Nanoinjection: pronuclear DNA delivery using a charged lance

• Published in: Transgenic research Vol. 21; no. 6; pp. 1279 - 1290
• Main Authors: Aten, Quentin T, Jensen, Brian D, Tamowski, Susan, Wilson, Aubrey M, Howell, Larry L, Burnett, Sandra H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer-Verlag 01.12.2012; Springer Netherlands; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Animal Genetics and Genomics; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedical Engineering/Biotechnology; Biotechnology; Birth; Cell Nucleus - genetics; Developmental stages; DNA; DNA - administration & dosage; Drug Delivery Systems; Eggs; Embryo, Mammalian - cytology; Embryo, Mammalian - physiology; Embryos; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Genetic Engineering; Genetic technics; Integration; Life Sciences; Methods. Procedures. Technologies; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Mice, Inbred CBA; Mice, Transgenic; microchips; Microelectromechanical systems; Microinjection; Microinjections; Molecular Medicine; Nanotechnology; Original Paper; Plant Genetics and Genomics; Pregnancy; pronucleus; pups; Silicon; Survival Rate; transfer DNA; Transgenic animals and transgenic plants; Transgenics; viability; zygote; Zygote - cytology; Zygote - physiology; Zygotes; Transgenic; Nanoinjection; MEMS; Microinjection; DNA transfer; DNA; Transfer; Genetically modified organism; Transgenesis
• ISSN: 0962-8819; 1573-9368
• DOI: 10.1007/s11248-012-9610-6

We present a non-fluidic pronuclear injection method using a silicon microchip “nanoinjector” composed of a microelectromechanical system with a solid, electrically conductive lance. Unlike microinjection which uses fluid delivery of DNA, nanoinjection electrically accumulates DNA on the lance, the DNA-coated lance is inserted into the pronucleus, and DNA is electrically released. We compared nanoinjection and microinjection side-by-side over the course of 4 days, injecting 1,013 eggs between the two groups. Nanoinjected zygotes had significantly higher rates of integration per injected embryo, with 6.2 % integration for nanoinjected embryos compared to 1.6 % integration for microinjected embryos. This advantage is explained by nanoinjected zygotes’ significantly higher viability in two stages of development: zygote progress to two-cell stage, and progress from two-cell stage embryos to birth. We observed that 77.6 % of nanoinjected zygotes proceeded to two-cell stage compared to 54.7 % of microinjected zygotes. Of the healthy two-cell stage embryos, 52.4 % from the nanoinjection group and 23.9 % from the microinjected group developed into pups. Structural advantages of the nanoinjector are likely to contribute to the high viability observed. For instance, because charge is used to retain and release DNA, extracellular fluid is not injected into the pronucleus and the cross-sectional area of the nanoinjection lance (0.06 µm²) is smaller than that of a microinjection pipette tip (0.78 µm²). According to results from the comparative nanoinjection versus microinjection study, we conclude that nanoinjection is a viable method of pronuclear DNA transfer which presents viability advantages over microinjection.