Successful cleavage of cloned goat embryos using ear fibroblast cell and fetal fibroblast cell as donor karyoplast in interspecies SCNT

SITI HASLINDA MOHD SHARIF; ASDIANA AMRI; WAN KHADIJAH WAN EMBONG; RAMLI BIN ABDULLAH

doi:10.56093/ijans.v88i9.83545

Authors

SITI HASLINDA MOHD SHARIF Animal Biotechnology Embryo Laboratory (ABEL), Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science
ASDIANA AMRI Animal Biotechnology Embryo Laboratory (ABEL), Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science
WAN KHADIJAH WAN EMBONG Professor, Facultyn of Bioresources and Food Industry, Sultan Zainal Abidin University, Besut Campus, 22200 Besut, Terengganu Darul Iman, Malaysia
RAMLI BIN ABDULLAH Professor, Facultyn of Bioresources and Food Industry, Sultan Zainal Abidin University, Besut Campus, 22200 Besut, Terengganu Darul Iman, Malaysia

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v88i9.83545

Keywords:

Cattle, Donor karyoplast, Goat, Intraspecies SCNT, Interspecies SCNT, Recipient cytoplast

Abstract

The efficiencies in producing cloned ruminant embryos and subsequent production of offspring are still low. The study was conducted to produce cloned goat and cattle embryos using inter- and intraspecies SCNT techniques. This study involved 3 different types of donor karyoplast using goat and cattle oocyte as a recipient cytoplast to produce cloned goat and cattle embryos. The results showed that fetal fibroblast cell (FFC) in interspecies SCNT gave significantly higher 2-cell (64.40 vs. 38.43%), 4-cell (54.24 vs. 24.60%), 8-cell (36.82 vs. 14.54%) and morula (22.10 vs. 7.90%) cloned goat embryos than ear fibroblast cell (EFC). As for intraspecies SCNT using cumulus cell (CC) as a donor karyoplast to produce cloned cattle and goat embryos, the values for cleavage rates were not significantly different which were; 53.57 vs. 57.17%, 33.17 vs. 46.40%, 22.15 vs. 27.30% and 11.90 vs. 15.59%, respectively for all embryo stages. Our results showed that cloned goat and cattle embryos could be produced using different types of donor karyoplast in intra- and interspecies SCNT. However, for goat-cattle interspecies SCNT, FFC was more efficient to produce cloned goat embryos compared to EFC.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdullah R B, Khadijah W E and Kwong P J. 2011. Comparison of intra- and inter-species nuclear transfer techniques in the production of cloned caprine embryos. Small Ruminant Research 98(1–3): 196–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.040

Asdiana A. 2014. ‘Production of cloned intra- and inter-species caprine embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer technique with special reference to donor karyoplast type and recipient cytoplast source.’ Masters Thesis, University of Malaya.

Baguisi A, Behboodi E, Melican D T, Pollock J S, Destrempes M M, Cammuso C, Williams J L, Nims S D, Porter C A, Midura P, Palacios M J, Ayres S L, Denniston R S, Hayes M L, Ziomek C A, Meade H M, Godke R A, Gavin W G, Overstrom E W and Echelard Y. 1999. Production of goats by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nature Biotechnology 17(5): 456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/8632

Baldassarre H and Karatzas C N. 2004. Advanced assisted reproduction technologies (ART) in goats. Animal Reproduction Science 82: 255–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2004.04.027

Cibelli J B, Stice S L and Golueke P J. 1998. Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science 280: 1256–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5367.1256

Dominko T, Mitalipova M, Haley B, Beyhan Z, Memili E, McKusick B and First N L. 1999. Bovine oocyte cytoplasm supports development of embryos produced by nuclear transfer of somatic cell nuclei from various mammalian species. Biology of Reproduction 60: 1496–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod60.6.1496

Forsberg E J, Strelchenko N S, Augenstein M L, Betthauser J M, Childs L A, Eilertsen K J, Enos J M, Forsythe T M, Golueke P J, Koppang R W, Lange G, Lesmeister T L, Mallon K S, Mell G D, Misica P M, Pace M M, Pfister-Genskow M, Voelker G R, Watt S R and Bishop M D. 2002. Production of cloned cattle fromin vitro systems. Biology of Reproduction 67: 327– 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod67.1.327

Hosseini S M, Moulavi F, Foruzanfar M, Hajian M, Abedi P, Rezazade-Valojerdi M and Nasr-Esfahani M H. 2008. Effect of donor cell type and gender on the efficiency of in vitro sheep somatic cell cloning. Small Ruminant Research 78(1): 162–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.06.004

Kues W A, Anger M, Carnwath J W, Paul D, Motlik J and Niemann H. 2000. Cell cycle synchronisation of porcine fetal fibroblasts effects of serum deprivation and reversible cell cycle inhibitors. Biology of Reproduction 62: 412–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod62.2.412

Kwong P J. 2012. ‘Development of intra- and inter-species somatic cell nuclear transfer protocols using ear fibroblast cells as donor karyoplasts for production of cloned caprine embryos.’ Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Malaya.

Lagutina I, Fulka H, Lazzari G and Galli C. 2013. Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: advancements and problems. Cellular Reproramming 15(5): 374–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cell.2013.0036

Lee J W, Wu S C, Tian X C, Barber M, Hoagland T, Riesen J, Lee K H, Tu C F, Cheng W T and Yang X. 2003. Production of cloned pigs by whole-cell intracytoplasmic microinjection. Biology of Reproduction 69(3): 995–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.103.015917

Li Y, Li Y, Dai Y, Du W, Zhao C, Wang H, Wang L, Li R, Liu Y, Wan R and Li N. 2006. Cloned endangered species takin (Budorcas taxicolor) by inter-species nuclear transfer and comparison of the blastocyst development with yalk (Bos grunniens) and bovine. Molecular Reproduction and Development 73: 189–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.20405

Nurin F N. 2016. ‘Production of interspecies cloned caprine embryos and mouse embryonic fibroblast feeder cell layer to culture embryonic stem cell.’ Masters Thesis, University of Malaya.

Powell A M, Talbot N C, Wells K D, Kerr D E, Pursel V G and Wall R J. 2004. Cell donor influences success of producing cattle by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Biology of Reproduction 71: 210–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.104.027193

Saikhun J, Pavasuthipaisit K, Jaruansuwan M and Kitiyanant Y. Xenonuclear transplantation of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) fetal and adult somatic cell nuclei into bovine (Bos indicus) oocyte cytoplasm and their subsequent development. Theriogenology 57(7): 1829–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)00667-2

Selokar N L, George A, Saha A P, Sharma R, Muzaffer M, Shah R A, Palta P, Chauhan M S, Manik R S and Singla S K. 2011. Production of interspecies handmade cloned embryos by nuclear transfer of cattle, goat and rat fibroblasts to buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) oocytes. Animal Reproduction Science 123(3–4): 279–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.01.008

Shah R A, George A, Singh M K, Kumar D, Anand T, Chauhan M S, Manik R S, Palta P and Singla S K. 2009. Pregnancies established from handmade cloned blastocysts reconstructed using skin fibroblasts in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Theriogenology 71: 1215–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.10.004

Soh H H. 2012. ‘Production of cloned-caprine embryos in vitro obtained from interspecies nuclear transfer using bovine cytoplast and caprine karyoplast.’ Masters Thesis, University of Malaya.

Yang C Y, Li R C, Pang C Y, Yang B Z, Qin G S, Chen M T, Zhang X F, Huang F X, Zheng H Y, Huang Y J and Liang X W. 2010. Study on the inter-subspecies nuclear transfer of river buffalo somatic cell nuclei into swamp buffalo oocyte cytoplasm. Animal Reproduction Science 121(1–2): 78–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.05.011

Ying C, He Z X, Liu A, Wang K, Mao W W, Chu J X, Lu Y, Fang Z F, Shi Y T, Yang Q Z and Da Yuan C H. 2003. Embryonic stem cells generated by nuclear transfer of human somatic nuclei into rabbit oocytes. Cell Research 13: 251–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cr.7290170

Wakayama T and Yanagimachi R. 2001. Mouse cloning with nucleus donor cells of different age and type. Molecular Reproduction and Development 58(4): 376–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2795(20010401)58:4<376::AID-MRD4>3.0.CO;2-L