Literature DB >> 18432397

A comparative study on the efficiency of two enucleation methods in pig somatic cell nuclear transfer: effects of the squeezing and the aspiration methods.

Eunsong Lee1, Jose Estrada, Jorge A Piedrahita.   

Abstract

In this study, two enucleation methods, the squeezing and the aspiration methods, were compared. The efficiency of these two methods to enucleate pig oocytes and the in vitro and in vivo viability of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) pig embryos, were evaluated. In the squeezing method, the zona pellucida was partially dissected and a small amount of cytoplasm containing metaphase II (MII) chromosomes and the first polar body (PB) were pushed out. In the aspiration method, the PB and MII chromosomes were aspirated using a beveled micropipette. After injection of fetal fibroblasts into the perivitelline space, reconstructed oocytes were fused and activated electrically, and then cultured in vitro for 6 days or transferred to surrogates. The squeezing method resulted in a higher proportion of degenerated oocytes than the aspiration method (14% vs. 5%). The squeezing method took longer to enucleate 100 oocytes (306 minutes) than the aspirating method (113 minutes). Fusion rate (72-78%) and cleavage rate (67%) were not influenced by the enucleation method but blastocyst formation was improved (P < 0.05) in oocytes enucleated by the aspiration method (5 vs. 9%). When SCNT embryos were transferred to recipients, pregnancy rates to term were similar (27%, 3/11 and 27%, 3/11) in both methods with the birth of 10 piglets/3 litters and 16 piglets/3 litters in the squeezing and the aspiration methods, respectively. Our results indicate that the aspiration method for oocyte enucleation is more efficient than the squeezing method in producing a large number of pig SCNT embryos with normal in vivo viability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18432397      PMCID: PMC2637217          DOI: 10.1080/10495390701839264

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Biotechnol        ISSN: 1049-5398            Impact factor:   2.282


  30 in total

1.  The health profile of cloned animals.

Authors:  Jose B Cibelli; Keith H Campbell; George E Seidel; Michael D West; Robert P Lanza
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Comparison of bulk enucleation methods for porcine oocytes.

Authors:  Christian Savard; Susan Novak; Antoine Saint-Cyr; Marc Moreau; Francois Pothier; Marc-André Sirard
Journal:  Mol Reprod Dev       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.609

3.  Effect of demecolcine and nocodazole on the efficiency of chemically assisted removal of chromosomes and the developmental potential of nuclear transferred porcine oocytes.

Authors:  Masahiro Kawakami; Tetsuya Tani; Akiko Yabuuchi; Tatsuya Kobayashi; Hiroshi Murakami; Tatsuya Fujimura; Yoko Kato; Yukio Tsunoda
Journal:  Cloning Stem Cells       Date:  2003

4.  Pregnancy: a cloned horse born to its dam twin.

Authors:  Cesare Galli; Irina Lagutina; Gabriella Crotti; Silvia Colleoni; Paola Turini; Nunzia Ponderato; Roberto Duchi; Giovanna Lazzari
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-08-07       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells.

Authors:  I Wilmut; A E Schnieke; J McWhir; A J Kind; K H Campbell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-02-27       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts.

Authors:  J B Cibelli; S L Stice; P J Golueke; J J Kane; J Jerry; C Blackwell; F A Ponce de León; J M Robl
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Production of transgenic-clone pigs by the combination of ICSI-mediated gene transfer with somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Authors:  Mayuko Kurome; Hideto Ueda; Ryo Tomii; Katsutoshi Naruse; Hiroshi Nagashima
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.788

8.  Premature chromosome condensation is not essential for nuclear reprogramming in bovine somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Authors:  Li-Ying Sung; Perng-Chih Shen; B-Seon Jeong; Jie Xu; Ching-Chien Chang; Winston T K Cheng; Jiin-Shyan Wu; Shan-Nan Lee; Diane Broek; David Faber; X Cindy Tian; Xiangzhong Yang; Fuliang Du
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 4.285

9.  Production of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout pigs by nuclear transfer cloning.

Authors:  Liangxue Lai; Donna Kolber-Simonds; Kwang-Wook Park; Hee-Tae Cheong; Julia L Greenstein; Gi-Sun Im; Melissa Samuel; Aaron Bonk; August Rieke; Billy N Day; Clifton N Murphy; David B Carter; Robert J Hawley; Randall S Prather
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-01-03       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Cloned transgenic cattle produce milk with higher levels of beta-casein and kappa-casein.

Authors:  Brigid Brophy; Grant Smolenski; Thomas Wheeler; David Wells; Phil L'Huillier; Götz Laible
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2003-01-27       Impact factor: 54.908

View more
  3 in total

1.  Transgenic Stra8-EYFP pigs: a model for developing male germ cell technologies.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Sommer; Lauren R Jackson; Sean G Simpson; Edwin B Collins; Jorge A Piedrahita; Robert M Petters
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Varying phenotypes in swine versus murine transgenic models constitutively expressing the same human Sonic hedgehog transcriptional activator, K5-HGLI2 Delta N.

Authors:  Amy C McCalla-Martin; Xiaoxin Chen; Keith E Linder; Jose L Estrada; Jorge A Piedrahita
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2010-01-23       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 3.  Lessons Learned from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

Authors:  Chantel Gouveia; Carin Huyser; Dieter Egli; Michael S Pepper
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 5.923

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.