Axial Skeletal Malformations in Genetically Modified Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis

Abstract

Skeletal malformations in captive-bred, adult Xenopus spp., have not previously been reported. Here we describe 10 sexually mature, genetically modified laboratory frogs (6 Xenopus laevis and 4 Xenopus tropicalis) with axial skeletal abnormalities. The young adult frogs were described by veterinary staff as presenting with "hunchbacks," but were otherwise considered to be in good health. All affected frogs were genetically engineered using various techniques: transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) editing using thyroid hormone receptor α TALEN mRNA, restriction enzyme-mediated integration methods involving insertion of the inducible transgene pCAR/TRDN, or via I-SceI meganuclease transgenesis using either pDRTREdpTR-HS4 or pDPCrtTA-TREG-HS4 plasmid sequences. Radiographic findings (6 frogs) and gross necropsy (10 frogs) revealed vertebral column malformations and sacroiliac deformities that resulted in moderate to severe kyphosis and kyphoscoliosis. These findings were confirmed and additional skeletal abnormalities were identified using computed tomography to create a 3D reconstruction of 4 frogs. Additional findings visible on the 3D reconstructions included incomplete vertebral segmentation, malformed transverse processes, and a short and/or curved urostyle. Histopathologic findings included misshapen intervertebral joints with nonconforming articular surfaces, narrowed joint cavities, flattened or irregularly-formed articular cartilage, irregular maturation lines and nonpolarized chondrocytes, excess fibrocartilage, and evidence of irregular bone resorption and growth. While the specific etiology of the vertebral skeletal abnormalities remains unclear, possibilities include: 1) egg/oocyte physical manipulation (dejellying, microinjection, fertilization, etc.), 2) induction and expression of the transgenes, 3) inactivation (knockout) of existing genes by insertional mutagenesis, or 4) a combination of the above. Furthermore, the possibility of undetected changes in the macro or microenvironment, or a feature of the genetic background of the affected frogs cannot be ruled out.