4.1 Article

Treatment of Nuclear-Donor Cells or Cloned Zygotes with Chromatin-Modifying Agents Increases Histone Acetylation But Does Not Improve Full-Term Development of Cloned Cattle

Journal

CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 235-247

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/cell.2011.0079

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Foundation for the Support of Research of the State of Sao Paulo [FAPESP-2009/06689-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a promising tool, its potential use is hampered by the high mortality rates during the development to term of cloned offspring. Abnormal epigenetic reprogramming of donor nuclei after SCNT is thought to be the main cause of this low efficiency. We hypothesized that chromatin-modifying agents (CMAs) targeting chromatin acetylation and DNA methylation could alter the chromatin configuration and turn them more amenable to reprogramming. Thus, bovine fibroblasts were treated with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (AZA) plus trichostatin (TSA) or hydralazine (HH) plus valproic acid (VPA) whereas, in another trial, cloned bovine zygotes were treated with TSA. The treatment of fibroblasts with either AZA + TSA or HH + VPA increased histone acetylation, but did not affect the level of DNA methylation. However, treatment with HH + VPA decreased cellular viability and proliferation. The use of these cells as nuclear donors showed no positive effect on pre- and postimplantation development. Regarding the treatment of cloned zygotes with TSA, treated one-cell embryos showed an increase in the acetylation patterns, but not in the level of DNA methylation. Moreover, this treatment revealed no positive effect on pre- and postimplantation development. This work provides evidence the treatment of either nuclear donor cells or cloned zygotes with CMAs has no positive effect on pre- and postimplantation development of cloned cattle.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available