Derivation and maintenance of mouse haploid embryonic stem cells


Ploidy represents the number of chromosome sets in a cell. Although gametes have a haploid genome (n), most mammalian cells have diploid genomes (2n). The diploid status of most cells correlates with the number of probable alleles for each autosomal gene and makes it difficult to target these genes via mutagenesis techniques. Here, we describe a 7-week protocol for the derivation of mouse haploid embryonic stem cells (hESCs) from female gametes that also outlines how to maintain the cells once derived. We detail additional procedures that can be used with cell lines obtained from the mouse Haplobank, a biobank of >100,000 individual mouse hESC lines with targeted mutations in 16,970 genes. hESCs can spontaneously diploidize and can be maintained in both haploid and diploid states. Mouse hESCs are genomically and karyotypically stable, are innately immortal and isogenic, and can be derived in an array of differentiated cell types; they are thus highly amenable to genetic screens and to defining molecular connectivity pathways.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Representative flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle profile.
Fig. 2: Qualitative control of the hESCs.
Fig. 3: Sorting of haploid cells.
Fig. 4: Workflow diagram of hESC derivation.
Fig. 5: Morphological selection during hESC derivation.
Fig. 6: Representative diagram of a transposon screen in hESCs.

Data availability

All data presented in the article are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Maderspacher, F. Theodor Boveri and the natural experiment. Curr. Biol. 18, R279–R286 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Crosland, M. W. J. & Crozier, R. H. Myrmecia pilosula, an ant with only one pair of chromosomes. Science 231, 1278–1278 (1986).

  3. 3.

    Swart, E. C. et al. The Oxytricha trifallax macronuclear genome: a complex eukaryotic genome with 16,000 tiny chromosomes. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001473 (2013).

  4. 4.

    Gallardo, M. H., Bickham, J. W., Honeycutt, R. L., Ojeda, R. A. & Köhler, N. Discovery of tetraploidy in a mammal. Nature 401, 341–341 (1999).

  5. 5.

    Marston, A. L. & Amon, A. Meiosis: cell-cycle controls shuffle and deal. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 983–997 (2004).

  6. 6.

    Jackson, S. P. & Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461, 1071–1078 (2009).

  7. 7.

    Hustedt, N. & Durocher, D. The control of DNA repair by the cell cycle. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 1–9 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Davoli, T. & de Lange, T. The causes and consequences of polyploidy in normal development and cancer. Ann. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 27, 585–610 (2011).

  10. 10.

    Elling, U. et al. Forward and reverse genetics through derivation of haploid mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 9, 563–574 (2011).

  11. 11.

    Leeb, M. & Wutz, A. Derivation of haploid embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos. Nature 479, 131–134 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Sagi, I. et al. Derivation and differentiation of haploid human embryonic stem cells. Nature 532, 1–19 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Zhong, C. et al. Generation of human haploid embryonic stem cells from parthenogenetic embryos obtained by microsurgical removal of male pronucleus. Cell Res. 26, 743–746 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Sagi, I. & Benvenisty, N. Haploidy in humans: an evolutionary and developmental perspective. Dev. Cell 41, 581–589 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Botstein, D. & Fink, G. R. Yeast: an experimental organism for 21st century biology. Genetics 189, 695–704 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Cordes, S. P. N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea mutagenesis: boarding the mouse mutant express. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 69, 426–439 (2005).

  17. 17.

    Kotecki, M. Isolation and characterization of a near-haploid human cell line. Exp. Cell Res. 252, 273–280 (1999).

  18. 18.

    Carette, J. E. et al. Haploid genetic screens in human cells identify host factors used by pathogens. Science 326, 1231–1235 (2009).

  19. 19.

    Carette, J. E. et al. Generation of iPSCs from cultured human malignant cells. Blood 115, 4039–4042 (2010).

  20. 20.

    Essletzbichler, P. et al. Megabase-scale deletion using CRISPR/Cas9 to generate a fully haploid human cell line. Genome Res. 24, 2059–2065 (2014).

  21. 21.

    Pincus, G. Observations on the living eggs of the rabbit. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 107, 132–167 (1930).

  22. 22.

    Tarkowski, A. K., Witkowska, A. & Nowicka, J. Experimental parthenogenesis in the mouse. Nature 226, 162–165 (1970).

  23. 23.

    Graham, C. F. Parthenogenetic mouse blastocysts. Nature 226, 165–167 (1970).

  24. 24.

    Kaufman, M. H. Early Mammalian Development: Parthenogenetic Studies (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1983).

  25. 25.

    Fraser, L. R. Strontium supports capacitation and the acrosome reaction in mouse sperm and rapidly activates mouse eggs. Gamete Res. 18, 363–374 (1987).

  26. 26.

    Kline, D. & Kline, J. T. Repetitive calcium transients and the role of calcium in exocytosis and cell cycle activation in the mouse egg. Dev. Biol. 149, 80–89 (1992).

  27. 27.

    Mikich, A. B. et al. Calcium oscillations and protein synthesis inhibition synergistically activate mouse oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 41, 84–90 (1995).

  28. 28.

    Cuthbertson, K. S. R., Whittingham, D. G. & Cobbold, P. H. Free Ca2+ increases in exponential phases during mouse oocyte activation. Nature 294, 754–757 (1981).

  29. 29.

    Stevens, L. C. & Varnum, D. S. The development of teratomas from parthenogenetically activated ovarian mouse eggs. Dev. Biol. 37, 369–380 (1974).

  30. 30.

    Linder, D., McCaw, B. K. & Hecht, F. Parthenogenic origin of benign ovarian teratomas. N. Engl. J. Med. 292, 63–66 (1975).

  31. 31.

    Leeb, M., Perry, A. C. F. & Wutz, A. Establishment and use of mouse haploid ES cells. Curr. Protoc. Mouse Biol. 5, 155–185 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Shuai, L. et al. Generation of mammalian offspring by haploid embryonic stem cells microinjection. Curr. Protoc. Stem Cell Biol. 31, 1A.6.1–15 (2014).

  33. 33.

    Balmus, G. et al. ATM orchestrates the DNA-damage response to counter toxic non-homologous end-joining at broken replication forks. Nat Commun 10, 646 (2019).

  34. 34.

    Yang, H. et al. Generation of haploid embryonic stem cells from Macaca fascicularis monkey parthenotes. Cell Res. 23, 1187–1200 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Li, X. et al. Generation and application of mouse-rat allodiploid embryonic stem cells. Cell 164, 279–292 (2016).

  36. 36.

    Yang, H. et al. Generation of genetically modified mice by oocyte injection of androgenetic haploid embryonic stem cells. Cell 149, 605–617 (2012).

  37. 37.

    Li, W. et al. Androgenetic haploid embryonic stem cells produce live transgenic mice. Nature 490, 407–411 (2012).

  38. 38.

    Leeb, M. & Wutz, A. Germline potential of parthenogenetic haploid mouse embryonic stem cells. Development 139, 3301–3305 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Elling, U. & Penninger, J. M. Genome wide functional genetics in haploid cells. FEBS Lett. 588, 2415–2421 (2014).

  40. 40.

    Forment, J. V. et al. Genome-wide genetic screening with chemically mutagenized haploid embryonic stem cells. Nat. Chem. Biol. 13, 12–14 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Herzog, M. et al. Detection of functional protein domains by unbiased genome-wide forward genetic screening. Sci. Rep. 8, 6161 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Elling, U. et al. A reversible haploid mouse embryonic stem cell biobank resource for functional genomics. Nature 550, 114 (2017).

  43. 43.

    Gao, Q. et al. Derivation of haploid neural stem cell lines by selection for a Pax6-GFP reporter. Stem Cells Dev. 27, 479–487 (2018).

  44. 44.

    Olbrich, T. et al. A p53-dependent response limits the viability of mammalian haploid cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 9367–9372 (2017).

  45. 45.

    Kim, Y. M., Lee, J.-Y., Xia, L., Mulvihill, J. J. & Li, S. Trisomy 8: a common finding in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell lines. Mol. Cytogenet. 6, 3 (2013).

  46. 46.

    Morey, R. & Laurent, L. C. Getting off the ground state: X chromosome inactivation knocks down barriers to differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 14, 131–132 (2014).

  47. 47.

    Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000412 (2010).

  48. 48.

    Brownstein, D. G. Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: A Laboratory Manual, 4th edn (eds Nagy, A., Gertsenstein, M., Vintersten, K. & Behringer, R.) Ch. 3, 85–107 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 2014).

  49. 49.

    Friedrich, M. J. et al. Genome-wide transposon screening and quantitative insertion site sequencing for cancer gene discovery in mice. Nat. Protoc. 12, 289–309 (2017).

  50. 50.

    Rens, W., Fu, B., O’Brien, P. C. M. & Ferguson-Smith, M. Cross-species chromosome painting. Nat. Protoc. 1, 783–790 (2006).

  51. 51.

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2013).

  52. 52.

    de Ridder, J., Uren, A., Kool, J., Reinders, M. & Wessels, L. Detecting statistically significant common insertion sites in retroviral insertional mutagenesis screens. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e166 (2006).

  53. 53.

    Huang, D. W., Sherman, B. T. & Lempicki, R. A. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat. Protoc. 4, 44–57 (2009).

Download references


M.W., B.D., B.F., B.L.N. and D.J.A. were supported by the Wellcome Trust through core funding to the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (WT098051). Research in the S.P.J. laboratory was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant C6/A18796) and a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award (206388/Z/17/Z). Core funding was provided by CRUK (C6946/A14492) and the Wellcome Trust (WT092096). Research in the J.M.P. laboratory was funded by Advanced ERC and Era of Hope/DoD grants. Research in the G.B. laboratory was funded by a UK Dementia Research Institute fellowship (MC_PC_17111).

Author information

U.E., M.W. and G.B. performed experimental analysis and procedures throughout and wrote the manuscript. B.D. and D.J.A. helped M.W. with setup of blastocyst work. B.L.N. assisted with flow cytometry, with help from J.V.F. and S.P.J. B.F. and F.Y. performed the FISH and karyotyped the cell lines. J.R.V. wrote the transposon-induced mutagenesis protocol with help from U.E. G.B. and J.M.P. conceived the idea of this article. All authors commented on the manuscript.

Correspondence to Josef M. Penninger or Gabriel Balmus.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.M.P. and U.E. are shareholders of JLP Health.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Protocols thanks Ling Shuai and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Key references using this protocol

Elling, U. et al. Cell Stem Cell 9, 563–574 (2011):

Elling, U. et al. Nature 550, 114–118 (2017):

Balmus, G. et al. Nat. Commun. 10, 87 (2019):

Key data used in this protocol

Elling, U. et al. Nature 550, 114–118 (2017):

Balmus, G. et al. Nat. Commun. 10, 87 (2019):

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Gene trap vectors and library preparation.

(a) Schematic representation of the gene trap vectors as presented in Elling et al. 201742 and on the Haplobank website ( Retroviral enhanced gene trap (Retro-EGT; related sequence provided as Supplementary Data file 1). Lentiviral enhanced gene trap (Lenti-EGT; related sequence provided as Supplementary Data file 2). Tol2 autonomous transposon enhanced gene trap (Tol2-EGT; related sequence provided as Supplementary Data file 3). Tol2 autonomous transposon polyadenylation enhanced gene trap (Tol2-polyA-EGT; related sequence provided as Supplementary Data file 4). Abbreviations used: LTR, long terminal repeat; 6xOPE, six osteopontin enhancer elements; FRT/F3, heterotypic improved flippase target sequences; LoxP/Lox5171, heterotypic target sequences for the Cre-recombinase; SA, splice acceptor; βgal, β-galactosidase; NeoR, neomycin phosphotransferase fusion gene; polyA, bovine growth hormone polyadenylation sequence; L200/R175, left and right Tol2 transposon elements; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; EGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein; RPB1, DNA-directed RNA polymerase II subunit rpb1; SD, splice donor. (b) Schematic representation of library preparation of gene trap vectors integration site. Tol2 – EGT is shown as example. Following fragmentation of the genome with enzyme 1 (E1, NlaIII in the example), the gene trap end containing the barcode and a genomic DNA portion is circularized (ring ligation). Prior to PCR amplification, linearization with enzyme 2 (E2, PaqI in the example) is needed. Each integration site can be mapped by using two different E1 enzymes. The genomic region is then amplified by PCR using US and DS primers.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figure 1

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1–4

Four sequences for gene trap cassettes harboring disruptive splice acceptor sites.

Supplementary Video 1

Removing cumulus oocyte complex from ampulla.

Supplementary Video 2

Identification and isolation of subviable (pathogenic) embryos.

Supplementary Video 3

Zona pellucida removal (denuding), first 20 s.

Supplementary Video 4

Zona pellucida removal (denuding), making sure zona is gone (up to 70 s).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.