Table 1 |
||||
| EGFP expression patterns of mutant Enhancer-trap appb BACs | ||||
| Enhancer -trap BAC injected | Intron enhancers | Average of 4 or 6 injections | ||
| Deletions from CT-repeat end | # of eggs injected | # of embryos survived | # of expression in neurons | |
| Δ94C | CT+ve | 75 | 32 | 10 |
| Δ2C, Δ76C, Δ51D | CT-ve | 90 | 40 | 8 |
| Δ5C, Δ14C, Δ17D, Δ21D | CT-ve, SOX 5-ve | 110 | 33 | 9 |
| Δ17C, Δ9D, Δ14D | CT-ve, SOX 5-ve, E4BP4-ve | 140 | 70 | 0 |
| Deletions from GATA3 end | ||||
| Δ46C, Δ27D, Δ28D | GATA3-ve | 105 | 42 | 12 |
| Δ3C, Δ4C, Δ1D | GATA3-ve, OCT1-ve | 150 | 100 | 8 |
| Δ28C, Δ13D, Δ48D, Δ52D | GATA3-ve, OCT1-ve, XFD1-ve | 130 | 55 | 0 |
Mutations were engineered into the intron 1 enhancer (IE) of the enhancer-trap and inserted into appb BACs C and D. Structures of mutant enhancer-trap BACs shown schematically in Panel B of Figure 2, and their expression patterns summarized here in Table 1.
Shakes et al. BMC Genomics 2012 13:451 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-451
