* The experiments summarized in this article were
financially supported by grants from the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk
and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The Heinrich-Pettelnstitut
is supported by the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg and the Bundesministerium
fur Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit, Bonn, FRG
A. Introduction
To study mechanisms of gene regulation involved in embryonal development,
we inserted the Moloney leukemia virus (MMuL V) genome into the
germ line of mice. Thirteen different substrains of mice were obtained,
each carrying one single copy of the Moloney leukemia virus as a
Mendelian gene [ 1-3]. These substrains differ in their genotype
( different chromosomal integration sites; Mov loci) as well as
in their phenotype of virus expression: the majority of substrains
exhibit no virus expression at all, and four substrains express
virus at different stages of development. In Table 1 the characteristics
and the time of virus activation during development in the different
Mov substrains are summarized. Recent evidence obtained in our laboratory
[4] indeed suggested that tissue-specific activation of viral genomes
carried in the germ line of mice may be regulated by similar mechanisms,
as has been proposed for the tissue-specific activation of developmentally
regulated genes [5]. Our results furthermore suggested that the
chromosomal position at which virus integration occurred influenced
the timing in development and the cell type where the proviral genome
became activated [2, 3]. As a means of studying the underlying regulatory
mechanisms we have analyzed the extent ofDNA methylation [6-8] of
the viral genomes. All proviral genomes carried in the Mov substrains
were highly methylated, were not expressed in the tissues tested,
and were not infectious in a transfection assay [9]. However, when
the methyl groups were removed by molecular cloning of the proviral
copies, they were rendered highly infectious [10]. These results
strongly suggested that DNA methylation plays a causative role in
gene regulation during development and differentiation. The Mov
substrains were derived by exposing preimplantation mouse embryos
to M -M uL V. Since the infecting retroviral DNA was not methylated,
de novo methylation of the proviral genomes must have occurred at
some point either during development of the infected embryo and/or
as a consequence of their transmission through the germ line. Furthermore,
it has been shown previously that early mouse embryos as well as
em bryonal carcinoma (EC) cells [11-14], which have many features
in common with embryonic ectoderm cells of early mouse embryos,
are nonpermissive for replication of M-MuL V. The experiments summarized
in this review article were performed to understand the parameters
that prevent expression of viral genomes introduced in to early
embryos and to correlate this with DNA methylation.
Table I. Mouse strains with germ line
integrated Moloney leukemia virus
B. Results
Two experimental approaches were used to investigate the molecular
parameters that prevent expression of RNA tumor viruses in em bryonal
cells. The fate of the infecting viral DNA was directly followed
and compared in tissue culture by infecting pluripotent EC cells
or differentiated cells. In a second approach the preimplantation
or postimplantation mouse embryos were exposed to M-MuL V, and viral
genomes car ried in the adult animals derived from the respective
infected em bryos were characterized. In both experimental approaches
the expression of viral genomes was studied by the XC plaque assay,
quantitative RNA hybridization, and/ or in situ hybridization, and
modifications of the viral genomes were characterized by restriction
enzyme analysis and by transfection assay of the high molecular
weight DNA. The results of these experiments have been published
[ 15, 16] and will be briefly summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2.De novo methylation of M-MuL V
genomes after infection
Table 3. De novo methylation or M-MuL V after infection
or mouse em bryos
I. Infection of Embryonal Carcinoma Cells with M-MuLV
Pluripotent EC cells (F-9 cells) and differentiated cells (EB22/20,
a differentiated derivative of EC cells or NIH 3T3 cells) were exposed
to M-MuLV [15]. Whereas virus replicated efficiently in the latter
cells. as revealed by infectious center assay or RNA hybridization
experiments, no virus expression was found in F-9 cells (Table 2).
The following experiments were performed to study the block in virus
expression in F-9 cells. The kinetics of virus integration were
established and indicated that all viral genomes integrated stably
into the cellular chromosomal DNA during the first 2 or 3 days after
exposure of cells to M-MuLV. Analyses using methylation-sensitive
restriction enzymes revealed that viral DNA in F-9 cells remained
unmethylated as long as it was in the episomal state but became
de novo methylated soon after chromosomal integration. This correlated
well with the transfection assay: DNA isolated early after infection
was biologically active, whereas DNA isolated late when free viral
DNA was no longer present failed to induce XC plaques upon transfection
(Table 2). The methylated proviral copies. however, were potentially
infectious because they induced XC plaques when the recipient cells
for transfection were treated with azacytidine. This drug is believed
to interfere with maintenance methylation. In contrast, viral genomes
introduced into EB22/20 or NIH 3T3 cells remained unmethylated as
well as infectious after chromosomal integration (Table 2). Our
results strongly suggest that expression of proviral genomes introduced
into pluripotent EC cells is suppressed upon chromosomal integration
and that this inactivation can be correlated with de novo methylation
of the viral DNA.
II. Infection of Mouse Embryos with M-MuLV
Due to technical problems in obtaining sufficient material, the
fate of viral DNA introduced into early mouse embryos could not
be analyzed directly in a similar way to that described above for
the tissue culture systems. Therefore viral genomes were studied
in adult animals derived from the infected embryos. Two stages of
embryogenesis, which differ fundamentally in their response to virus
infection were compared: (a) Embryos were infected with virus at
the preimplantation stage, a stage at which no viral expression
takes place [II, 14]: (b) embryos were microinjected with virus
at day 8 of gestation. At this stage efficient virus replication
occurs in cells of all tissues as revealed by in situ hybridization
[16] or by analyzing the tissue distribution of viral DNA and RNA
in the adult [17]. The results of analyzing the modification and
infectivity of the viral genomes carried in the adults are summarized
in Table 3 [16]. Restriction enzyme analysis revealed that copies
introduced into preimplantation embryos became de novo methylated
and remained highly methylated throughout the life of the animal,
whereas viral genomes introduced 5 days later into the postimplantation
embryo remained unmethylated. The results of transfection assays
con firmed these results. DNA derived from animals exposed to virus
at the postimplantation stage was highly infectious, in contrast
to DNA from animals exposed to virus at the preimplantation stage.
These observations extend the results obtained in vitro with EC
cells to the in vivo situation. They suggest that an efficient de
novo methylation activity is a characteristic of totipotent early
embryos and may be involved in the inhibition of viral gene expression.
Neither de novo methylation activity nor inhibition of virus replication,
however, is observed at day 8 of development.
C. Conclusions
The introduction of foreign cellular and retroviral genomes into
early mouse embryos has been used as a means of investigating the
regulation of gene expression in mammalian development [ 18-23].
The results obtained in our system established that both embryonal
carcinoma cells and preimplantation mouse embryos are nonpermissive
for expression of retroviral genomes. Retroviruses introduced into
differentiated derivatives of EC cells or into postimplantation
mouse embryos at day 8 of gestation, however, were able to replicate
efficiently. This defines a switch ofearly differentiating cells
in their ability to support retroviral expression which is developmentally
regulated. The switch in gene expression was correlated with efficient
de novo methylase activity in pluripotent cells. Retroviral genomes
introduced into EC cells or into preimplantation mouse embryos became
efficiently de novo methylated, in contrast to viral genomes introduced
into differentiated cells or into postimplantation embryos. The
results with EC cells indicated that this enzyme activity de novo
methylates viral genomes only after chromosomal integration and
does not act on DNA molecules which are in the episomal state. This
is relevant to the observation that DNA microinjected into mouse
zygotes [24] or into Xenopu.s eggs [25] is expressed as long as
it remains in an episomal state. In addition, unintegrated DNA injected
into Xenopus eggs was shown to remain unmethylated [26]. Our results
furthermore show that the maintenance methylation activity is faithful
in preserving the respective methylation pattern of the proviral
genomes throughout the life of the animal. The de novo methylation
activity in embryonal cells may be of general significance as not
only viral but also cloned globin DNA, which was microinjected into
mouse zygotes, became de novo methylated (F. Costantini and E. Lacy,
personal comminication). If the de novo methylation activity in
embryonal and efficient maintenance methylation in later cells are
involved in repression of proviral genomes, what is the origin of
infectious virus in mice derived from preimplantation embryos exposed
to virus? Because virus, once activated. will infect all susceptible
cells and spread throughout the animal, demethylation and activation
of virus at a given stage of development and in a specific. as yet
unidentified, population of cells would be sufficient to lead to
viremia. Demethylation of a given provirus in specific cells may
depend on the chromosomal position where integration took place,
and proviral genome activation may thus be regulated by similar
mechanisms as has been proposed for the tissue-specific activation
of developmentally regulated genes [5, 27]. Gene activation of the
proviral genome in Mov-l mice appears to be compatible with such
a hypothesis [4]. Our results suggest that embryonal cells may possess
an efficient de novo methylation activity that inactivates any DNA
which is introduced into the early embryo. This may have evolved
as a mechanism to protect the developing embryo against deleterious
conseq uences of virus infections. Finally. our results pose intriguing
questions concerning the control of gene expression during early
development, and it will be of great interest to study the methylation
of genes that are active in preimplantation embryos and in embryonal
carcinoma cells.
References
I. Jaenisch R (1976) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73: 1260
2. Jähner D, laenisch R (1980) Nature 287:456
3. Jaenisch R, Jähner D, Nobis P, Simon I, Löhler J, Harbers K,
Grotkopp D (1981) Cell 24: 519
4. Fiedler W, Nobis P, Jähner D, Jaenisch R (1982) Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 79: 1874
5. Razin A, Riggs A (1980) Science 210:604
6. Desrosiers R, Mulder C, Fleckenstein B (1979) Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 76:3839
7. Sutter D, Doertler W (1980) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77: 253
8. Pollack Y, Stein R, Razin A, Cedar H (1980) Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 77:6463
9. Stuhlmann H, Jähner D, Jaenisch R (1981) Cel126: 221
10. Harbers K, Schnieke A, Stuhlmann H, Jäh ner D, Jaenisch R (
1981) Proc N atl Acad Sci USA 78:7609
11. Jaenisch R, Fan H, Croker B (1975) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72:4008
12. Teich NM, Weiss RA, Martin GR, Lowy DR (1977) Cell12:973
13. Speers WC, Gautsch JW, Dixon FJ (1980) Virology 105:241
14. Jaenisch R, Berns A (1977) In: Sherman MI ( ed) Concepts in
mammalian embryogen esis. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 267-314
15. Stewart CL, Stuhlmann H, Jähner D, Jaenisch R (1982) Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 79:4098
16. Jähner D, Stuhlmann H, Stewart C, Harbers K, Löhler J, Simon
I, Jaenisch R (1982) Nature 298:623
17. Jaenisch R (1980) Celll9: 181
18. Jaenisch R, Mintz B (1974) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71: 1250 19.
Harbers K, Jähner D, Jaenisch R (1981) Na ture 293:540
20. Costantini F, Lacy E (1981) Nature 294:92
21. Wagner EF, Stewart T, Mintz B (1981) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
78: 5016
22. Gordon JW, Ruddle FH (1981) Science 214:1244
23. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Trumbauer M, Senear AW, Warren R, Palmiter
RD (1981) Cell 27: 223
24. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Warren R, Sarthy A, Palmiter RD (1982)
Nature 296: 39
25. Kressmann A, Clarkson S, Telford J, Birn stiel M ( 1977) Cold
Spring Harbor Syrn p Quant Bio142: 1077
26. Harland R (1982) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:2323
27. Stalder J, Groudine M, Dodgson JB, Engel JD, Weintraub H ( 1980)
Cell 19: 973
|