BL/6 inbred mouse strains: differential regulation of Bcl2a1, Trp53, Cebpb, and Cebpd expression. Oncogene 23, 2548–2553 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207363

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207363

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links