Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influences of somatic donor cell sex on in vitro and in vivo embryo development following somatic cell nuclear transfer in pigs

  • Yoo, Jae-Gyu (Animal Diseases and Biosecurity Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Byeong-Woo (Department of Animal Science, Life and Industry Convergence Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Park, Mi-Rung (Animal Diseases and Biosecurity Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kwon, Deug-Nam (Department of Animal Biotechnology, KonKuk University) ;
  • Choi, Yun-Jung (Department of Animal Biotechnology, KonKuk University) ;
  • Shin, Teak-Soon (Department of Animal Science, Life and Industry Convergence Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Cho, Byung-Wook (Department of Animal Science, Life and Industry Convergence Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Seo, Jakyeom (Department of Animal Science, Life and Industry Convergence Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Hoi (Department of Animal Biotechnology, KonKuk University) ;
  • Cho, Seong-Keun (Department of Animal Science, Life and Industry Convergence Research Institute, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2016.08.04
  • Accepted : 2016.10.18
  • Published : 2017.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The present study investigates pre- and post-implantation developmental competence of nuclear-transferred porcine embryos derived from male and female fetal fibroblasts. Methods: Male and female fetal fibroblasts were transferred to in vitro-matured enucleated oocytes and in vitro and in vivo developmental competence of reconstructed embryos was investigated. And, a total of 6,789 female fibroblast nuclear-transferred embryos were surgically transferred into 41 surrogate gilts and 4,746 male fibroblast nuclear-transferred embryos were surgically transferred into 25 surrogate gilts. Results: The competence to develop into blastocysts was not significantly different between the sexes. The mean cell number of female and male cloned blastocysts obtained by in vivo culture ($143.8{\pm}10.5$ to $159.2{\pm}14.8$) was higher than that of in vitro culture of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) groups ($31.4{\pm}8.3$ to $33.4{\pm}11.1$). After embryo transfer, 5 pregnant gilts from each treatment delivered 15 female and 22 male piglets. The average birth weight of the cloned piglets, gestation length, and the postnatal survival rates were not significantly different (p<0.05) between sexes. Conclusion: The present study found that the sex difference of the nuclear donor does not affect the developmental rate of porcine SCNT embryos. Furthermore, postnatal survivability of the cloned piglets was not affected by the sex of the donor cell.

Keywords

References

  1. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997;385:810-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/385810a0
  2. Betthauser J, Forsberg E, Augenstein M, et al. Production of cloned pigs from in vitro systems. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:1055-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/80242
  3. Onishi A, Iwamoto M, Akita T, et al. Pig cloning by microinjection of fetal fibroblast nuclei. Science 2000;289:1188-90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5482.1188
  4. Polejaeva IA, Chen SH, Vaught TD, et al. Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature 2000;407:86-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/35024082
  5. Prather RS, Shen M, Dai Y. Genetically modified pigs for medicine and agriculture. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 2008;25:245-65.
  6. Schmidt M, Kragh PM, Li J, et al. Pregnancies and piglets from large white sow recipients after two transfer methods of cloned and transgenic embryos of different pig breeds. Theriogenology 2010;74:1233-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.05.026
  7. Vajta G, Callesen H. Establishment of an efficient somatic cell nuclear transfer system for production of transgenic pigs. Theriogenology 2012;77:1263-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.10.040
  8. Boquest AC, Grupen CG, Harrison SJ, et al. Production of cloned pigs from cultured fetal fibroblast cells. Biol Reprod 2002;66:1283-7. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod66.5.1283
  9. Walker SC, Shin T, Zaunbrecher GM, et al. A highly efficient method for porcine cloning by nuclear transfer using in vitro-matured oocytes. Cloning Stem Cells 2004;4:105-12.
  10. Koo OJ, Park HJ, Kwon DK, et al. Effect of recipient breed on delivery rate of cloned miniature pig. Zygote 2009;17:203-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199409005267
  11. Petersen B, Lucas-Hahn A, Oropeza M, et al. Development and validation of a highly efficient protocol of porcine somatic cloning using preovulatory embryo transfer in peripubertal gilts. Cloning Stem Cells 2008;10:355-62. https://doi.org/10.1089/clo.2008.0026
  12. Huang Y, Ouyang H, Yu H, et al. Efficiency of porcine somatic cell nuclear transfer - a retrospective study of factors related to embryo recipient and embryos transferred. Biol Open 2013;2:1223-8. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.20135983
  13. Rim CH, Fu Z, Bao L, et al. The effect of the number of transferred embryos, the interval between nuclear transfer and embryo transfer, and the transfer pattern on pig cloning efficiency. Anim Reprod Sci 2013;143:91-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.10.004
  14. Liu Y, Li J, Lovendahl P, et al. In vitro manipulation techniques of porcine embryos: a meta-analysis related to transfers, pregnancies and piglets. Reprod Fertil Dev 2014;27:429-39.
  15. Li Z, Shi J, Liu D, et al. Effects of donor fibroblast cell type and transferred cloned embryo number on the efficiency of pig cloning. Cell Reprogram 2013;15:35-42.
  16. Shi J, Zhou R, Luo L, et al. Influence of embryo handling and transfer method on pig cloning efficiency. Anim Reprod Sci 2015;154:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.01.006
  17. Wei H, Qing Y, Pan W, et al. Comparison of the efficiency of Banna miniature inbred pig somatic cell nuclear transfer among different donor cells. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e57728. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057728
  18. Kato Y, Tani T, Tsunoda Y. Cloning of calves from various somatic cell types of male and female adult, newborn and fetal cows. J Reprod Fertil 2000;120:231-7.
  19. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R. Mouse cloning with nucleus donor cells of different age and type. Mol Reprod Dev 2001;58:376-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2795(20010401)58:4<376::AID-MRD4>3.0.CO;2-L
  20. Kurome M, Ishikawa T, Tomii R, et al. Production of transgenic and non-transgenic clones in miniature pigs by somatic cell nuclear transfer. J Reprod Dev 2008;54:156-63. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.19165
  21. Yin XJ, Cho SK, Park MR, et al. Nuclear remodelling and the developmental potential of nuclear transferred porcine oocytes under delayed-activated conditions. Zygote 2003;11:167-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096719940300220X
  22. Wakayama T, Perry ACF, Zuccotti M, Johnson KR, Yanagimachi R. Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature 1998;394:369-74. https://doi.org/10.1038/28615
  23. Cho JK, Lee BC, Park JI, et al. Development of bovine oocytes reconstructed with different donor somatic cells with or without serum starvation. Theriogenology 2002;57:1819-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00699-9
  24. Pandey A, Gupta SC, Gupta N. Comparative potential of cultured skin fibroblast, cumulus, and granulosa cell to produce somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) preimplantation embryos in buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in relation to gene expressions. Cell Reprogram 2010;12:357-68. https://doi.org/10.1089/cell.2009.0083
  25. Lee GS, Hyun SH, Kim HS, et al. Improvement of a porcine somatic cell nuclear transfer technique by optimizing donor cell and recipient oocyte preparations. Theriogenology 2003;59:1949-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01294-3
  26. Rideout WM III, Eggan K, Jaenisch R. Nuclear cloning and epigenetic reprogramming of the genome. Science 2001;293:1093-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063206
  27. Yamazaki Y, Makino H, Hamaguchi-Hamada K, et al. Assessment of the developmental totipotency of neural cells in the cerebral cortex of mouse embryo by nuclear transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:14022-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231489398
  28. Huan Y, Hu K, Xie B, et al. Ovulation statuses of surrogate gilts are associated with the efficiency of excellent pig cloning. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0142549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142549
  29. Yin XJ, Tani T, Yonemura I, et al. Production of cloned pigs from adult somatic cells by chemically assisted removal of maternal chromosomes. Biol Reprod 2002;67:442-6. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod67.2.442
  30. Martin M, Adams C, Wiseman B. Pre-weaning performance and health of pigs born to cloned (fetal cell derived) swine versus non-cloned swine. Theriogenology 2004;62:113-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2003.08.003
  31. Hirayama H, Sawai K, Hirayama M, et al. Prepartum maternal plasma glucose concentrations and placental glucose transporter mRNA expression in cows carrying somatic cell clone fetuses. J Reprod Dev 2011;57:57-61. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.10-040S
  32. Hill JR, Burghardt RC, Jones K, et al. Evidence for placental abnormality as the major cause of mortality in first-trimester somatic cell cloned bovine fetuses. Biol Reprod 2000;63:1787-94. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod63.6.1787
  33. Heyman Y, Chavatte-Palmer P, LeBourhis D, et al. Frequency and occurrence of late-gestation losses from cattle cloned embryos. Biol Reprod 2002;66:6-13. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod66.1.6

Cited by

  1. ) nuclear transfer embryos pp.09366768, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13286
  2. Epigenetic states of donor cells significantly affect the development of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) embryos in pigs vol.85, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.22935