4.6 Article

Spermatogenesis regeneration by transfected spermatogonial stem cells in infertile roosters through testicular transplantation

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 100-106

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2022.12.026

关键词

Regeneration; Rooster; Spermatogenesis; Transfected; Transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to investigate the feasibility of regenerating spermatogenesis in infertile roosters by transplanting transfected SSCs into testes. The results showed that transfected SSCs transplanted into testes could lead to the detection of transgenic material in the roosters' spermatozoa and offspring. However, no transgenic offspring were found through mating and PCR testing.
Investigations pertaining to spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) have led to the use of these cells in a variety of fields including infertility treatments, production of transgenic animals, and genome editing. The aim of the present study was to investigate the plausibility of regenerating spermatogenesis in infertile roosters by transplanting transfected SSCs into testes. Spermatogonial stem cells were isolated and cultured for seven days. Afterward, pDB2, a plasmid vector carrying a reporter gene, GFP, was transfected into the SSCs. Transfected SSCs were transplanted into the left testis of infertile roosters. Tissue samples from the recipients' testes were obtained six weeks after the transplantation and transplanted SSCs were observed in the basement membrane. After eight weeks, GFP-positive spermatozoa were observed in collected semen from the recipient roosters and GFP gene in spermatozoa was confirmed using PCR. The recipient roosters were mated with hens. Hatchlings were visually checked and their tissue samples were tested by PCR to identify transgenesis but both of them were negative. Overall, it seems that regeneration of spermatogenesis in roosters via transfected SSCs is possible but more studies are need to produce recombinant proteins by this way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据