Literature DB >> 9241054

Production of cloned lambs from an established embryonic cell line: a comparison between in vivo- and in vitro-matured cytoplasts.

D N Wells1, P M Misica, T A Day, H R Tervit.   

Abstract

Nuclear transfer procedures were used to determine the in vivo developmental potential of an ovine embryonic cell line isolated from the inner cell mass of a Day 8 blastocyst-stage embryo. This cell line possessed a differentiated epithelial-like cell morphology. In this study, a comparison was made between in vivo- and in vitro-derived oocytes used as recipient cytoplasts in the nuclear transfer procedure. Cultured cells were induced to quiesce and enter presumptive G0 before being used as donor karyoplasts between passages 8 and 16 of culture. After cell fusion, reconstructed embryos were cultured for 6 days in vitro in embryo culture medium. Blastocyst-stage embryos were subsequently transferred to synchronized recipient ewes (n = 37), and development was allowed to proceed to term. There was a significant effect of source of recipient cytoplast, with development being consistently greater with in vivo compared to in vitro cytoplasts in terms of, respectively, blastocysts produced (24.2 +/- 3.8% vs. 17.1 +/- 2.3%; p = 0.1), Day 35 pregnancy rate (40.0% vs. 9.1 %; p < 0.05), and Day 35 embryo survival (19.4% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.05). A high proportion of fetuses died during late gestation (5 of 8). The major abnormalities were associated with the urogenital tract. However, three lambs were delivered alive following cesarean section on Day 147. One lamb, derived from an in vitro-matured oocyte, died after 10 min, while the remaining two from in vivo-ovulated oocytes are apparently normal and healthy. DNA microsatellite markers conclusively show that the three lambs are genetically identical and were derived from the embryonic cell line. In conclusion, some cells from this blastocyst-derived embryonic cell line are totipotent by nuclear transfer and can produce viable offspring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9241054     DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod57.2.385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Reprod        ISSN: 0006-3363            Impact factor:   4.285


  16 in total

1.  Mitochondrial DNA genotypes in nuclear transfer-derived cloned sheep.

Authors:  M J Evans; C Gurer; J D Loike; I Wilmut; A E Schnieke; E A Schon
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 38.330

2.  Six cloned calves produced from adult fibroblast cells after long-term culture.

Authors:  C Kubota; H Yamakuchi; J Todoroki; K Mizoshita; N Tabara; M Barber; X Yang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-02-01       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Benefits and problems with cloning animals.

Authors:  L C Smith; V Bordignon; M Babkine; G Fecteau; C Keefer
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.008

4.  Limited demethylation leaves mosaic-type methylation states in cloned bovine pre-implantation embryos.

Authors:  Yong-Kook Kang; Jung Sun Park; Deog-Bon Koo; Young-Hee Choi; Sun-Uk Kim; Kyung-Kwang Lee; Yong-Mahn Han
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2002-03-01       Impact factor: 11.598

Review 5.  Cloning in reproductive medicine.

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

6.  Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: how can it be improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming?

Authors:  Kristin M Whitworth; Randall S Prather
Journal:  Mol Reprod Dev       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 2.609

7.  Assessment of difference in gene expression profile between embryos of different derivations.

Authors:  Sujin Kwon; Sangkyun Jeong; Young Sun Jeong; Jung Sun Park; Xiang-Shun Cui; Nam-Hyung Kim; Yong-Kook Kang
Journal:  Cell Reprogram       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 1.987

8.  Establishment of a bovine blastocyst-derived cell line collection for the comparative analysis of embryos created in vivo and by in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or parthenogenetic activation.

Authors:  Neil C Talbot; Anne M Powell; Mary Camp; Alan D Ealy
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 2.416

Review 9.  Stem cell potency and the ability to contribute to chimeric organisms.

Authors:  Irina Polejaeva; Shoukhrat Mitalipov
Journal:  Reproduction       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.906

10.  Viable transgenic goats derived from skin cells.

Authors:  Esmail Behboodi; Erdogan Memili; David T Melican; Margaret M Destrempes; Susan A Overton; Jennifer L Williams; Peter A Flanagan; Robin E Butler; Hetty Liem; Li How Chen; Harry M Meade; William G Gavin; Yann Echelard
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.788

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.