Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T14:52:31.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of recipient breed on delivery rate of cloned miniature pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

Ok Jae Koo ,
Hee Jung Park ,
Dae Kee Kwon ,
Jung Taek Kang ,
Goo Jang  and
Byeong Chun Lee
Ok Jae Koo
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Hee Jung Park
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Dae Kee Kwon
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Taek Kang
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Goo Jang
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Byeong Chun Lee*
Affiliation:
Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151–742, Korea.
*
All correspondence to: Byeong Chun Lee. Department of Theriogenology and Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151–742, Korea. Tel: +822 880 1269. Fax: +822 873 1269. e-mail: bclee@snu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The miniature pig is regarded as a better organ donor breed for xenotransplantation than other pig breeds because the size of their organs is similar to that of humans. To improve efficiency of cloned miniature pig production, we analysed the effect of breed difference between donor cells and embryo recipients on pregnancy rate and delivery rate. Cloned porcine embryos derived from domestic or miniature pig donor cells were transferred to domestic or miniature recipient pigs. Delivery rate was significantly higher when embryos reconstructed with miniature pig donor cells were transferred to miniature pig recipients as compared with that of embryos transferred to domestic pig recipients. However, pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups. The breed of donor cells, but not of embryo recipients, seems likely to affect litter size. From a 13 610 gene cDNA microarray, 1551 (11.7%) genes showed significantly different levels of expression between the fetuses of the two breeds. Vascular endothelial growth factor and c-kit ligand genes related to implantation and maintenance of pregnancy were significantly down-regulated in miniature pigs. In conclusion, the differential gene expression in fetuses interferes with proper fetal/maternal interactions, and results in late-stage pregnancy loss. Our results indicate that the miniature pig is the preferred embryo recipient breed than domestic pig for producing cloned miniature piglets.

Keywords

BreedDelivery rateMiniature pigRecipientSomatic cell nuclear transfer
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 2009 , pp. 203 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biensen, N.J., Wilson, M.E. and Ford, S.P. (1998). The impact of either a Meishan or Yorkshire uterus on Meishan or Yorkshire fetal and placental development to days 70, 90, and 110 of gestation. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 2169–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheong, H.T., Park, K.W., Im, G.S., Lai, L., Sun, Q.Y., Day, B.N. and Prather, R.S. (2002). Effect of elevated Ca2+ concentration in fusion/activation medium on the fusion and development of porcine fetal fibroblast nuclear transfer embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 61, 488–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du, Y., Kragh, P.M., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Schmidt, M., Bogh, I.B., Zhang, X., Purup, S., Jorgensen, A.L., Pedersen, A.M., Villemoes, K., Yang, H., Bolund, L. and Vajta, G. (2007). Piglets born from handmade cloning, an innovative cloning method without micromanipulation. Theriogenology 68, 1104–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estrada, J.L., Collins, B., York, A., Bischoff, S., Sommer, J., Tsai, S., Petters, R.M. and Piedrahita, J.A. (2008). Successful cloning of the Yucatan minipig using commercial/occidental breeds as oocyte donors and embryo recipients. Cloning Stem Cells 10, 287–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horie, K., Fujita, J., Takakura, K., Kanzaki, H., Kaneko, Y., Iwai, M., Nakayama, H. and Mori, T. (1992). Expression of c-kit protein during placental development. Biol. Reprod. 47, 614–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huppertz, B. (2007). The feto-maternal interface: setting the stage for potential immune interactions. Semin. Immunopathol. 29, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, J.W., Park, J.S., Hwang, J.W., Kang, K.S., Lee, Y.S., Song, B.S., Lee, G.J., Yeo, C.D., Kang, J.S., Lee, W.S., Jeon, K.S., Um, C.H., Kim, Y.S., Oh, M.J., Youn, J.P., Li, P., Park, J.E. and Hwang, S.Y. (2004). Gene expression analysis of peroxisome proliferators- and phenytoin-induced hepatotoxicity using cDNA microarray. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 66, 1329–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, O.J., Jang, G., Kwon, D.K., Kang, J.T., Kwon, O.S., Park, H.J., Kang, S.K. and Lee, B.C. (2008). Electrical activation induces reactive oxygen species in porcine embryos. Theriogenology 70, 1111–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurome, M., Ishikawa, T., Tomii, R., Ueno, S., Shimada, A., Yazawa, H. and Nagashima, H. (2008). Production of transgenic and non-transgenic clones in miniature pigs by somatic cell nuclear transfer. J. Reprod. Dev. 54, 156–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E., Lee, S.H., Kim, S., Jeong, Y.W., Kim, J.H., Koo, O.J., Park, S.M., Hashem, M.A., Hossein, M.S., Son, H.Y., Lee, C.K., Hwang, W.S., Kang, S.K. and Lee, B.C. (2006). Analysis of nuclear reprogramming in cloned miniature pig embryos by expression of Oct-4 and Oct-4 related genes. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 348, 1419–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyoshi, K., Saeki, K. and Sato, E. (2000). Improvement in development of porcine embryos reconstituted with cells from blastocyst-derived cell lines and enucleated oocytes by optimization of reconstruction methods. Cloning 2, 175–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prather, R.S., Boquest, A.C. and Day, B.N. (1999). Cell cycle analysis of cultured porcine mammary cells. Cloning 1, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprangers, B., Waer, M. and Billiau, A.D. (2008). Xenotransplantation: where are we in 2008? Kidney Int. 74, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svendsen, O. (2006). The minipig in toxicology. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 57, 335–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vonnahme, K.A. and Ford, S.P. (2004). Differential expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor-receptor system in the gravid uterus of Yorkshire and Meishan pigs. Biol. Reprod. 71, 163–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakai, T., Sugimura, S., Yamanaka, K., Kawahara, M., Sasada, H., Tanaka, H., Ando, A., Kobayashi, E. and Sato, E. (2008). Production of viable cloned miniature pig embryos using oocytes derived from domestic pig ovaries. Cloning Stem Cells 10, 249–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M.E., Biensen, N.J., Youngs, C.R. and Ford, S.P. (1998). Development of Meishan and Yorkshire littermate conceptuses in either a Meishan or Yorkshire uterine environment to day 90 of gestation and to term. Biol. Reprod. 58, 905–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yao, S.K., Zhang, Q., Sun, F.Z. and Liu, P.Q. (2006). Genetic diversity of seven miniature pig breeds (strains) analyzed by using microsatellite markers. Yi Chuan 28, 407–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhu, J., Telfer, E.E., Fletcher, J., Springbett, A., Dobrinsky, J.R., De Sousa, P.A. and Wilmut, I. (2002). Improvement of an electrical activation protocol for porcine oocytes. Biol. Reprod. 66, 635–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziecik, A.J., Biallowicz, M., Kaczmarek, M., Demianowicz, W., Rioperez, J., Wasielak, M. and Bogacki, M. (2005). Influence of estrus synchronization of prepubertal gilts on embryo quality. J. Reprod. Dev. 51, 379–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed