Literature DB >> 11263540

Risks of in-vitro production of cattle and swine embryos: aberrations in chromosome numbers, ribosomal RNA gene activation and perinatal physiology.

P Hyttel1, D Viuff, J Laurincik, M Schmidt, P D Thomsen, B Avery, H Callesen, D Rath, H Niemann, C Rosenkranz, K Schellander, R L Ochs, T Greve.   

Abstract

In cattle, in-vitro production (IVP) of embryos has become a standardized technique; however, increased frequencies of calving problems and larger calves have been reported. In swine, IVP has resulted in only a limited number of piglets. In this paper we present information on cattle and swine embryos produced in vitro by oocyte maturation, fertilization and further embryo culture to the blastocyst stage in vitro. Control in-vivo developed embryos were collected after superovulation. The cattle embryos were processed for fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) with two chromosome-specific probes to detect numerical chromosome aberrations. The swine embryos were processed for transmission electron microscopy and immunocytochemistry with an antibody against RNA polymerase I [essential for ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene transcription] in order to highlight the post-fertilization development of the nucleolus as a marker for rRNA gene activation. The FISH analyses of the cattle embryos revealed that 72% of IVP blastocysts were mixoploid, i.e. contained both diploid and polyploid cells, versus 25% in vivo. Chromosome abnormalities were observed from the 2-cell stage onwards. The immunocytochemical analyses of the swine embryos revealed that during in-vivo development, RNA polymerase I became localized to multiple foci in the developing nucleoli late during the 4-cell stage. This focal localization of RNA polymerase I was not observed in IVP embryos. In conclusion, IVP embryos may display aberrations in chromosome numbers and rRNA gene activation. The significance of these deviations for fetal and perinatal viability, however, remains unknown. The survival of most calves derived from IVP indicates that a considerable number of these embryos are able to compensate for the adverse effects of the in-vitro procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11263540     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.suppl_5.87

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  6 in total

1.  Cloning and risk factors.

Authors:  K Illmensee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Cloning in reproductive medicine.

Authors:  K Illmensee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  First PGT-A using human in vivo blastocysts recovered by uterine lavage: comparison with matched IVF embryo controls†.

Authors:  Santiago Munné; Steven T Nakajima; Sam Najmabadi; Mark V Sauer; Marlane J Angle; José L Rivas; Laura V Mendieta; Thelma M Macaso; Sarthak Sawarkar; Alexander Nadal; Kajal Choudhary; Camran Nezhat; Sandra A Carson; John E Buster
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  RNA-Seq analysis uncovers transcriptomic variations between morphologically similar in vivo- and in vitro-derived bovine blastocysts.

Authors:  Ashley M Driver; Francisco Peñagaricano; Wen Huang; Khawaja R Ahmad; Katie S Hackbart; Milo C Wiltbank; Hasan Khatib
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.969

5.  Dynamic analysis of Ca²+ level during bovine oocytes maturation and early embryonic development.

Authors:  Su Li Liang; Qian Jun Zhao; Xiang Chen Li; Ya Ping Jin; Yi Peng Wang; Xiao Hua Su; Wei Jun Guan; Yue Hui Ma
Journal:  J Vet Sci       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.603

Review 6.  Chromosome Abnormalities and Fertility in Domestic Bovids: A Review.

Authors:  Alessandra Iannuzzi; Pietro Parma; Leopoldo Iannuzzi
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 2.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.