The first 20 years of somatic cell nuclear transfer can hardly be described as a success story. Controversially, many factors leading to the fiasco are not intrinsic features of the technique itself. Misunderstandings and baseless accusations alongside with unsupported fears and administrative barriers hampered cloners to overcome the initial challenging period with obvious difficulties that are common features of a radically new approach. In spite of some promising results of mostly sporadic and small-scale experiments, the future of cloning is still uncertain. On the other hand, a reincarnation, just like the idea of electric cars, may result in many benefits in various areas of science and economy. One can only hope that—in contrast to electric cars—the ongoing paralyzed phase will not last for 100 years, and breakthroughs achieved in some promising areas will provide enough evidence to intensify research and large-scale application of cloning in the next decade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkagiS., HosoeM., MatsukawaK., IchikawaA., TanikawaT., and TakahashiS. (2010). Culture of bovine embryos on a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microwell plate. J. Reprod. Dev., 56, 475–479.
2.
AkagiS., MatsukawaK., and TakahashiS. (2014). Factors affecting the development of somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos in cattle. J. Reprod. Dev., 60, 329–335.
3.
BiaseF., RabelC., GuillomotM., HueI., AndropolisK., OlmsteadC., OliveiraR., WallaceR., Giraud-DelvilleC., TaghoutiG., et al. (2016). Massive dysregulation of genes involved in cell signaling and placental development in cloned cattle conceptus and maternal endometrium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 113, 14492–14501.
4.
BordignonV., and SmithL.C. (2006). Telophase-stage host ooplasts support complete reprogramming of roscovitine-treated somatic cell nuclei in cattle. Cloning Stem Cells, 8, 305–317.
5.
CallesenH., LiuY., PedersenH.S., LiR., and SchmidtM. (2014). Increasing efficiency in production of cloned piglets. Cell Reprogram. 16, 2–5.
6.
ChoiY.H., LeeB.C., LimJ.M., KangS.K., and HwangW.S. (2002). Optimization of culture medium for cloned bovine embryos and its influence on pregnancy and delivery outcome. Theriogenology, 58, 1187–1197.
7.
CibelliJ.B., SticeS.L., GoluekeP.J., KaneJ.J., JerryJ., BlackwellC., Ponce de LeonF.A., and RoblJ.M. (1998). Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science, 280, 1256–1258.
8.
CortezJ.V., VajtaG., ValderramaN.M., PortocarreroG.S., and QuintanaJ.M. (2018). High pregnancy and calving rates with a limited number of transferred handmade cloned bovine embryos. Cell Reprogram. 20, 4–8.
9.
de HaasY., PszczolaM., SoyeurtH., WallE., and LassenJ. (2017). Invited review: Phenotypes to genetically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in dairying. J. Dairy Sci., 100, 855–870.
10.
DuY., KraghP.M., ZhangY., LiJ., SchmidtM., BøghI.B., ZhangX., PurupS., JørgensenA.L., PedersenA.M., et al. (2007a). Piglets born from handmade cloning, an innovative cloning method without micromanipulation. Theriogenology, 68, 1104–1110.
11.
DuY., LiJ., KraghP.M., ZhangY., SchmidtM., BøghI.B., ZhangX., PurupS., KuwayamaM., JørgensenA.L., et al. (2007b). Piglets born from vitrified cloned blastocysts produced with a simplified method of delipation and nuclear transfer. Cloning Stem Cells, 9, 469–476.
12.
DuY., LinL., SchmidtM., BøghI.B., KraghP.M., SørensenC.B., LiJ., PurupS., PribenszkyC., MolnárM., et al. (2008a). High hydrostatic pressure treatment of porcine oocytes before handmade cloning improves developmental competence and cryosurvival. Cloning Stem Cells, 10, 325–330.
13.
DuY., PribenszkyC.S., MolnárM., ZhangX., YangH., KuwayamaM., PedersenA.M., VillemoesK., BolundL., and VajtaG. (2008b). High hydrostatic pressure: A new way to improve in vitro developmental competence of porcine matured oocytes after vitrification. Reproduction, 135, 13–17.
14.
FeltrinC., ForellF., MachadoM., QueirozL.M., PeixerM., MalardP., SantanaG., WheelerM.B., and RodriguesJ.L. (2015). Effectiveness of microwell-based in vitro culture systems for zona-free cloned bovine embryos. Acta Sci. Vet., 43, 1298.
15.
ForellF., FeltrinC., do SantosL.C., da CostaU.M., VieiraA.D., HölkerM., and RodirguesJ.L. (2008). Optimization of the somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning system (in Portuguese). Acta Sci. Vet., 36, 221–228.
16.
FrielS., DangourA.D., GarnettT., LockK., ChalabiZ., RobertsI., ButlerA., ButlerC.D., WaageJ., McMichaelA.J., et al. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Food and agriculture. Lancet, 374, 2016–2025.
GalliC., LagutinaI., DuchiR., ColleoniS., and LazzariG. (2008). Somatic cell nuclear transfer in horses. Reprod. Domest. Anim., 43(Suppl 2), 331–337.
19.
GergerR., RossettoR., RibeiroE., OrtigariI., ZagoF., AguiarL., CostaU., LopesR., AmbrósioC., MiglinoM., et al. (2017). Impact of cumulative gain in expertise on the efficiency of handmade cloning in cattle. Theriogenology, 95, 24–32.
20.
GharibzadehZ., RiasiA., OstadhosseiniS., HosseiniS.M., HajianM., and Nasr-EsfahaniM.H. (2015). Effects of heat shock during the early stage of oocyte maturation on the meiotic progression, subsequent embryonic development and gene expression in ovine. Zygote, 23, 573–582.
21.
GibbonsJ., AratS., RzucidloJ., MiyoshiK., WaltenburgR., RespessD., VenableA., and SticeS. (2002). Enhanced survivability of cloned calves derived from roscovitine-treated adult somatic cells. Biol. Reprod., 66, 895–900.
22.
GongG., DaiY., FanB., ZhuH., ZhuS., WangH., WangL., TangB., LiR., WanR., et al. (2004). Birth of calves expressing the enhanced green fluorescent protein after transfer of fresh or vitrified/thawed blastocysts produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 69, 278–288.
23.
HansenP.J. (2007). To be or not to be—determinants of embryonic survival following heat shock. Theriogenology, 68, S40–S48.
24.
HayesO., RamosB., RodríguezL.L., AguilarA., BadíaT., and CastroF.O. (2005). Cell confluency is as efficient as serum starvation for inducing arrest in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle in granulosa and fibroblast cells of cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 87, 181–192.
25.
HeymanY. (2005). Nuclear transfer: A new tool for reproductive biotechnology in cattle. Reprod. Nutr. Dev., 45, 353–361.
26.
HeymanY., Chavatte-PalmerP., BerthelotV., FromentinG., HocquetteJ.F., MartignatL., and RenardJ.P. (2007). Assessing the quality of products from cloned cattle: An integrative approach. Theriogenology, 67, 134–141.
27.
HolmP., BoothP.J., SchmidtM.H., GreveT., and CallesenH. (1999). High bovine blastocyst development in a static in vitro production system using SOFaa medium supplemented with sodium citrate and myo-inositol with or without serum-proteins. Theriogenology, 52, 683–700.
28.
HosseiniS., MoulaviF., and Nasr-EsfahaniM. (2015). A novel method of somatic cell nuclear transfer with minimum equipment. In Cell Reprogramming: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1330. VermaP.J. and SumerH., eds. (Springer Science + Business Media, New York) pp. 169–188.
29.
HosseiniS.M., DufortI., NieminenJ., MoulaviF., GhanaeiH.R., HajianM., JafarpourF., ForouzanfarM., GourbaiH., ShahverdiA.H., et al. (2016). Epigenetic modification with trichostatin A does not correct specific errors of somatic cell nuclear transfer at the transcriptomic level; highlighting the non-random nature of oocyte-mediated reprogramming errors. BMC Genomics 17,16.
30.
InoueK., KohdaT., SugimotoM., SadoT., OgonukiN., MatobaS., ShiuraH., IkedaR., MochidaK., FujiiT., et al. (2010). Impeding Xist expression from the active X chromosome improves mouse somatic cell nuclear transfer. Science, 330, 496–499.
31.
InoueK., OikawaM., KamimuraS., OgonukiN., NakamuraT., NakanoT., AbeK., and OguraA. (2015). Trichostatin A specifically improves the aberrant expression of transcription factor genes in embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Sci Rep. 5,10127.
32.
IsomS.C., PratherR.S., and Rucker IiiE.B. (2009). Enhanced developmental potential of heat-shocked porcine parthenogenetic embryos is related to accelerated mitogen-activated protein kinase dephosphorylation. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 21, 892–900.
33.
IusoD., CzernikM., ToschiM., and FidanzaA. (2015). Exogenous expression of human protamine 1 (hPrm1) remodels fibroblast nuclei into spermatid-like structures. Cell Reprogram. 13, 1765–1771.
34.
KimE.Y., SongD.H., ParkM.J., ParkH.Y., LeeS.E., ChoiH.Y., MoonJ.J., KimY.H., MunS.H., OhC.E., et al. (2013). Post-death cloning of endangered Jeju black cattle (Korean native cattle): Fertility and serum chemistry in a cloned bull and cow and their offspring. J. Reprod. Dev., 59, 536–543.
35.
KishigamiS., and WakayamaT. (2009). Somatic cell nuclear transfer in the mouse. Methods Mol. Biol., 518, 1–12.
36.
KwonD., JiM., LeeS., SeoK.W., and KangK.S. (2017). Reprogramming enhancers in somatic cell nuclear transfer, iPSC technology, and direct conversion. Stem Cell Rev. Rep., 13, 24–34.
37.
LagutinaI., LazzariG., DuchiR., TuriniP., TessaroI., BrunettiD., ColleoniS., CrottiG., and GalliC. (2007). Comparative aspects of somatic cell nuclear transfer with conventional and zona-free method in cattle, horse, pig and sheep. Theriogenology, 67, 90–98.
38.
LandsverkH.B., HåkelienA.M., KüntzigerT., RoblJ.M., SkålheggB.S., and CollasP. (2002). Reprogrammed gene expression in a somatic cell-free extract. EMBO Rep. 3, 384–389.
39.
LeeJ.H., and MaaloufW.E. (2014). Nuclear transfer in ruminants. In Nuclear Reprogramming: Methods and Protocols. Beaujean, N., Jammes, H., Jouneau, A., eds. Springer Science+Business Media, New York. Second Edition. pp.25–36.
40.
LinL., KraghP.M., PurupS., KuwayamaM., DuY., ZhangX., YangH., BolundL., CallesenH., and VajtaG. (2009). Osmotic stress induced by sodium chloride, sucrose or trehalose improves cryotolerance and developmental competence of porcine oocytes. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 21, 338–344.
41.
LinL., LuoY., SørensenP., PrætoriusH., VajtaG., CallesenH., PribenszkyC., BolundL., and KristensenT.N. (2014). Effects of high hydrostatic pressure on genomic expression profiling of porcine parthenogenetic activated and cloned embryos. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 26, 469–484.
42.
LiuT., DouH., XiangX., LiL., et al. (2015). Factors determining the efficiency of porcine somatic cell nuclear transfer: Data analysis with over 200,000 reconstructed embryos. Cell Reprogram. 17, 463–471.
43.
LiuY., Lucas-HahnA., PetersenB., LiR., HermannD., HasselP., ZieglerM., LarsenK., NiemannH., and CallesenH. (2017). Developmental competence and epigenetic profile of porcine embryos produced by two different cloning methods. Cell Reprogram. 19, 171–179.
44.
LiuY., OstrupO., LiJ., VajtaG., LinL., KraghP.M., PurupS., HyttelP., and CallesenH. (2012). Increased blastocyst formation of cloned porcine embryos produced with donor cells pre-treated with Xenopus egg extract and/or digitonin. Zygote, 20, 61–66.
45.
LoiP., IusoD., CzernikM., and OguraA. (2016). A new, dynamic era for somatic cell nuclear transfer?. Trends Biotechnol. 34, 791–797.
46.
MaL., LiuX., WangF., HeX., ChenS., and LiW. (2015). Different donor cell culture methods can influence the developmental ability of cloned sheep embryoso title. PLoS One 10, e0135344.
47.
MaoJ., ZhaoM.-T., WhitworthK.M., SpateL.D., WaltersE.M., O'GormanC., LeeK., SamuelM.S., MurphyC.N., WellsK., et al. (2015). Oxamflatin treatment enhances cloned porcine embryo development and nuclear reprogramming. Cell Reprogram. 17, 28–40.
48.
MartinM., AdamsC., and WisemanB. (2004). Pre-weaning performance and health of pigs born to cloned (fetal cell derived) swine versus non-cloned swine. Theriogenology, 62, 113–122.
49.
MatobaS., InoueK., KohdaT., SugimotoM., MizutaniE., OgonukiN., NakamuraT., AbeK., NakanoT., IshinoF., et al. (2011). RNAi-mediated knockdown of Xist can rescue the impaired postimplantation development of cloned mouse embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 108, 20621–20626.
50.
MatsuuraK. (2014). Numerical calculations for diffusion effects in the well-of-the-well culture system for mammalian embryos. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 26, 742–751.
51.
MullenS.F., AgcaY., BroermannD.C., JenkinsC.L., JohnsonC.A., and CritserJ.K. (2004). The effect of osmotic stress on the metaphase II spindle of human oocytes, and the relevance to cryopreservation. Hum. Reprod., 19, 1148–1154.
52.
Nasr-EsfahaniM.H., HosseiniS.M., HajianM., ForouzanfarM., OstadhosseiniS., AbediP., KhazaieY., DormianiK., GhaediK., ForozanfarM., et al. (2011). Development of an optimized zona-free method of somatic cell nuclear transfer in the goat. Cell Reprogram. 13, 157–170.
53.
O'NeillC. (2008). The potential roles for embryotrophic ligands in preimplantation embryo development. Hum. Reprod. Update, 14, 275–288.
54.
OikawaM., MatobaS., InoueK., KamimuraS., HiroseM., OgonukiN., ShiuraH., SugimotoM., AbeK., IshinoF., et al. (2013). RNAi-mediated knockdown of Xist does not rescue the impaired development of female cloned mouse embryos. J. Reprod. Dev., 59, 231–237.
55.
ParkH.J., KooO.J., KwonD.K., KangJ.T., JangG., and LeeB.C. (2010). Effect of roscovitine-treated donor cells on development of porcine cloned embryos. Reprod. Domest. Anim., 45, 1082–1088.
56.
PerryA.C., and WakayamaT. (2002). Untimely ends and new beginnings in mouse cloning. Nat Genet. 30, 243–244.
57.
PeuraT.T. (2003). Improved in vitro development rates of sheep somatic nuclear transfer embryos by using a reverse-order zona-free cloning method. Cloning Stem Cells, 5, 13–24.
58.
PeuraT.T., HartwichK.M., HamiltonH.M., and WalkerS.K. (2003). No differences in sheep somatic cell nuclear transfer outcomes using serum-starved or actively growing donor granulosa cells. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 15, 157–165.
59.
PeuraT.T., LewisI.M., and TrounsonA.O. (1998). The effect of recipient oocyte volume on nuclear transfer in cattle. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 50, 185–191.
60.
PeuraT.T., and VajtaG. (2003). A comparison of established and new approaches in ovine and bovine nuclear transfer. Cloning Stem Cells, 5, 257–277.
61.
PolgeC. (1952). Fertilizing capacity of bull spermatozoa after freezing at 79°C. Nature, 169, 626–627.
62.
PribenszkyC., DuY., MolnárM., HarnosA., and VajtaG. (2008). Increased stress tolerance of matured pig oocytes after high hydrostatic pressure treatment. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 106, 200–207.
63.
PribenszkyC., and VajtaG. (2011). Cells under pressure: How sublethal hydrostatic pressure stress treatment increases gametes' and embryos' performance? Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 23, 48–55.
64.
PribenszkyC., VajtaG., MolnarM., DuY., LinL., BolundL., and YovichJ. (2010). Stress for stress tolerance? A fundamentally new approach in mammalian embryology. Biol. Reprod., 83, 690–697.
65.
RahmanM.B., VandaeleL., RijsselaereT., ZhandiM., MaesD., ShamsuddinM., and Van SoomA. (2012). Oocyte quality determines bovine embryo development after fertilisation with hydrogen peroxide-stressed spermatozoa. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 24, 608–618.
66.
RallW.F., and FahyG.M. (1985). Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at −196°C by vitrification. Nature, 313, 573–575.
67.
RathboneA.J., FisherP.A, LeeJ.-H., CraigonJ., and CampbellK.H.S. (2010). Reprogramming of ovine somatic cells with Xenopus laevis oocyte extract prior to SCNT improves live birth rate. Cell Reprogram. 12, 609–616.
68.
RibeiroE.D.S., GergerR.P.D.C., OhlweilerL.U., OrtigariI., MezzaliraJ.C., ForellF., BertoliniL.R., RodriguesJ.L., AmbrósioC.E., MiglinoM.A., et al. (2009). Developmental potential of bovine hand-made clone embryos reconstructed by aggregation or fusion with distinct cytoplasmic volumes. Cloning Stem Cells, 11, 377–386.
69.
SahaA., PandaS.K., ChauhanM.S., ManikR.S., PaltaP., and SinglaS.K. (2013). Birth of cloned calves from vitrified-warmed zona-free buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) embryos produced by hand-made cloning. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 25, 860–865.
70.
SainiM., SelokarN.L., AgarwalH., SinglaS.K., ChauhanM.S., ManikR.S., and PaltaP. (2017). Treatment of donor cells and reconstructed embryos with a combination of trichostatin-A and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine improves the developmental competence and quality of buffalo embryos produced by handmade cloning and alters their epigenetic status and gen. Cell Reprogram. 19, 208–215.
71.
SawaiK., FujiiT., HirayamaH., HashizumeT., and MinamihashiA. (2012). Epigenetic status and full-term development of bovine cloned embryos treated with trichostatin A. J. Reprod. Dev., 58, 302–309.
72.
SelokarN.L., SainiM., MuzafferM., KrishnakanthG., SahaA.P., ChauhanM.S., ManikR., PaltaP., MadanP., and SinglaS.K. (2012). Roscovitine treatment improves synchronization of donor cell cycle in G0/G1 stage and in vitro development of handmade cloned buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) embryos. Cell Reprogram. 14, 146–154.
73.
ShufaroY., and ReubinoffB.E. (2011). Cell cycle synchronization for the purpose of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Methods Mol. Biol., 761, 239–247.
74.
SinclairK.D., CorrS.A., GutierrezC.G., FisherP.A., LeeJ.-H., RathboneA.J., ChoiI., CampbellK.H.S., and GardnerD.S. (2016). Healthy ageing of cloned sheep. Nat. Commun. 7,12359.
75.
SugimuraS., AkaiT., HashiyadaY., SomfaiT., InabaY., HirayamaM., YamanouchiT., MatsudaH., KobayashiS., AikawaY., et al. (2012). Promising system for selecting healthy in vitro-fertilized embryos in cattle. PLoS One 7, e36627.
76.
SunX., WangS., ZhangY., WangH., WangL., YingL., LiR., and LiN. (2008). Cell-cycle synchronization of fibroblasts derived from transgenic cloned cattle ear skin: Effects of serum starvation, roscovitine and contact inhibition. Zygote, 16, 111–116.
77.
TakahashiS., and ItoY. (2004). Evaluation of meat products from cloned cattle: Biological and biochemical properties. Cloning Stem Cells, 6, 165–171.
78.
TamashiroK.L.K., WakayamaT., AkutsuH., YamazakiY., LacheyJ.L., WortmanM.D., SeeleyR.J., D'AlessioD.A, WoodsS.C., YanagimachiR., et al. (2002). Cloned mice have an obese phenotype not transmitted to their offspring. Nat. Med., 8, 262–267.
79.
TamashiroK.L., WakayamaT., BlanchardR.J., BlanchardD.C., and YanagimachiR. (2000). Postnatal growth and behavioral development of mice cloned from adult cumulus cells. Biol. Reprod., 63, 328–334.
80.
TecirliogluR.T., FrenchA.J., LewisI.M., VajtaG., KorfiatisN.A., HallV.J., RuddockN.T., CooneyM.A., and TrounsonA.O. (2003). Birth of a cloned calf derived from a vitrified hand-made cloned embryo. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 15, 361–366.
81.
TianX.C., KubotaC., SakashitaK., IzaikeY., OkanoR., TabaraN., CurchoeC., JacobL., ZhangY., SmithS., et al. (2005). Meat and milk compositions of bovine clones. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 102, 6261–6266.
82.
VajtaG., BartelsP., JoubertJ., De La ReyM., TreadwellR., and CallesenH. (2004). Production of a healthy calf by somatic cell nuclear transfer without micromanipulators and carbon dioxide incubators using the Handmade Cloning (HMC) and the Submarine Incubation System (SIS). Theriogenology, 62, 1465–1472.
83.
VajtaG., LewisI.M., HyttelP., ThouasG.A., and TrounsonA.O. (2001). Somatic cell cloning without micromanipulators. Cloning, 3, 89–95.
84.
VajtaG., LewisI., TrounsonA., PurupS., Maddox-HyttelP., SchmidtM., PedersenH., GreveT., and CallesenH. (2003). Handmade somatic cell cloning in cattle: Analysis of factors contributing to high efficiency in vitro. Biol. Reprod., 68, 571–578.
85.
VajtaG., Maddox-HyttelP., SkouC.T., TecirliogluR.T., PeuraT.T., LaiL., MurphyC.N., PratherR.S., KraghP.M., and CallesenH. (2005). Highly efficient and reliable chemically assisted enucleation method for handmade cloning in cattle. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 17, 791–797.
86.
VajtaG., MurphyC.N., MachátyZ., PratherR.S., GreveT., and CallesenH. (1999). In-straw dilution of bovine blastocysts after vitrification with the open-pulled straw method. Vet. Rec., 144, 180–181.
87.
VajtaG., and NagyZ.P. (2006). Are programmable freezers still needed in the embryo laboratory? Review on vitrification. Reprod. Biomed. Online, 12, 779–796.
88.
VajtaG., PeuraT.T., HolmP., PáldiA., GreveT., TrounsonA.O., and CallesenH. (2000). New method for culture of zona-included or zona-free embryos: The well of the well (WOW) system. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 55, 256–264.
89.
VajtaG., RienziL., and BavisterB.D. (2010a). Zona-free embryo culture: Is it a viable option to improve pregnancy rates? Reprod. Biomed. Online, 21, 17–25.
90.
VajtaG., RienziL., CoboA., and YovichJ. (2010b). Embryo culture: Can we perform better than nature? Reprod. Biomed. Online, 20, 453–469.
91.
VandaeleL., ThysM., BijttebierJ., Van LangendoncktA., DonnayI., MaesD., MeyerE., and Van SoomA. (2010). Short-term exposure to hydrogen peroxide during oocyte maturation improves bovine embryo development. Reproduction, 139, 505–511.
92.
VieiraA.D., ForellF., FeltrinC., and RodriguesJ.L. (2007). In-straw cryoprotectant dilution of IVP bovine blastocysts vitrified in hand-pulled glass micropipettes. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 99, 377–383.
93.
WakayamaT., ShinkaiY., TamashiroK.L.K., NiidaH., BlanchardD., BlanchardR., OguraA., TanemuraK., TachibanaM., PerryA., et al. (2000). Cloning of mice to six generations. Nature, 407, 318–319.
94.
WangL.J., ZhangH., WangY.S., XuW.B., XiongX.R., LiY.Y., SuJ.M., HuaS., and ZhangY. (2011a). Scriptaid improves in vitro development and nuclear reprogramming of somatic cell nuclear transfer bovine embryos. Cell Reprogram. 13, 431–439.
95.
WangY.S., XiongX.R., AnZ.X., WangL.J., LiuJ., QuanF.S., HuaS., and ZhangY. (2011b). Production of cloned calves by combination treatment of both donor cells and early cloned embryos with 5-aza-2/-deoxycytidine and trichostatin A. Theriogenology, 75, 819–825.
96.
WellsD.N. (2000). Cloning for animal conservation. Cloning, 2, 152–155.
97.
WellsD.N., and MisicaP.M. (1998). Adult somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to preserve the last surviving cow of the Enderby Island cattle breed. Reprod. Fertil. Dev., 10, 369–378.
98.
WilladsenS., PolgeC., and RowsonL.E. (1978). The viability of deep-frozen cow embryos. J. Reprod. Fertil., 52, 391–393.
99.
WilmutI., and RowsonL.E. (1973). The successful low-temperature preservation of mouse and cow embryos. J. Reprod. Fertil., 33, 352–353.
100.
WilmutI., SchniekeA.E., McWhirJ., KindA.J., and CampbellK.H. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385, 810–813.
101.
WrenzyckiC., HerrmannD., GebertC., CarnwathJ.W., and NiemannH. (2006). Gene expression and methylation patterns in cloned embryos. Methods Mol Biol. 348, 285–304.
102.
YanagimachiR. (2002). Cloning: Experience from the mouse and other animals. Mol. Cell Endocrinol., 187, 241–248.
103.
YangB.Z., YangC.Y., LiR.C., QinG.S., ZhangX., PangC.Y., ChenM.T., HuangF.X., LiZ., ZhengH.Y., et al. (2010). An inter-subspecies cloned buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) obtained by transferring of cryopreserved embryos via somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reprod. Domest. Anim., 45, e21–e25.
104.
YangX., MaoJ., WaltersE.M., ZhaoM.-T., TesonJ., LeeK., and PratherR.S. (2012). Xenopus egg extract treatment reduced global DNA methylation of donor cells and enhanced somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo development in pigs. Biores. Open Access, 1, 79–87.
105.
ZhangP., LiuP., DouH., ChenL., ChenL., LinL., TanP., VajtaG., GaoJ., DuY., et al. (2013). Handmade cloned transgenic sheep rich in omega-3 fatty acids. PLoS One 8, e55941.
106.
ZhangY., FuX., ChenL., FengC., BiJ., MoX., ChengK., ZhangR., LiS., and ZhuS. (2015). A simple and efficient vitrification method for in-straw dilution and direct transfer of bovine embryos. Cryo Lett. 36, 392–398.
