Sister chromatid differential staining by direct staining in Na2HPO4-Giemsa solution and the mechanism involved

Light and scanning electron microscopic observations on the two contrasting types of sister chromatid differential staining after ultraviolet light irradiation

Chinese hamster cells were grown with 50 microM 5-bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) during the penultimate S phase to obtain chromosomes with the TB-TT chromatid constitution. Chromosome preparations made by the airdrying method were used to study the sister chromatid differential staining (SCD) resulting from ultraviolet (UV) irradiation followed by Giemsa staining by light and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). When chromosomes irradiated with UV light (253.7 nm, 5.2 J/m2/s) for more than 5 h were stained with 1% to 4% Giemsa in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or in distilled water, the resulting SCD invariably belonged to the B-light type in which the TB-chromatid stained lightly. SEM observations of these chromosomes suggested that the B-light SCD was due to the selective photolysis of the TB-chromatid. On the other hand, when chromosomes were irradiated for only 10 min, and stained with 1% Giemsa in PBS, they showed a B-dark type SCD in which the TB-chromatid stained darkly. However, when chromosomes irradiated for 10 min were stained with 4% Giemsa in PBS or 1% Giemsa in distilled water, the resulting SCD again belonged to the B-light type. These findings indicate that when the irradiation dose is small, the resultant SCD is not a simple reflection of selective photolysis in the TB-chromatids and the type of SCD depends not only on the concentration of Giemsa but also on the salinity of the staining solution.

Reverse differential staining of sister chromatids induced by Hoechst plus black light and endonuclease

A differential Giemsa staining between sister chromatids was obtained by treating chromosomes replicated twice in medium containing 5-bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) with Hoechst 33258 plus black light at 55 degrees C (HB pretreatment) and deoxyribonuclease (DNase) I, II, or micrococcal nuclease. In this staining pattern the BrdU bifilarly substituted chromatids were darkly and the unifilarly substituted chromatids lightly stained. This staining pattern was obtained only by staining the HB-DNase I-treated chromosomes with Giemsa and methylene blue, not by several other dyes tested. Relatively more DNA labelling was removed from the non-BrdU-substituted than the BrdU-substituted chromosomes, when the HB-pretreated chromosomes were digested with DNase I. But the protein labelling was not removed appreciably in the same treatment. The differential DNase I sensitivity between the non-BrdU-substituted and BrdU-substituted chromosomes disappeared when the HB-pretreated chromosomes were incubated with proteinase K before The DNase I digestion. Moreover, no differential DNase I sensitivity was found between the HB-pretreated isolated DNA containing and not containing BrdU. We propose that during the HB pretreatment, more DNA-protein cross-linkings are induced in BrdU bifilarly substituted than the unifilarly substituted chromatids. This structure protects the chromosomal DNA against the DNase I digestion. Thus, a reverse differential Giemsa staining between sister chromatids is obtained by the HB-DNase I treatment.

G-bands without pretreatment of slides, in chemically defined conditions

We investigated the capability of Giemsa dyes to produce G-bands without pretreatment of slides in chemically defined conditions. G-banding was produced between pH 7.0 and pH 11.0. Within this range, we observed that the achievement of G-bands was dependent on the ionic strength and time of staining. From these data and from those of other authors on other chemical variables and on the mechanisms of staining, we propose a working hypothesis of G-band formation, with a step involving shrinkage of the chromatids and rearrangement of the chromosome fiber during the staining process.

Topographic examination of sister chromatid differential staining by Nomarski interference microscopy and scanning electron microscopy

BrdU-substituted Chinese hamster chromosomes were treated with a hog Na2HPO4 solution and stained with Giemsa to produce sister chromatid differential staining (SCD). The process of SCD was examined with the Nomarski differential interference microscope and the scanning electron microscope. After the Na2HPO4 treatment alone, unifilarly BrdU-substituted (TB) chromatids appeared somewhat more severely collapsed than the bifilarly substituted (BB) chromatids. Subsequent Giemsa staining, however, brought about pronounced piling up of the Giemsa dye on the TB-chromatids but not on the BB-ones, causing highly distinct differential Giemsa staining as well as a marked differentiation in surface topography between the sister chromatids. Removal of the Giemsa dye from the differentially Giemsa stained chromosomes resulted in a disappearance of such a pronounced topographic differentiation.

DNA extraction during Giemsa differentiation of chromatids singly and doubly substituted with BrdU

Human lymphocytes were cultured in 3H-labelled BrdU. Cells were pretreated to induce differentiation, autoradiographed and Giemsa-stained. DNA extraction was deduced if grain counts were lower in differentiated mitoses compared with untreated controls.--The differentiation method involved sequential pretreatments with short wave UV and 2 x SSc at 60 degrees C. This removed 34% of label from first division cells (with TB.TB chromosomes) but relatively more (53%) from second division (TB.BB chromosomes). In second division cells, about two thirds of label was lost from pale (BB) chromatids but only one third from dark (TB) chromatids. The UV and SSC pretreatments acted in collaboration, since neither alone reduced grain counts significantly.--On testing other methods, similar preferential DNA extraction was obtained with Perry and Wolff's FPG method, and with the hot salt pretreatment of Korenberg and Freedlender. However, good Giemsa differentiation could also be obtained using Hoechst 33258 and light pretreatments without any DNA loss. Reverse differentiation patterns (TB pale, BB dark) induced by warm acids resulted in extraction of nearly two thirds of 3H-BrdU label, but relative loss was the same from pale and dark chromatin. Direct reverse staining using alkaline Giemsa did not result in any loss of label.--Thus preferential DNA loss from pale stained chromatin underlies differentiation methods using light plus hot salt pretreatments, but it is not obligatory for good differentiation using other techniques.