| Literature DB >> 27428333 |
Ji Hye Lee1, Ju Lan Chun1, Keun Jung Kim1, Eun Young Kim1, Dong-Hee Kim1, Bo Myeong Lee1, Kil Woo Han1, Kang-Sun Park1, Kyung-Bon Lee2, Min Kyu Kim1.
Abstract
Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a well-known laboratory technique. The principle of the SCNT involves the reprogramming a somatic nucleus by injecting a somatic cell into a recipient oocyte whose nucleus has been removed. Therefore, the nucleus donor cells are considered as a crucial factor in SCNT. Cell cycle synchronization of nucleus donor cells at G0/G1 stage can be induced by contact inhibition or serum starvation. In this study, acteoside, a phenylpropanoid glycoside compound, was investigated to determine whether it is applicable for inducing cell cycle synchronization, cytoprotection, and improving SCNT efficiency in canine fetal fibroblasts. Primary canine fetal fibroblasts were treated with acteoside (10, 30, 50 μM) for various time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Cell cycle synchronization at G0/G1 stage did not differ significantly with the method of induction: acteoside treatment, contact inhibition or serum starvation. However, of these three treatments, serum starvation resulted in significantly increased level of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (99.5 ± 0.3%) and apoptosis. The results also revealed that acteoside reduced ROS and apoptosis processes including necrosis in canine fetal fibroblasts, and improved the cell survival. Canine fetal fibroblasts treated with acteoside were successfully arrested at the G0/G1 stage. Moreover, the reconstructed embryos using nucleus donor cells treated with acteoside produced a healthy cloned dog, but not the embryos produced using nucleus donor cells subjected to contact inhibition. In conclusion, acteoside induced cell cycle synchronization of nucleus donor cells would be an alternative method to improve the efficiency of canine SCNT because of its cytoprotective effects.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27428333 PMCID: PMC4948914 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Effect of contact inhibition, serum starvation, and acteoside treatment on cell cycle synchronization in canine fetal fibroblasts.
| Cell cycle stage, % (mean ± SE) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | G0/G1 stage | S stage | G2/M stage | ||
| Contact inhibition | 84.6 ± 1.2ab | 2.6 ± 0.4 | 12.4 ± 2.5AB | ||
| Serum starvation | 88.2 ± 0.6a | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 7.8 ± 2.8A | ||
| 24 h | 80.8 ± 1.4b | 3.4 ± 0.3 | 15.2 ± 2.4B | ||
| 10 μM | 48 h | 82.4 ± 1.0ab | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 14.0 ± 2.4AB | |
| 72 h | 84.2 ± 0.9ab | 2.5 ± 0.3 | 12.8 ± 2.0AB | ||
| 24 h | 81.1 ± 1.6b | 3.0 ± 0.3 | 15.3 ± 2.7B | ||
| Acteoside | 30 μM | 48 h | 84.5 ± 1.2ab | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 12.7 ± 2.6AB |
| 72 h | 84.2 ± 1.1ab | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 13.0 ± 2.6AB | ||
| 24 h | 82.0 ± 1.7b | 3.0 ± 0.3 | 14.5 ± 3.0B | ||
| 50 μM | 48 h | 82.5 ± 1.6ab | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 14.4 ± 3.3B | |
| 72 h | 84.2 ± 1.0ab | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 12.9 ± 2.5AB | ||
This experiment was repeated five times independently.
Values with different superscripts are statistically significant (P<0.05).
Fig 1ROS levels in canine fetal fibroblasts.
Cell cycle synchronization by (A) contact inhibition, (B) serum starvation and (C) 30 μM acteoside treatment for 48 h. Histograms show levels of ROS detected in canine fetal fibroblasts.
Quantification of ROS
| Groups | Rate (mean ± SE) |
|---|---|
| Contact inhibition | 54.3 ± 4.2a |
| Serum starvation | 99.5 ± 0.3b |
| Acteoside | 42.8 ± 1.8c |
This experiment was repeated four times independently.
† 30 μM acteoside for 48 hours.
Values with different superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).
Fig 2Rates of cell survival, apoptosis and necrosis of canine fetal fibroblasts.
Apoptotic cells in the (A) contact inhibition, (B) serum starvation and (C) 30 μM acteoside treatment for 48 h group were determined by FACS; Quantitative analysis of the FACS results of (D) cell survival, (E) apoptosis, and (F) necrosis. This experiment was repeated four times independently. (P<0.05)
In vitro development of canine nuclear transfer embryos.
| No. of embryos | Fused | Cleaved | 4-cell | 8-cell | >10-cell | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| Contact inhibition | 46 | 22 | 17 | 15 | 7 | 0 |
| (47.5) | (35.2) | (30.5) | (13.7) | |||
| Acteoside | 58 | 35 | 26 | 22 | 11 | 3 |
| (60.8) | (45.1) | (38.4) | (16.9) | (5.8) |
This experiment was repeated five times independently.
† 30 μM acteoside treatment for 48 h.
Production of a cloned dog by SCNT.
| Groups | No. of transferred embryos | No. of recipients | No. of pregnancy | No. of cloned offspring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (pregnancies/recipients, %) | (births/transferred Embryos, %) | |||
| Contact inhibition | 57 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Acteoside | 38 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| (33.3) | (2.6) |
This experiment was repeated three times with acteoside group and six times with contact inhibition group independently.
Fig 3A cloned dog: (A) Ultrasonogram of the fetus in the fetal vesicle at 32 days after embryo transfer; (B) The cloned beagle at 2 months of age.
Microsatellite analysis of the cloned dog.
| Marker | PEZ 1 | PEZ 3 | PEZ 8 | PEZ12 | FH 2010 | FH 2054 | FH 2079 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oocyte donor | 119/127 | 120/120 | 236/244 | 299/303 | 227/231 | 171/171 | 276/280 |
| Cloned dog | 115/119 | 120/120 | 232/236 | 273/281 | 231/239 | 163/167 | 276/280 |
| Nucleus donor cell | 115/119 | 120/120 | 232/236 | 273/281 | 231/239 | 163/167 | 276/280 |
| Surrogate | 115/123 | 120/120 | 240/240 | 269/277 | 235/235 | 143/175 | 276/276 |
mtDNA sequences of the cloned dog.
| Nucleotide position | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2207 | 2254 | 7084 | 7089 | 7096 | 7100 | 7109 | 7257 | 7272 | 7369 | 7389 | 7412 | 7460 | 14354 | 14408 | 14450 | 14492 | |
| Oocyte donor | |||||||||||||||||
| Cloned dog | |||||||||||||||||
| Nucleus donor cell | |||||||||||||||||
| Surrogate | |||||||||||||||||
*GenBank Accession Number: U96639.