Reproduction in Domestic Animals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$(Microsoft PowerPoint - Lecci\363n 2_07.ppt)$

354 JM Vazquez, J Roca, MA Gil, C Cuello, I Parrilla, I Caballero, JL Vazquez and EA MartıńezNadir S, Saacke RG, Bame JH, Mullins J, Degelos S, 1993:Effect of freezing semen and dosage of sperm on number ofaccessory sperm, fertility and embryo quality in artificiallyinseminated cattle. J Anim Sci 71, 199–204.Rath D, 2002: Low Dose insemination in the Sow-A review.Rep Dom Anim 37, 201–205.Rath D, Ruiz S, Sieg B, 2003: Birth of female piglets followingintrauterine insemination of a sow using flow cytometricallysexed boar semen. Vet Rec 152, 400–401.Roca J, Carvajal G, Lucas X, Vazquez JM, Martinez EA,2003: Fertility of weaned sows after deep intrauterineinsemination with a reduced number of frozen-thawedspermatozoa. Theriogenology 60, 77–87.Roca J, Vazquez JM, Gil MA, Cuello C, Parrilla I, MartinezEA, 2006: Challenges in pig artificial insemination. ReprodDom Anim 41(Suppl. 2), 43–53.Rodriguez-Martinez H, Saravia F, Wallgren M, Tienthai P,Johannisson A, Vazquez JM, Martinez EA, Roca J, Sanz L,Calvete JJ, 2005: Boar spermatozoa in the oviduct. Theriogenology63, 514–535.Rodriguez-Vilar L, Lo´pez-Sánchez C, Bolarıń A, HernańdezM, Vazquez JM, Martinez EA, Roca J, 2006: Effects ofinsertion of deep intrauterine insemination device into oneuterine horn on the reproductive performance of multiparoussows. Reprod Dom Anim 41 (Suppl. 2), 124 (abstract).String A, Berber E, Foroutani A, Macho JR, Pearl JM,Siperstein AE, 2001: Use of optical access trocar for safe andrapid entry in various laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc15, 570–573.Tummaruk P, Sumransap P, Techakumphu M, KunavongkritA, 2007: Distribution of spermatozoa and embryos in thefemale reproductive tract after unilateral deep intra uterineinsemination in the pig. Reprod Domest Anim 42, 603–609.Vazquez JM, Martıńez EA, Parrilla I, Cuello C, Gil MA,Lucas X, Roca J, Vazquez JL, Didion BA, Day BN2001:Deep intrauterine insemination in natural post-weaningoestrus sows. In: Sixth International Conference on PigReproduction, Columbia, MO, USA, pp. 132.Vazquez JM, Martinez EA, Parrilla I, Roca J, Gil MA,Vazquez JL, 2003: Birth of piglets after deep intrauterineinsemination with flow cytometrically sorted spermatozoa.Theriogenology 59, 1605–1614.Vazquez JM, Martinez EA, Roca J, Gil MA, Parrilla I, CuelloC, Carvajal G, Lucas X, Vazquez JL, 2005: Improving theefficiency of sperm technologies in pigs: the value of deepintrauterine insemination. Theriogenology 63, 536–547.Vazquez JM, Martinez EA, Parrilla I, Cuello C, Gil MA,Garcia E, Caballero I, Alminana C, Roca J, Vazquez JL,2006: Laparoscopic intraoviductal insemination in pigs: Anew tool for improving the efficiency of sex sorted spermatozoa.Reprod Domest Anim 41, 298 (abstract).Watson PF2000: The causes of reduced fertility with cryopreservedsemen. Anim Reprod Sci 60–61, 481–492.Wongtawan T, Saravia F, Wallgren M, Caballero I, Rodriguez-MartinezH, 2006: Fertility after deep intra-uterineartificial insemination of concentrated low-volume boarsemen doses. Theriogenology 65, 773–787.Author’s address (for correspondence): JM Vazquez, Department ofAnimal Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,Campus de Espinardo, University of Murcia, E-30071, Murcia, Spain.E-mail: vazquez@um.esConflict of interest: All authors declare that the financial supportwithin the past two years has been obtained from: CICYT (AGF98-0533; AGL2001-0471; AGL2004-07546 and AGF2005-00760), CDTI(B288/98; 03.180; 03-402, 04-0231), INIA (RZ01-019), FundacionSéneca de Murcia (PB/74/FS/02, 03002/PI/05 and (04543/GERM/07).The authors have no further conflict of interests.Ó 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 355–358 (2008); doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01184.xISSN 0936-6768Production of Transgenic Farm Animals by Viral Vector-Mediated Gene TransferCBA Whitelaw, SG Lillico and T KingThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, EdinburghUKContentsTransgenic technology holds considerable promise to advanceunderstanding in biomedical and agricultural systems withsome believing that one day transgenic animals may directlycontribute to farming and breeding practice. Nevertheless,applications in livestock have been restricted in part by theinefficiency of the technology. The recent development oflentivirus vectors for transgene delivery may overcome some ofthis limitation. This presentation describes these vectors, theiradvantages and limitations.History of Transgenesis in LivestockThe first transgenic livestock were generated more thantwo decades ago (Hammer et al. 1985). As then the useof the pronuclear microinjection technique, althoughinefficient, has been the most commonly used methodfor generating non-rodent transgenic animals. Pronuclearinjection involves the direct injection of thetransgene DNA into one of the two pronuclei in thezygote (Simons et al. 1988; Nottle et al. 2001). Althoughinefficient, with usually only 1% of injected eggsresulting in a transgenic founder animal, the reliabilityof pronuclear injection has ensured that it remains themost used method.The inefficiency of pronuclear injection has been themain driver in the search for more efficient methods.These investigations have resulted in a range of techniqueseach displaying different benefits and limitations(Clark and Whitelaw 2003). The use of sperm as adelivery route to generate transgenic livestock is attractivebecause of its simplicity but suffers from apparentvariability, while nuclear transfer using transgenic cellshas the advantage that all founder animals had to betransgenic but is currently restricted because of lowfoetal survival and high neonatal mortality.Five years after, pronuclear injection was first demonstratedin livestock, an exciting method was developedthat involved sperm-mediated gene transfer(Lavitrano et al. 1989). The concept of simply mixingthe transgene with sperm was very appealing because ofits simplicity. Unfortunately, this method has not seenwide uptake because of apparent variability in success(Brinster et al. 1989; Noseno 2003). Recently, modificationsincluding the use of intracytoplasmic sperminjection (Moreira et al. 2007) or the direct injection ofthe transgene into testes (Coward et al. 2007) may yetrekindle interest in this approach.Then came a huge technological advance; nucleartransfer (Wilmut et al. 1997; Campbell et al. 2006) –commonly called cloning – offers the precise modificationto the genome. In this method, the donor cell usedfor reconstituting the embryo is first made transgenic.Both random (Schnieke et al. 1997) and sequencetargeted (McCreath et al. 2000) transgene integrationis possible. This approach to transgenesis is therefore,somewhat analogous to the long established use ofembryonic stem cells in mice (Capecchi 1989). Incontrast, pronuclear microinjection only offers randomintegration of the transgene, resulting in the transgenesuffering from position-effects, which make expressionof the transgene unpredictable (al-Shawi et al. 1990;Wilson et al. 1990). Therefore, the precise nature of thegenetic modification possible using nuclear transfermakes this approach to altering the activity of a specificgene very attractive. Yet, the method remains inefficientand technically demanding (Campbell et al. 2007); andfor many hypothesis driven studies, this inefficiencyrenders this method too expensive both in cost andanimal numbers.Recently, livestock have been produced using anothermethod, one that has the benefit of being very efficient.This method utilizes a viral vector and builds on theprogress achieved in the development of gene therapystrategies. The use of viral vectors in transgenesis is notnew, with the first ever transgenic mice carrying aretroviral vector transgene (Jaenisch 1976). Yet, thesefirst generation vectors were often transcriptionallysilenced (Pannell and Ellis 2001). The new vectors arebased on a specific type of retrovirus called a lentivirusand are both robustly expressed and offer spectaculartransgenesis efficiencies (Pfeifer 2004; Whitelaw 2004).This presentation describes these vectors, their advantagesand limitations. It does not address what transgenicanimals might be used for: this is left to theimagination of the reader.Lentivirus Vectors – Pros and ConsLentiviruses are infectious retroviral pathogens thatcause a number of diseases in a range of speciesincluding man. Therefore, a lentivirus had to be disabledfor it to be used as a vector (Amado and Chen 1999;Naldinin and Verma 2000; Loewen and Poeschla 2005).Lentivirus vectors are generated by deletion of key genesfrom the viral genome involved in packaging andreplication of the virus from the viral genome. In thismethod, the replication-defective vector is only able togo through the first phase of the infectious cycle once,and not able to produce infectious virus. Vector particlesare produced by introducing the vector DNA into apackaging cell line in trans with the missing proteins bytransfection strategies (Pfeifer 2004).An additional key feature is that exogenous transcriptionelements can be inserted into the vector (Pfeifer2004). This allows control of the spatial and temporaltransgene expression profile. Apart from the introducedÓ 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag
Page 2 and 3:
Reproduction in Domestic AnimalsOff
Page 5 and 6:
Reproductionin Domestic AnimalsTabl
Page 7 and 8:
Minitüb:ProductsforArtificial Inse
Page 9 and 10:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 1-7
Page 11 and 12:
Embryo Biotechnologies in Farm Anim
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Ethical Models for Studying Reprodu
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Dietary Pollutants as Risk Factors
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Supp. 2), 23-30
Page 33 and 34:
Factors Influencing Reproduction in
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 33h
Page 43 and 44:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 35h
Page 45 and 46:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 37B
Page 47:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 39R
Page 51 and 52:
Seasonality of Reproduction in Mamm
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Regulation of Luteal Function 59and
Page 69 and 70:
Regulation of Luteal Function 61bov
Page 71 and 72:
Regulation of Luteal Function 63(+/
Page 73 and 74:
Regulation of Luteal Function 65sys
Page 75 and 76:
Captive Breeding of Cheetahs in Sou
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
Page 95 and 96:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Genetic Improvement of Dairy Cow Re
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 113-
Page 123 and 124:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Genetic Aspects of Reproduction in
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Nutritional Interactions and Reprod
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Developmental Capabilities of Prepu
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Reproductive Physiology, Pathology
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Reproduction of Domestic Ferret 151
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Canine Anoestrus, Oestrous Inductio
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Control of Fertility in Females by
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Controlling Animal Populations Usin
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Recombinant Gonadotropins in Assist
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Farm Animals Embryonic Stem Cells 1
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Reproduction in Domestic Buffalo 20
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
Page 219 and 220:
Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Mother-Offspring Interactions 215an
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Follicles and Mares 2251982). Simil
Page 235 and 236:
Follicles and Mares 227Studies invo
Page 237 and 238:
Follicles and Mares 229dominant fol
Page 239 and 240:
Follicles and Mares 231trus, spring
Page 241 and 242:
Proteins in Early Equine Conceptuse
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Follicular and Oocyte Competence un
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Fertilization in the Porcine Fallop
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
Page 279 and 280:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Lactocrine Programming of Uterine D
Page 286 and 287:
278 FF Bartol, AA Wiley and CA Bagn
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
282 KC Caires, JA Schmidt, AP Olive
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
290 I Dobrinskisuccessful also betw
Page 300 and 301:
292 I DobrinskiCreemers LB, Meng X,
Page 302 and 303:
294 I DobrinskiOkutsu T, Suzuki K,
Page 304 and 305:
296 N Rawlings, ACO Evans, RK Chand
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313: 304 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X Yanggr
Page 314 and 315: 306 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X YangIn
Page 316 and 317: 308 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X YangHo
Page 318 and 319: Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 310-
Page 320 and 321: 312 RC Bott, DT Clopton and AS Cupp
Page 326 and 327: 318 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
Page 334 and 335: 326 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
Page 340 and 341: 332 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
Page 348 and 349: 340 D Rath and LA JohnsonCommercial
Page 350 and 351: 342 D Rath and LA JohnsonThe Commer
Page 352 and 353: 344 D Rath and LA JohnsonX- and Y-b
Page 354 and 355: 346 D Rath and LA JohnsonWalker SK,
Page 356 and 357: 348 JM Vazquez, J Roca, MA Gil, C C
Page 364 and 365: 356 CBA Whitelaw, SG Lillico and T
Page 366 and 367: 358 CBA Whitelaw, SG Lillico and T
Page 368 and 369: 360 ACO Evans, N Forde, GM O’Gorm
Page 378 and 379: 370 JP Kastelic and JC Thundathilsp
Page 380 and 381: 372 JP Kastelic and JC Thundathilme
Page 384 and 385: 376 GC AlthouseTable 1. Potential s
Page 386 and 387: 378 GC Althousesemen to the domesti
Page 388 and 389: 380 B Leboeuf, JA Delgadillo, E Man
Page 396 and 397: 388 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannFig.
Page 398 and 399: 390 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannMMPs
Page 400 and 401: 392 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannTado
Page 402 and 403: 394 P Mermillod, R Dalbie` s-Tran,
Page 410 and 411: 402 K Kikuchi, N Kashiwazaki, T Nag
Page 412 and 413:
404 K Kikuchi, N Kashiwazaki, T Nag
Page 414 and 415:
406 K Kikuchi, N Kashiwazaki, T Nag
Page 416 and 417:
408 B ObackNumber of publications20
Page 418 and 419:
410 B ObackReprogramming Ability of
Page 420 and 421:
412 B Obackstudies have shown that
Page 422 and 423:
414 B ObackFig. 4. Climbing mount e
Page 424 and 425:
416 B ObackRenard JP, Maruotti J, J
Page 426 and 427:
418 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 434:
Table of Contents Volume 43 · Supp
show all

Reproduction in Domestic Animals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?