Literature DB >> 11465364

Transgenesis may affect farm animal welfare: a case for systematic risk assessment.

C G Van Reenen1, T H Meuwissen, H Hopster, K Oldenbroek, T H Kruip, H J Blokhuis.   

Abstract

This paper considers (potentially) harmful consequences of transgenesis for farm animal welfare and examines the strategy of studying health and welfare of transgenic farm animals. Evidence is discussed showing that treatments imposed in the context of farm animal transgenesis are by no means biologically neutral and may compromise animal health and welfare. Factors posing a risk for the welfare of transgenic farm animals include integration of a transgene within an endogenous gene with possible loss of host gene function (insertional mutations), inappropriate transgene expression and exposure of the host to biologically active transgene-derived proteins, and in vitro reproductive technologies employed in the process of generating transgenic farm animals that may result in an increased incidence of difficult parturition and fetal and neonatal losses and the development of unusually large or otherwise abnormal offspring (large offspring syndrome). Critical components of a scheme for evaluating welfare of transgenic farm animals are identified, related to specific characteristics of transgenic animals and to factors that may interact with the effects of transgenesis. The feasibility of an evaluation of welfare of transgenic farm animals in practice is addressed against the background of the objectives and conditions of three successive stages in a long-term transgenic program. Concrete steps with regard to breeding and testing of transgenic farm animals are presented, considering three technologies to generate transgenic founders: microinjection, electroporation and nuclear transfer, and gene targeting including gene knockout. The proposed steps allow for unbiased estimations of the essential treatment effects, including hemi- and homozygous transgene effects as well as effects of in vitro reproductive technologies. It is suggested that the implementation of appropriate breeding and testing procedures should be accompanied by the use of a comprehensive welfare protocol, specifying which parameters to monitor, at which stages of the life of a farm animal, and in how many animals. Some prerequisites and ideas for such a protocol are given. It is anticipated that systematic research into the welfare of farm animals involved in transgenesis will facilitate the use of the safest experimental protocols as well as the selection and propagation of the healthiest animals and, thereby, enable technological progress that could be ethically justified.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11465364     DOI: 10.2527/2001.7971763x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  13 in total

1.  Welfare assessment in transgenic pigs expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP).

Authors:  Reinhard C Huber; Liliana Remuge; Ailsa Carlisle; Simon Lillico; Peter Sandøe; Dorte B Sørensen; C Bruce A Whitelaw; I Anna S Olsson
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Comparative muscle proteomics/phosphoproteomics analysis provides new insight for the biosafety evaluation of fat-1 transgenic cattle.

Authors:  Xiangbo Xin; Xinfeng Liu; Xin Li; Xiangbin Ding; Shuping Yang; Congfei Jin; Guangpeng Li; Hong Guo
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.788

3.  The growth and reproduction performance of TALEN-mediated β-lactoglobulin-knockout bucks.

Authors:  Hengtao Ge; Chenchen Cui; Jun Liu; Yan Luo; Fusheng Quan; Yaping Jin; Yong Zhang
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.788

4.  Molecular-based environmental risk assessment of three varieties of genetically engineered cows.

Authors:  Jianxiang Xu; Jie Zhao; Jianwu Wang; Yaofeng Zhao; Lei Zhang; Mingxing Chu; Ning Li
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2011-01-09       Impact factor: 2.788

5.  Safety assessment of sFat-1 transgenic pigs by detecting their co-habitant microbe in intestinal tract.

Authors:  Maoxue Tang; Xinmin Zheng; Wenke Cheng; Erhui Jin; Hongxing Chen; Shulin Yang; Wentao Cui; Kui Li
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 2.788

6.  [Ethical challenges of genetic manipulation and research with animals].

Authors:  Eduardo Rodríguez Yunta
Journal:  Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec

7.  Unusual metabolic characteristics in skeletal muscles of transgenic rabbits for human lipoprotein lipase.

Authors:  Florence Gondret; Sanjay B Jadhao; Marie Damon; Patrick Herpin; Céline Viglietta; Louis-Marie Houdebine; Jean-François Hocquette
Journal:  Lipids Health Dis       Date:  2004-12-09       Impact factor: 3.876

8.  Genomics and ethics: the case of cloned and/or transgenic animals.

Authors:  Béatrice de Montera
Journal:  Comp Funct Genomics       Date:  2003

9.  The Effects of GH Transgenic Goats on the Microflora of the Intestine, Feces and Surrounding Soil.

Authors:  Zekun Bao; Xue Gao; Qiang Zhang; Jian Lin; Weiwei Hu; Huiqing Yu; Jianquan Chen; Qian Yang; Qinghua Yu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Assessment of fecundity and germ line transmission in two transgenic pig lines produced by sleeping beauty transposition.

Authors:  Wiebke Garrels; Stephanie Holler; Nicole Cleve; Heiner Niemann; Zoltan Ivics; Wilfried A Kues
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 4.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.