| Literature DB >> 30123717 |
Xiuzhi Tian1,2, Dongying Lv1, Teng Ma1, Shoulong Deng1,3, Minghui Yang1, Yukun Song1, Xiaosheng Zhang4, Jinglong Zhang4, Juncai Fu1, Zhengxing Lian1, Shien Zhu1, Yingjie Wu1, Yiming Xing5, Guoshi Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The open pulled straw (OPS) vitrification method has been successfully applied in mouse, pig, and goat embryos as well as in buffalo oocytes, but it has not yet been applied to the microinjected embryos. This study examined the effects of OPS vitrification on embryo development and the reproductive capacity of the transgenic offspring in order to establish a method for preservation of microinjected embryos.Entities:
Keywords: AANAT; OPS vitrification; Pronuclear microinjection; Sheep
Year: 2018 PMID: 30123717 PMCID: PMC6087419 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1The structure of pBC1-AANAT plasmid.
Figure 2Pictures of embryos before and after vitrification.
(A) Microinjected embryos before vitrification; (B) microinjected embryos after thawing.
Embryo transfer efficiencies of frozen/non-frozen microinjected pronuclear embryos and the positive rate of the offspring.
| Group | No. of recipients | No. of embryos transferred | Pregnancy rate (%) | Lambing rate (%) | No. of survival offspring | Survival rate (%) | No. of average lamb survival | The average birth weight (kg) | PCR positive rate(%) | Squencing positive rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-frozen | 167 | 5.1a | 33.5a (56/167) | 44.3a (74/167) | 67 | 90.5a (67/74) | 1.2 (67/56) | 3.6b | 63.7 (47/74) | 63.7 (47/74) |
| Frozen | 14 | 8.7b | 21.4b (3/14) | 35.7b (5/14) | 4 | 80.0b (4/5) | 1.3 (4/3) | 4.4a | 60.0 (3/5) | 60.0 (3/5) |
Notes:
Each value represents the mean. Different superscripts in the same column differ significantly (P < 0.05). Pregnancy rate: no. of pregnancy recipients/No. of recipients transferred; Lambing rate: no. of offspring/No. of recipients transferred; survival rate: no. of survival offspring/No. of offspring; No. of average lamb survival: no. of survival offspring/no. of pregnancy recipients.
Figure 3The PCR detection of transgenic offspring.
M, marker, 1–13 represents transgenic offspring.
Figure 4The sequencing detection of transgenic offspring.
Superovulation efficiency of the transgenic offspring.
| Group | No. of donors | No. of average acquired oocytes |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | 8.4 ± 1.5b | |
| 3 | 15.0 ± 2.6a |
Notes:
Each value represents the mean. Different superscripts in the same column differ significantly (P < 0.01).
Reproductive efficiency of the transgenic and non-transgenic offspring.
| Group | Pregnancy rate (%) | No. of average lamb survival | The average birth weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42.1b (8/19) | 1.2b | 3.5 ± 0.7 | |
| 57.9a (11/19) | 1.8a | 3.7 ± 0.3 |
Notes:
Each value represents the mean.
Different superscripts in the same column differ significantly (P < 0.01).
Figure 5Serum FSH, LH, E2, GnRH, and MT were measured in AANAT+ and AANAT− females.
AANAT+: AANAT transgenic-positive females; AANAT−: AANAT-negative females. (A–E) Serum production of FSH, LH, E2, GnRH, and MT collected at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 h after vaginal CIDR removal from the control and transgenic-positive females. The times of 12, 36, and 60 h were at night. *Represents significant differences, P < 0.05.