416 B ObackRenard JP, Maruotti J, Jouneau A, Vignon X, 2007: Nuclearreprogramm<strong>in</strong>g and pluripotency of embryonic cells: Applicationto the isolation of embryonic stem cells <strong>in</strong> 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 clon<strong>in</strong>g. Nat Genet 24, 109–110.Robl JM, Gilligan B, Critser ES, First NL, 1986: Nucleartransplantation <strong>in</strong> mouse embryos: assessment of recipientcell stage. Biol Reprod 34, 733–739.Saito S, Sawai K, Ugai H, Moriyasu S, M<strong>in</strong>amihashi 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 frombov<strong>in</strong>e embryonic stem-like cells. Biochem Biophys ResCommun 309, 104–113.Santos F, Zakhartchenko V, Stojkovic M, Peters A, Jenuwe<strong>in</strong>T, Wolf E, Reik W, Dean W, 2003: Epigenetic mark<strong>in</strong>gcorrelates with developmental potential <strong>in</strong> cloned bov<strong>in</strong>epreimplantation embryos. Curr Biol 13, 1116–1121.Schurmann A, Wells DN, Oback B, 2006: Early zygotes aresuitable recipients for bov<strong>in</strong>e somatic nuclear transfer andresult <strong>in</strong> cloned offspr<strong>in</strong>g. <strong>Reproduction</strong> 132, 839–848.Shi W, Hoeflich A, Flasw<strong>in</strong>kel H, Stojkovic M, Wolf E,Zakhartchenko V, 2003: Induction of a senescent-likephenotype does not confer the ability of bov<strong>in</strong>e immortalcells to support the development of nuclear transferembryos. Biol Reprod 69, 301–309.Simonsson S, Gurdon J, 2004: DNA demethylation isnecessary for the epigenetic reprogramm<strong>in</strong>g 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 <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual bov<strong>in</strong>e nuclear transfer blastocysts.<strong>Reproduction</strong> 133, 231–242.Smith SL, Everts RE, Tian XC, Du F, Sung LY, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Jeong BS, Renard JP, Lew<strong>in</strong> HA, Yang X, 2005:Global gene expression profiles reveal significant nuclearreprogramm<strong>in</strong>g by the blastocyst stage after clon<strong>in</strong>g. 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 profil<strong>in</strong>g of<strong>in</strong>dividual bov<strong>in</strong>e nuclear transfer blastocysts. <strong>Reproduction</strong>131, 1073–1084.Sullivan EJ, Kas<strong>in</strong>athan S, Kas<strong>in</strong>athan P, Robl JM, Collas P,2004: Cloned calves from chromat<strong>in</strong> remodeled <strong>in</strong> vitro. BiolReprod 70, 146–153.Suzuki T, M<strong>in</strong>ami N, Kono T, Imai H, 2006: Zygoticallyactivated genes are suppressed <strong>in</strong> mouse nuclear transferredembryos. Clon<strong>in</strong>g Stem Cells 8, 295–304.Tada M, Morizane A, Kimura H, Kawasaki H, A<strong>in</strong>scough JF,Sasai Y, Nakatsuji N, Tada T, 2003: Pluripotency ofreprogrammed somatic genomes <strong>in</strong> embryonic stem hybridcells. Dev Dyn 227, 504–510.Takahashi K, Yamanaka S, 2006: Induction of pluripotentstem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblastcultures by def<strong>in</strong>ed factors. Cell 126, 663–676.Tani T, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y, 2001: Direct exposure ofchromosomes to nonactivated ovum cytoplasm is effectivefor bov<strong>in</strong>e somatic cell nucleus reprogramm<strong>in</strong>g. Biol Reprod64, 324–330.Terranova R, Pereira CF, Du Roure C, Merkenschlager M,Fisher AG, 2006: Acquisition and ext<strong>in</strong>ction of geneexpression programs are separable events <strong>in</strong> heterokaryonreprogramm<strong>in</strong>g. 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, L<strong>in</strong>seley PS, Stoughton RB, Aebersold R,Coll<strong>in</strong>s SJ, Hanlon WA, Hood LE, 2004: Integrated genomicand proteomic analyses of gene expression <strong>in</strong> mammaliancells. Mol Cell Proteomics 3, 960–969.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Baldw<strong>in</strong> DA, Schultz RM, LathamKE, 2007: Tough beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs: alterations <strong>in</strong> the transcriptomeof cloned embryos dur<strong>in</strong>g the first two cell cycles. DevBiol 304, 75–89.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Latham KE, 2007: Deficiency <strong>in</strong>recapitulation of stage-specific embryonic gene transcription<strong>in</strong> two-cell stage cloned mouse embryos. Mol Reprod Dev74, 1548–1556.Vassena R, Han Z, Gao S, Latham KE, 2008: Erratum:Deficiency <strong>in</strong> recapitulation of stage-specific embryonic genetranscription <strong>in</strong> two-cell stage cloned mouse embryos. MolReprod Dev. 75, 217.Wakayama T, Tateno H, Mombaerts P, Yanagimachi R, 2000:Nuclear transfer <strong>in</strong>to mouse zygotes. Nat Genet 24, 108–109.Wang F, Kou Z, Zhang Y, Gao S, 2007: Dynamic reprogramm<strong>in</strong>gof histone acetylation and methylation <strong>in</strong> 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: Coord<strong>in</strong>ation between donor cell typeand cell cycle stage improves nuclear clon<strong>in</strong>g efficiency <strong>in</strong>cattle. Theriogenology 59, 45–59.Wells DN, Misica PM, Tervit HR, 1999: Production of clonedcalves follow<strong>in</strong>g nuclear transfer with cultured adult muralgranulosa cells. Biol Reprod 60, 996–1005.Wuensch A, Habermann FA, Kurosaka S, Klose R,Zakhartchenko V, Reichenbach HD, S<strong>in</strong>owatz F,McLaughl<strong>in</strong> KJ, Wolf E, 2007: Quantitative monitor<strong>in</strong>g ofpluripotency gene activation after somatic clon<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> cattle.Biol Reprod 76, 983–991.Yabuuchi A, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y, 2002: Effects of aggregationof nuclear-transferred mouse embryos developed fromenucleated eggs receiv<strong>in</strong>g ES cells on <strong>in</strong> vitro and <strong>in</strong> vivodevelopment. J Reprod Dev 48, 393–397.Yamazaki Y, Mak<strong>in</strong>o H, Hamaguchi-Hamada K, Hamada S,Sug<strong>in</strong>o H, Kawase E, Miyata T, Ogawa M, Yanagimachi R,Yagi T, 2001: Assessment of the developmental totipotencyof neural cells <strong>in</strong> 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 clon<strong>in</strong>g: effects of donor celltype, histone acetylation status and chimeric embryocomplementation. <strong>Reproduction</strong> 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 <strong>in</strong> clonedrhesus monkey embryos: comparison with counterpartsproduced <strong>in</strong> vitro. Biol Reprod 76, 36–42.Zeng F, Baldw<strong>in</strong> DA, Schultz RM, 2004: Transcript profil<strong>in</strong>gdur<strong>in</strong>g 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 <strong>in</strong> stable heterokaryons. Proc Natl AcadSci U S A 104, 4395–4400.Zhou W, Xiang T, Walker S, Farrar V, Hwang E, F<strong>in</strong>deisen B,Sadeghieh S, Arenivas F, Abruzzese RV, Polejaeva I, 2007:Global gene expression analysis of bov<strong>in</strong>e 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 <strong>in</strong>terest: The author declares no conflict of <strong>in</strong>terest.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 <strong>in</strong>to 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 s<strong>in</strong>ce long time to preserveyeast and bacteria stra<strong>in</strong>s. Subsequently, a great deal ofefforts has been dedicated to the preservation <strong>in</strong> 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 offspr<strong>in</strong>g follow<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>jection <strong>in</strong>to 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 <strong>in</strong>jected with granulosa cells, and freeze dried us<strong>in</strong>g 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%<strong>in</strong>tact nuclei <strong>in</strong> lymphocyte and granulosa cells, respectively)follow<strong>in</strong>g freeze dry<strong>in</strong>g. Granulosa cells lyophilized withEGTA ⁄ trehalose and stored at room temperature for 3 yearswere used for nuclear transfer, and the <strong>in</strong>jected oocytes werecultured <strong>in</strong> vitro for 7 days. Approximately 16% of the oocyte<strong>in</strong>jected with freeze-dried cells developed <strong>in</strong>to blastocysts. Toconclude, we demonstrated for the first time that nucleatedcells ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> genomic <strong>in</strong>tegrity after prolonged storage <strong>in</strong> adry state, and we were able to achieve early embryonicdevelopment follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>jection of these cells <strong>in</strong>to enucleatedsheep oocytes.IntroductionLyophilization has been used for the preservation offowl spermatozoa already <strong>in</strong> the 1950s (Polge et al.1949). The orig<strong>in</strong>al protocol was applied later to otherspecies (Sherman 1954), but the results <strong>in</strong> terms ofoffspr<strong>in</strong>g production were contradictory (Saacke andMalquist 1961). The def<strong>in</strong>itive proof that dry spermatozoareta<strong>in</strong> genetic <strong>in</strong>tegrity was established only whenmicrosurgical procedures were developed for bypass<strong>in</strong>gthe lack of mobility of freeze-dried spermatozoa, andnormal mice were produced by <strong>in</strong>tracytoplasmic sperm<strong>in</strong>jection (ICSI) of freeze-dried sperm (Wakayama andYanagimachi 1998). A follow<strong>in</strong>g paper from the samegroup demonstrated the preservation of genomic <strong>in</strong>tegrity<strong>in</strong> freeze-dried spermatozoa (Kusakabe et al. 2001),and more recently these results have been demonstrated<strong>in</strong> other species (Kesk<strong>in</strong>tepe et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2004).The possibility to store male gametes <strong>in</strong> a dry staterepresents a major breakthrough for stor<strong>in</strong>g and shipp<strong>in</strong>gmale gametes from mutants, transgenic and otherstra<strong>in</strong>s of laboratory mouse. Lyophilization of spermcould also be an attractive way to store spermatozoa <strong>in</strong>farm animal species, and especially <strong>in</strong> human, whereICSI has become a rout<strong>in</strong>e procedure <strong>in</strong> assistedreproduction.The progressive reduction of large animals worldwide(Hilton-Taylor 2000; Margules and Pressey 2000) hassuggested to establish gene banks from species threatenedby ext<strong>in</strong>ction (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 <strong>in</strong>deed 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 <strong>in</strong>terms of offspr<strong>in</strong>g outcomes. Furthermore, the majorityof the endangered mammals are practically unknownfrom a reproductive po<strong>in</strong>t of view. Therefore, thestorage of somatic cells for future use, once theprocedure of somatic cell clon<strong>in</strong>g will be reliable, iscerta<strong>in</strong>ly a wise step to be undertaken. However, theestablishment of gene banks <strong>in</strong> the form of cell l<strong>in</strong>esencounters several problems, represented by the costs ofliquid nitrogen. Recently, our group demonstrated thatsomatic cells rendered unviable by heat treatmentreta<strong>in</strong>ed their potential to generate a normal lamb afternuclear transplantation (Loi et al. 2002). The ma<strong>in</strong>scope of this work was to demonstrate the feasibility ofus<strong>in</strong>g radical approaches for the nuclear reprogramm<strong>in</strong>gof somatic cells, but, as <strong>in</strong> case of freeze-dried sperm, wealso established that lack of cell viability, as <strong>in</strong>dicated bymassive membrane and cytoplasmic damage, is not anabsolute prerequisite for SCNT.In this work, we developed robust procedures for thepreservation of sheep somatic cells <strong>in</strong> a freeze-driedstate, and we tested their ability to direct early embryonicdevelopment of enucleated oocytes. The ensu<strong>in</strong>gresults 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 dry<strong>in</strong>gIn the first experiment, granulosa cells dissociated from<strong>in</strong> vitro-matured Cumulus Oocyte Complexes (COCs)from Sarda breed ewes were dispersed <strong>in</strong> 1 ml of HepesbufferedDMEM medium supplemented with 10% FCS;then 100 ll aliquots of the cell suspension were loaded<strong>in</strong>to 5 ml ampoules and plunged directly <strong>in</strong>to liquidnitrogen. Frozen cells were then passed on pre-cooledstage of a freeze-dry<strong>in</strong>g 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:
Embryo Biotechnologies in Farm Anim
- Page 15 and 16:
Embryo Biotechnologies in Farm Anim
- Page 17 and 18:
Ethical Models for Studying Reprodu
- Page 19 and 20:
Ethical Models for Studying Reprodu
- Page 21 and 22:
Ethical Models for Studying Reprodu
- Page 23 and 24:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 15-2
- Page 25 and 26:
Dietary Pollutants as Risk Factors
- Page 27 and 28:
Dietary Pollutants as Risk Factors
- Page 29 and 30:
Dietary Pollutants as Risk Factors
- Page 31 and 32:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Supp. 2), 23-30
- Page 33 and 34:
Factors Influencing Reproduction in
- Page 35 and 36:
Factors Influencing Reproduction in
- Page 37 and 38:
Factors Influencing Reproduction in
- Page 39 and 40:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 31-3
- 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:
Seasonality of Reproduction in Mamm
- Page 55 and 56:
Seasonality of Reproduction in Mamm
- Page 57 and 58:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
- Page 59 and 60:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
- Page 61 and 62:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
- Page 63 and 64:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
- Page 65 and 66:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 57-6
- 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:
Captive Breeding of Cheetahs in Sou
- Page 79 and 80:
Captive Breeding of Cheetahs in Sou
- Page 81 and 82:
Captive Breeding of Cheetahs in Sou
- Page 83 and 84:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
- Page 85 and 86:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
- Page 87 and 88:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
- Page 89 and 90:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
- Page 91 and 92:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 83-8
- Page 93 and 94:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
- Page 95 and 96:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
- Page 97 and 98:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 89-9
- Page 99 and 100:
Genetic Improvement of Dairy Cow Re
- Page 101 and 102:
Genetic Improvement of Dairy Cow Re
- Page 103 and 104:
Genetic Improvement of Dairy Cow Re
- Page 105 and 106:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
- Page 107 and 108:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
- Page 109 and 110:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
- Page 111 and 112:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
- Page 113 and 114:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
- Page 115 and 116:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
- Page 117 and 118:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
- Page 119 and 120:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
- Page 121 and 122:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 113-
- Page 123 and 124:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
- Page 125 and 126:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
- Page 127 and 128:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
- Page 129 and 130:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
- Page 131 and 132:
Genetic Aspects of Reproduction in
- Page 133 and 134:
Genetic Aspects of Reproduction in
- Page 135 and 136:
Genetic Aspects of Reproduction in
- Page 137 and 138:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 129-
- Page 139 and 140:
Nutritional Interactions and Reprod
- Page 141 and 142:
Nutritional Interactions and Reprod
- Page 143 and 144:
Nutritional Interactions and Reprod
- Page 145 and 146:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 137-
- Page 147 and 148:
Developmental Capabilities of Prepu
- Page 149 and 150:
Developmental Capabilities of Prepu
- Page 151 and 152:
Developmental Capabilities of Prepu
- Page 153 and 154:
Reproductive Physiology, Pathology
- Page 155 and 156:
Reproductive Physiology, Pathology
- Page 157 and 158:
Reproductive Physiology, Pathology
- Page 159 and 160:
Reproduction of Domestic Ferret 151
- Page 161 and 162:
Reproduction of Domestic Ferret 153
- Page 163 and 164:
Reproduction of Domestic Ferret 155
- Page 165 and 166:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 157-
- Page 167 and 168:
Canine Anoestrus, Oestrous Inductio
- Page 169 and 170:
Canine Anoestrus, Oestrous Inductio
- Page 171 and 172:
Canine Anoestrus, Oestrous Inductio
- Page 173 and 174:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 165-
- Page 175 and 176:
The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
- Page 177 and 178:
The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
- Page 179 and 180:
The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
- Page 181 and 182:
Control of Fertility in Females by
- Page 183 and 184:
Control of Fertility in Females by
- Page 185 and 186:
Control of Fertility in Females by
- Page 187 and 188:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 179-
- Page 189 and 190:
Controlling Animal Populations Usin
- Page 191 and 192:
Controlling Animal Populations Usin
- Page 193 and 194:
Controlling Animal Populations Usin
- Page 195 and 196:
Recombinant Gonadotropins in Assist
- Page 197 and 198:
Recombinant Gonadotropins in Assist
- Page 199 and 200:
Recombinant Gonadotropins in Assist
- Page 201 and 202:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 193-
- Page 203 and 204:
Farm Animals Embryonic Stem Cells 1
- Page 205 and 206:
Farm Animals Embryonic Stem Cells 1
- Page 207 and 208:
Farm Animals Embryonic Stem Cells 1
- Page 209 and 210:
Reproduction in Domestic Buffalo 20
- Page 211 and 212:
Reproduction in Domestic Buffalo 20
- Page 213 and 214:
Reproduction in Domestic Buffalo 20
- Page 215 and 216:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 207-
- Page 217 and 218:
Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
- Page 219 and 220:
Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
- Page 221 and 222:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 213-
- Page 223 and 224:
Mother-Offspring Interactions 215an
- Page 225 and 226:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 217-
- Page 227 and 228:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
- Page 229 and 230:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
- Page 231 and 232:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
- 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:
Proteins in Early Equine Conceptuse
- Page 245 and 246:
Proteins in Early Equine Conceptuse
- Page 247 and 248:
Follicular and Oocyte Competence un
- Page 249 and 250:
Follicular and Oocyte Competence un
- Page 251 and 252:
Follicular and Oocyte Competence un
- Page 253 and 254:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 245-
- Page 255 and 256:
Fertilization in the Porcine Fallop
- Page 257 and 258:
Fertilization in the Porcine Fallop
- Page 259 and 260:
Fertilization in the Porcine Fallop
- Page 261 and 262:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
- Page 263 and 264:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
- Page 265 and 266:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
- Page 267 and 268:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
- Page 269 and 270:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
- Page 271 and 272:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
- Page 273 and 274:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
- Page 275 and 276:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
- Page 277 and 278:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
- Page 279 and 280:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
- Page 281 and 282:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 273-
- Page 283:
Lactocrine Programming of Uterine D
- Page 286 and 287:
278 FF Bartol, AA Wiley and CA Bagn
- Page 288 and 289:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 280-
- Page 290 and 291:
282 KC Caires, JA Schmidt, AP Olive
- Page 292 and 293:
284 KC Caires, JA Schmidt, AP Olive
- Page 294 and 295:
286 KC Caires, JA Schmidt, AP Olive
- Page 296 and 297:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 288-
- 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:
298 N Rawlings, ACO Evans, RK Chand
- Page 308 and 309:
300 N Rawlings, ACO Evans, RK Chand
- Page 310 and 311:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 302-
- 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 322 and 323:
314 RC Bott, DT Clopton and AS Cupp
- Page 324 and 325:
316 RC Bott, DT Clopton and AS Cupp
- Page 326 and 327:
318 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
- Page 328 and 329:
320 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
- Page 330 and 331:
322 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
- Page 332 and 333:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 324-
- Page 334 and 335:
326 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
- Page 336 and 337:
328 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
- Page 338 and 339:
330 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
- Page 340 and 341:
332 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
- Page 342 and 343:
334 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
- Page 344 and 345:
336 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
- Page 346 and 347:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 338-
- 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:
350 JM Vazquez, J Roca, MA Gil, C C
- Page 360 and 361:
352 JM Vazquez, J Roca, MA Gil, C C
- Page 362 and 363:
354 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 370 and 371:
362 ACO Evans, N Forde, GM O’Gorm
- Page 372 and 373:
364 ACO Evans, N Forde, GM O’Gorm
- 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 382 and 383: Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 374-
- 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 390 and 391: 382 B Leboeuf, JA Delgadillo, E Man
- Page 392 and 393: 384 B Leboeuf, JA Delgadillo, E Man
- Page 394 and 395: Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 386-
- 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 404 and 405: 396 P Mermillod, R Dalbie` s-Tran,
- Page 406 and 407: 398 P Mermillod, R Dalbie` s-Tran,
- Page 408 and 409: 400 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 426 and 427: 418 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
- Page 428 and 429: 420 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
- Page 430 and 431: 422 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
- Page 434: Table of Contents Volume 43 · Supp