Reproduction in Domestic Animals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

416 B ObackRenard JP, Maruotti J, Jouneau A, Vignon X, 2007: Nuclearreprogramming and pluripotency of embryonic cells: Applicationto the isolation of embryonic stem cells in farmanimals. Theriogenology. 68, Suppl 1 S196–S205.Rideout WM, 3rd, Wakayama T, Wutz A, Eggan K, Jackson-Grusby L, Dausman J, Yanagimachi R, Jaenisch R, 2000:Generation of mice from wild-type and targeted ES cells bynuclear cloning. Nat Genet 24, 109–110.Robl JM, Gilligan B, Critser ES, First NL, 1986: Nucleartransplantation in mouse embryos: assessment of recipientcell stage. Biol Reprod 34, 733–739.Saito S, Sawai K, Ugai H, Moriyasu S, Minamihashi A,Yamamoto Y, Hirayama H, Kageyama S, Pan J, Murata T,Kobayashi Y, Obata Y, Yokoyama KK, 2003: Generationof cloned calves and transgenic chimeric embryos frombovine embryonic stem-like cells. Biochem Biophys ResCommun 309, 104–113.Santos F, Zakhartchenko V, Stojkovic M, Peters A, JenuweinT, Wolf E, Reik W, Dean W, 2003: Epigenetic markingcorrelates with developmental potential in cloned bovinepreimplantation embryos. Curr Biol 13, 1116–1121.Schurmann A, Wells DN, Oback B, 2006: Early zygotes aresuitable recipients for bovine somatic nuclear transfer andresult in cloned offspring. Reproduction 132, 839–848.Shi W, Hoeflich A, Flaswinkel H, Stojkovic M, Wolf E,Zakhartchenko V, 2003: Induction of a senescent-likephenotype does not confer the ability of bovine immortalcells to support the development of nuclear transferembryos. Biol Reprod 69, 301–309.Simonsson S, Gurdon J, 2004: DNA demethylation isnecessary for the epigenetic reprogramming of somatic cellnuclei. Nat Cell Biol 6, 984–990.Smith C, Berg D, Beaumont S, Standley NT, Wells DN,Pfeffer PL, 2007: Simultaneous gene quantitation of multiplegenes in individual bovine nuclear transfer blastocysts.Reproduction 133, 231–242.Smith SL, Everts RE, Tian XC, Du F, Sung LY, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Jeong BS, Renard JP, Lewin HA, Yang X, 2005:Global gene expression profiles reveal significant nuclearreprogramming by the blastocyst stage after cloning. ProcNatl Acad Sci U S A 102, 17582–17587.Somers J, Smith C, Donnison M, Wells DN, Henderson H,McLeay L, Pfeffer PL, 2006: Gene expression profiling ofindividual bovine nuclear transfer blastocysts. Reproduction131, 1073–1084.Sullivan EJ, Kasinathan S, Kasinathan P, Robl JM, Collas P,2004: Cloned calves from chromatin remodeled in vitro. BiolReprod 70, 146–153.Suzuki T, Minami N, Kono T, Imai H, 2006: Zygoticallyactivated genes are suppressed in mouse nuclear transferredembryos. Cloning Stem Cells 8, 295–304.Tada M, Morizane A, Kimura H, Kawasaki H, Ainscough JF,Sasai Y, Nakatsuji N, Tada T, 2003: Pluripotency ofreprogrammed somatic genomes in embryonic stem hybridcells. Dev Dyn 227, 504–510.Takahashi K, Yamanaka S, 2006: Induction of pluripotentstem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblastcultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663–676.Tani T, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y, 2001: Direct exposure ofchromosomes to nonactivated ovum cytoplasm is effectivefor bovine somatic cell nucleus reprogramming. Biol Reprod64, 324–330.Terranova R, Pereira CF, Du Roure C, Merkenschlager M,Fisher AG, 2006: Acquisition and extinction of geneexpression programs are separable events in heterokaryonreprogramming. J Cell Sci 119, 2065–2072.Tian Q, Stepaniants SB, Mao M, Weng L, Feetham MC, DoyleMJ, Yi EC, Dai H, Thorsson V, Eng J, Goodlett D, BergerJP, Gunter B, Linseley PS, Stoughton RB, Aebersold R,Collins SJ, Hanlon WA, Hood LE, 2004: Integrated genomicand proteomic analyses of gene expression in mammaliancells. Mol Cell Proteomics 3, 960–969.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Baldwin DA, Schultz RM, LathamKE, 2007: Tough beginnings: alterations in the transcriptomeof cloned embryos during the first two cell cycles. DevBiol 304, 75–89.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Latham KE, 2007: Deficiency inrecapitulation of stage-specific embryonic gene transcriptionin two-cell stage cloned mouse embryos. Mol Reprod Dev74, 1548–1556.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Latham KE, 2008: Erratum:Deficiency in recapitulation of stage-specific embryonic genetranscription in two-cell stage cloned mouse embryos. MolReprod Dev. 75, 217.Wakayama T, Tateno H, Mombaerts P, Yanagimachi R, 2000:Nuclear transfer into mouse zygotes. Nat Genet 24, 108–109.Wang F, Kou Z, Zhang Y, Gao S, 2007: Dynamic reprogrammingof histone acetylation and methylation in the first cellcycle of cloned mouse embryos. Biol Reprod 77, 1007–1016.Wells DN, Laible G, Tucker FC, Miller AL, Oliver JE, XiangT, Forsyth JT, Berg MC, Cockrem K, L’Huillier PJ, TervitHR, Oback B, 2003: Coordination between donor cell typeand cell cycle stage improves nuclear cloning efficiency incattle. Theriogenology 59, 45–59.Wells DN, Misica PM, Tervit HR, 1999: Production of clonedcalves following nuclear transfer with cultured adult muralgranulosa cells. Biol Reprod 60, 996–1005.Wuensch A, Habermann FA, Kurosaka S, Klose R,Zakhartchenko V, Reichenbach HD, Sinowatz F,McLaughlin KJ, Wolf E, 2007: Quantitative monitoring ofpluripotency gene activation after somatic cloning in cattle.Biol Reprod 76, 983–991.Yabuuchi A, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y, 2002: Effects of aggregationof nuclear-transferred mouse embryos developed fromenucleated eggs receiving ES cells on in vitro and in vivodevelopment. J Reprod Dev 48, 393–397.Yamazaki Y, Makino H, Hamaguchi-Hamada K, Hamada S,Sugino H, Kawase E, Miyata T, Ogawa M, Yanagimachi R,Yagi T, 2001: Assessment of the developmental totipotencyof neural cells in the cerebral cortex of mouse embryo bynuclear transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 14022–14026.Yang F, Hao R, Kessler B, Brem G, Wolf E, ZakhartchenkoV, 2007: Rabbit somatic cell cloning: effects of donor celltype, histone acetylation status and chimeric embryocomplementation. Reproduction 133, 219–230.Yang J, Yang S, Beaujean N, Niu Y, He X, Xie Y, Tang X,Wang L, Zhou Q, Ji W, 2007: Epigenetic marks in clonedrhesus monkey embryos: comparison with counterpartsproduced in vitro. Biol Reprod 76, 36–42.Zeng F, Baldwin DA, Schultz RM, 2004: Transcript profilingduring preimplantation mouse development. Dev Biol 272,483–496.Zhang F, Pomerantz JH, Sen G, Palermo AT, Blau HM, 2007:Active tissue-specific DNA demethylation conferred bysomatic cell nuclei in stable heterokaryons. Proc Natl AcadSci U S A 104, 4395–4400.Zhou W, Xiang T, Walker S, Farrar V, Hwang E, Findeisen B,Sadeghieh S, Arenivas F, Abruzzese RV, Polejaeva I, 2007:Global gene expression analysis of bovine blastocystsproduced by multiple methods. Mol Reprod Dev 75, 744–758.Author’s address (for correspondence): B Oback, AgResearch Ltd.,Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton,New Zealand. E-mail: bjorn.oback@agresearch.co.nzConflict of interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.Ó 2008 The Author. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 417–422 (2008); doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01193.xISSN 0936-6768Nuclear Transfer of Freeze-Dried Somatic Cells into Enucleated Sheep OocytesP Loi 1 , K Matzukawa 2 , G Ptak 1 , Y Natan 3 , J Fulka Jr 4 and A Arav 31 Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Teramo University, Teramo, Italy; 2 National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science,Tsukuba, Japan; 3 Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel; 4 Institute of AnimalProduction, Prague, Czech RepublicContentsLyophilization has been used since long time to preserveyeast and bacteria strains. Subsequently, a great deal ofefforts has been dedicated to the preservation in a dry state ofred blood cells and platelets. However, despite more than30 years passed by, no significant progress has been achieved.Recently, it has been reported that freeze-dried mice spermatozoawere able to generate normal offspring followinginjection into the mature mice oocytes. In this work, weprompted to apply the lyophilization protocol developed formice spermatozoa to sheep somatic cells (lymphocytes andgranulosa cells). More than 350 enucleated sheep oocyteswere injected with granulosa cells, and freeze dried using theprotocol developed for mice sperm cells. Transplanted nucleiorganized large pronuclei with fragmented DNA, but none ofthem entered the first mitosis. In the second part of theexperiments, trehalose and EGTA were found to reducesignificantly the extent of nuclear damage (65% and 55%intact nuclei in lymphocyte and granulosa cells, respectively)following freeze drying. Granulosa cells lyophilized withEGTA ⁄ trehalose and stored at room temperature for 3 yearswere used for nuclear transfer, and the injected oocytes werecultured in vitro for 7 days. Approximately 16% of the oocyteinjected with freeze-dried cells developed into blastocysts. Toconclude, we demonstrated for the first time that nucleatedcells maintain genomic integrity after prolonged storage in adry state, and we were able to achieve early embryonicdevelopment following injection of these cells into enucleatedsheep oocytes.IntroductionLyophilization has been used for the preservation offowl spermatozoa already in the 1950s (Polge et al.1949). The original protocol was applied later to otherspecies (Sherman 1954), but the results in terms ofoffspring production were contradictory (Saacke andMalquist 1961). The definitive proof that dry spermatozoaretain genetic integrity was established only whenmicrosurgical procedures were developed for bypassingthe lack of mobility of freeze-dried spermatozoa, andnormal mice were produced by intracytoplasmic sperminjection (ICSI) of freeze-dried sperm (Wakayama andYanagimachi 1998). A following paper from the samegroup demonstrated the preservation of genomic integrityin freeze-dried spermatozoa (Kusakabe et al. 2001),and more recently these results have been demonstratedin other species (Keskintepe et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2004).The possibility to store male gametes in a dry staterepresents a major breakthrough for storing and shippingmale gametes from mutants, transgenic and otherstrains of laboratory mouse. Lyophilization of spermcould also be an attractive way to store spermatozoa infarm animal species, and especially in human, whereICSI has become a routine procedure in assistedreproduction.The progressive reduction of large animals worldwide(Hilton-Taylor 2000; Margules and Pressey 2000) hassuggested to establish gene banks from species threatenedby extinction (Myers et al. 2000), with the aim touse the cells for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT,Wilmut et al. 1997).Somatic cell nuclear transfer has indeed an obviouspotential for the multiplication of rare genotypes (Corley-Smithand Brandhorst 1999; Loi et al. 2001), but itswide application is prevented by the low efficiency interms of offspring outcomes. Furthermore, the majorityof the endangered mammals are practically unknownfrom a reproductive point of view. Therefore, thestorage of somatic cells for future use, once theprocedure of somatic cell cloning will be reliable, iscertainly a wise step to be undertaken. However, theestablishment of gene banks in the form of cell linesencounters several problems, represented by the costs ofliquid nitrogen. Recently, our group demonstrated thatsomatic cells rendered unviable by heat treatmentretained their potential to generate a normal lamb afternuclear transplantation (Loi et al. 2002). The mainscope of this work was to demonstrate the feasibility ofusing radical approaches for the nuclear reprogrammingof somatic cells, but, as in case of freeze-dried sperm, wealso established that lack of cell viability, as indicated bymassive membrane and cytoplasmic damage, is not anabsolute prerequisite for SCNT.In this work, we developed robust procedures for thepreservation of sheep somatic cells in a freeze-driedstate, and we tested their ability to direct early embryonicdevelopment of enucleated oocytes. The ensuingresults demonstrate for the first time the production ofnormal embryos from nuclear transfer of somatic cellsstored freeze dried for more than 3 years at roomtemperature.Materials and MethodsCell collection and freeze dryingIn the first experiment, granulosa cells dissociated fromin vitro-matured Cumulus Oocyte Complexes (COCs)from Sarda breed ewes were dispersed in 1 ml of HepesbufferedDMEM medium supplemented with 10% FCS;then 100 ll aliquots of the cell suspension were loadedinto 5 ml ampoules and plunged directly into liquidnitrogen. Frozen cells were then passed on pre-cooledstage of a freeze-drying apparatus (Freezone 4.5; LabconcoCorporation, Kansas City, MO, USA) andÓ 2008 Teramo University
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:
Page 320 and 321:
312 RC Bott, DT Clopton and AS Cupp
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
318 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
326 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
332 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
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 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
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 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375: 366 ACO Evans, N Forde, GM O’Gorm
Page 376 and 377: Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 368-
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 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 426 and 427: 418 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
Page 434: Table of Contents Volume 43 · Supp
show all

Reproduction in Domestic Animals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?