4.6 Article

Piglets born from handmade cloning, an innovative cloning method without micromanipulation

Journal

THERIOGENOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue 8, Pages 1104-1110

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.07.021

Keywords

handmade cloning; zona-free; porcine blastocysts; embryo transfer; farrowing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Porcine handmade cloning (HMC), a' simplified alternative of micro manipulation based traditional cloning (TC) has been developed in multiple phases during the past years, but the final evidence of its biological value, births of piglets was missing. Here we report the first births of healthy piglets after transfer of blastocysts produced by HMC. As a cumulative effect of technical optimization, 64.3 +/- 2.3 (mean +/- S.E.M.) reconstructed embryos from 151.3 +/- 4.8 oocytes could be obtained after 3-4 h manual work, including 1 h pause between fusion and activation. About half (50.1 +/- 2.8%, n = 16) of HMC reconstructed embryos developed to blastocysts with an average cell number of 77 3 (n = 26) after 7 days in vitro culture (IVC). According to our knowledge. this is the highest it? vitro developmental rate after porcine somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). A total of 416 blastocysts from HMC, mixed with 150 blastocysts from TC using a cell line from a different breed were transferred surgically to nine synchronized recipients. Out of the four pregnancies (44.4%) two were lost, while two pregnancies went to term and litters of 3 and 10 piglets were delivered by Caesarean section, with live birth/transferred embryo efficiency of 17.2% (10/58) for HMC. Although more in vivo experiments are still needed to further stabilize the system, our data proves that porcine HMC may result in birth of healthy offspring. Future comparative examinations are required to prove the value of the new technique for large-scale application. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available