Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is an important technique for biological science research. Cytoplasm injection cloning technology (CICT) was developed to improve the reprogramming efficiency as well as to overcome the limitations of SCNT. CICT uses an additional cytoplasm fused with an enucleated oocyte to restore the cytoplasmic volume of the cloned embryo, and this method could improve the reprogramming efficiency of the cloned embryo. In this study, we show that CICT can be adapted to mouse species to overcome the inefficiency of the SCNT method. In this study, results indicate that the two-cell embryo and blastocyst rates of cloned embryos with the use of the CICT method were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of the SCNT method (96.6% ± 1.1% vs. 86.7% ± 6.0%, 29.5% ± 2.6% vs. 22.1% ± 3.0%, respectively). Furthermore, the apoptotic cell number per blastocyst was significantly lower in the CICT group than that in the SCNT group (1.7 ± 0.2 vs. 2.9 ± 0.3, p < 0.05). Moreover, the acH3K9/K14 expression level in the CICT group was greater than that of the SCNT group (p < 0.05), and the relative acH3K56 level in the CICT group was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that in the SCNT group. These results indicate that CICT helps improve the in vitro developmental competence and quality of cloned embryos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdkinsM.W., CarsonJ.J., EnglishC.M., RameyC.J., and TylerJ.K.2007. The histone chaperone anti-silencing function 1 stimulates the acetylation of newly synthesized histone H3 in S-phase. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 1334–1340.
2.
AzumaR., MiyamotoK., OikawaM., YamadaM., and AnzaiM.2018. Combinational treatment of trichostatin A and vitamin C improves the efficiency of cloning mice by somatic cell nuclear transfer. J. Vis. Exp. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.3791/57036.
3.
BalabanB., UrmanB., SertacA., AlatasC., AksoyS., and MercanR.2000. Blastocyst quality affects the success of blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 74, 282–287.
4.
BeyhanZ., ForsbergE.J., EilertsenK.J., Kent-FirstM., and FirstN.L.2007. Gene expression in bovine nuclear transfer embryos in relation to donor cell efficiency in producing live offspring. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 74, 18–27.
5.
BlellochR., WangZ., MeissnerA., PollardS., SmithA., and JaenischR.2006. Reprogramming efficiency following somatic cell nuclear transfer is influenced by the differentiation and methylation state of the donor nucleus. Stem Cells. 24, 2007–2013.
6.
Bourc'hisD., Le BourhisD., PatinD., NiveleauA., ComizzoliP., RenardJ.P., and Viegas-PequignotE.2001. Delayed and incomplete reprogramming of chromosome methylation patterns in bovine cloned embryos. Curr. Biol. 11, 1542–1546.
7.
BuemoC.P., GambiniA., MoroL.N., HiriartM.I., Fernandez-MartinR., CollasP., and SalamoneD.F.2016. Embryo aggregation in pig improves cloning efficiency and embryo quality. PLoS One. 11,e0146390.
8.
CampbellK.H., McWhirJ., RitchieW.A., and WilmutI.1996. Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature. 380, 64–66.
9.
DeanW., SantosF., StojkovicM., ZakhartchenkoV., WalterJ., WolfE., and ReikW.2001. Conservation of methylation reprogramming in mammalian development: Aberrant reprogramming in cloned embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 13734–13738.
10.
DeyS.R., DebG.K., HaA.N., LeeJ.I., BangJ.I., LeeK.L., and KongI.K. (2012). Coculturing denuded oocytes during the in vitro maturation of bovine cumulus oocyte complexes exerts a synergistic effect on embryo development. Theriogenology. 77, 1064–1077.
11.
DuY., KraghP.M., ZhangY., LiJ., SchmidtM., BoghI.B., ZhangX., PurupS., JorgensenA.L., PedersenA.M., VillemoesK., YangH., BolundL., and VajtaG.2007. Piglets born from handmade cloning, an innovative cloning method without micromanipulation. Theriogenology. 68, 1104–1110.
12.
GambiniA., JarazoJ., OliveraR., and SalamoneD.F. (2012). Equine cloning: in vitro and in vivo development of aggregated embryos. Biol. Reprod. 87,, 15, 1–9.
13.
GardnerD.K., LaneM., StevensJ., SchlenkerT., and SchoolcraftW.B.2000. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: Towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil. Steril. 73, 1155–1158.
14.
GjorretJ.O., KnijnH.M., DielemanS.J., AveryB., LarssonL.I., and Maddox-HyttelP. (2003). Chronology of apoptosis in bovine embryos produced in vivo and in vitro. Biol. Reprod. 69, 1193–1200.
15.
GuptaS., KimS.Y., ArtisS., MolfeseD.L., SchumacherA., SweattJ.D., PaylorR.E., and LubinF.D. (2010). Histone methylation regulates memory formation. J. Neurosci. 30, 3589–3599.
16.
HanY.M., KangY.K., KooD.B., and LeeK.K. (2003). Nuclear reprogramming of cloned embryos produced in vitro. Theriogenology. 59, 33–44.
17.
HartigS.M. (2013). Basic image analysis and manipulation in Image. J. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. Chapter 14, Unit14.15.
18.
HolkerM., PetersenB., HasselP., KuesW.A., LemmeE., Lucas-HahnA., and NiemannH. (2005). Duration of in vitro maturation of recipient oocytes affects blastocyst development of cloned porcine embryos. Cloning Stem Cells. 7, 35–44.
19.
JangG., KimM.K., OhH.J., HosseinM.S., FibriantoY.H., HongS.G., ParkJ.E., KimJ.J., KimH.J., KangS.K., KimD.Y., and LeeB.C. (2007). Birth of viable female dogs produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Theriogenology. 67, 941–947.
20.
KangY.K., KooD.B., ParkJ.S., ChoiY.H., ChungA.S., LeeK.K., and HanY.M. (2001). Aberrant methylation of donor genome in cloned bovine embryos. Nat. Genet. 28, 173–177.
21.
KarmodiyaK., KrebsA.R., Oulad-AbdelghaniM., KimuraH., and ToraL. (2012). H3K9 and H3K14 acetylation co-occur at many gene regulatory elements, while H3K14ac marks a subset of inactive inducible promoters in mouse embryonic stem cells. BMC Genomics. 13, 424-2164-13-424.
22.
KishigamiS., MizutaniE., OhtaH., HikichiT., ThuanN.V., WakayamaS., BuiH.T., and WakayamaT. (2006). Significant improvement of mouse cloning technique by treatment with trichostatin A after somatic nuclear transfer. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 340, 183–189.
23.
KongQ., XieB., LiJ., HuanY., HuangT., WeiR., LvJ., LiuS., and LiuZ. (2014). Identification and characterization of an oocyte factor required for porcine nuclear reprogramming. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 6960–6968.
KurdistaniS.K., TavazoieS., and GrunsteinM. (2004). Mapping global histone acetylation patterns to gene expression. Cell. 117, 721–733.
26.
KwonS., JeongS., ParkJ.S., and KangY.K. (2015). Quantifying difference in gene expression profile between bovine blastocysts derived by in vitro fertilization and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Gene Expr. Patterns. 19, 14–20.
27.
LeeM.J., KimS.W., LeeH.G., ImG.S., YangB.C., KimN.H., and KimD.H. (2011). Trichostatin A promotes the development of bovine somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos. J. Reprod. Dev. 57, 34–42.
28.
LepikhovK., and WalterJ. (2004). Differential dynamics of histone H3 methylation at positions K4 and K9 in the mouse zygote. BMC Dev. Biol. 4, 12–213X-4-12.
29.
LiX., KatoY., TsujiY., and TsunodaY. (2008). The effects of trichostatin A on mRNA expression of chromatin structure-, DNA methylation-, and development-related genes in cloned mouse blastocysts. Cloning Stem Cells. 10, 133–142.
30.
LiuH., KimJ.M., and AokiF. (2004). Regulation of histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in oocytes and early pre-implantation embryos. Development. 131, 2269–2280.
31.
LiuX., LuoC., DengK., WuZ., WeiY., JiangJ., LuF., and ShiD. (2018). Cytoplasmic volume of recipient oocytes affects the nucleus reprogramming and the developmental competence of HMC buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) embryos. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 80, 1291–1300.
32.
Maddox-HyttelP., AlexopoulosN.I., VajtaG., LewisI., RogersP., CannL., CallesenH., Tveden-NyborgP., and TrounsonA. (2003). Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural characterization of the initial post-hatching development of bovine embryos. Reproduction. 125, 607–623.
33.
MartinC., and ZhangY. (2005). The diverse functions of histone lysine methylation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 838–849.
34.
MengL., ElyJ.J., StoufferR.L., and WolfD.P. (1997). Rhesus monkeys produced by nuclear transfer. Biol. Reprod. 57, 454–459.
35.
RiceJ.C., BriggsS.D., UeberheideB., BarberC.M., ShabanowitzJ., HuntD.F., ShinkaiY., and AllisC.D. (2003). Histone methyltransferases direct different degrees of methylation to define distinct chromatin domains. Mol. Cell. 12, 1591–1598.
36.
SamiecM., and SkrzyszowskaM. (2018). Intrinsic and extrinsic molecular determinants or modulators for epigenetic remodeling and reprogramming of somatic cell-derived genome in mammalian nuclear-transferred oocytes and resultant embryos. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 21, 217–227.
37.
SantosF., and DeanW. (2004). Epigenetic reprogramming during early development in mammals. Reproduction. 127, 643–651.
38.
SantosF., ZakhartchenkoV., StojkovicM., PetersA., JenuweinT., WolfE., ReikW., and DeanW. (2003). Epigenetic marking correlates with developmental potential in cloned bovine preimplantation embryos. Curr. Biol. 13, 1116–1121.
39.
SayakaW., SatoshiK., ThuanN.V., HiroshiO., TakafusaH., EijiM., ThuyB.H., MasashiM., and TeruhikoW. (2008). Effect of volume of oocyte cytoplasm on embryo development after parthenogenetic activation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. Zygote. 16, 211–222.
40.
ShaoG.B., DingH.M., GongA.H., and XiaoD.S. (2008). Inheritance of histone H3 methylation in reprogramming of somatic nuclei following nuclear transfer. J. Reprod. Dev. 54, 233–238.
41.
SongS.H., LeeK.L., XuL., JooM.D., HwangJ.Y., OhS.H., and KongI.K. (2019). Production of cloned cats using additional complimentary cytoplasm. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 208,106125.
42.
StejskalS., StepkaK., TesarovaL., StejskalK., MatejkovaM., SimaraP., ZdrahalZ., and KoutnaI. (2015). Cell cycle-dependent changes in H3K56ac in human cells. Cell. Cycle. 14, 3851–3863.
43.
TurnerB.M. (2000). Histone acetylation and an epigenetic code. Bioessays. 22, 836–845.
44.
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.
45.
VajtaG., LewisI.M., TrounsonA.O., PurupS., Maddox-HyttelP., SchmidtM., PedersenH.G., GreveT., and CallesenH. (2003). Handmade somatic cell cloning in cattle: Analysis of factors contributing to high efficiency in vitro. Biol. Reprod. 68, 571–578.
46.
VermaG., AroraJ.S., SethiR.S., MukhopadhyayC.S., and VermaR. (2015). Handmade cloning: Recent advances, potential and pitfalls. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 6, 43-015-0043-y. eCollection 2015.
47.
WangF., KouZ., ZhangY., and GaoS. (2007). Dynamic reprogramming of histone acetylation and methylation in the first cell cycle of cloned mouse embryos. Biol. Reprod. 77, 1007–1016.
48.
WhitworthK.M., and PratherR.S. (2010). Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: How can it be improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming? Mol. Reprod. Dev. 77, 1001–1015.
49.
WilmutI., BeaujeanN., de SousaP.A., DinnyesA., KingT.J., PatersonL.A., WellsD.N., and YoungL.E. (2002). Somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nature. 419, 583–586.
50.
XuL., MesalamA., LeeK.L., SongS.H., KhanI., ChowdhuryM.M.R., LvW., and KongI.K. (2019). Improves the in vitro developmental competence and reprogramming efficiency of cloned bovine embryos by additional complimentary cytoplasm. Cell. Reprogram. 21, 51–60.
51.
YinX.J., LeeH.S., YuX.F., ChoiE., KooB.C., KwonM.S., LeeY.S., ChoS.J., JinG.Z., KimL.H., ShinH.D., KimT., KimN.H., and KongI.K. (2008). Generation of cloned transgenic cats expressing red fluorescence protein. Biol. Reprod. 78, 425–431.
52.
ZakhartchenkoV., MuellerS., AlberioR., SchernthanerW., StojkovicM., WenigerkindH., WankeR., LassnigC., MuellerM., WolfE., and BremG. (2001). Nuclear transfer in cattle with non-transfected and transfected fetal or cloned transgenic fetal and postnatal fibroblasts. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 60, 362–369.
53.
ZhangS., ChenX., WangF., AnX., TangB., ZhangX., SunL., and LiZ. (2016). Aberrant DNA methylation reprogramming in bovine SCNT preimplantation embryos. Sci. Rep. 6,30345.
54.
Ziegler-BirlingC., DaujatS., SchneiderR., and Torres-PadillaM.E. (2016). Dynamics of histone H3 acetylation in the nucleosome core during mouse pre-implantation development. Epigenetics. 11, 553–562.
