Somatic cell biobanking and related technologies, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and induction of pluripotent stem cells offer significant promise for wildlife conservation, but have yet to achieve optimal success. Inefficiency and variability in outcome have been linked to incomplete nuclear reprogramming, highlighting the importance of donor cell contribution. Studies show significant differences in SCNT outcome in donor cell lines within and between individuals, highlighting the necessity for a standardized characterization method to evaluate cell line reprogramming potential. Stringently standardized bovine fibroblast cell lines were generated and assessed for inter- and intraindividual variability on cellular (morphology, chromosome number, apoptotic incidence; Experiment 1) and molecular (pluripotency and epigenetic-related gene expression; Experiment 2) levels encompassing putative biomarkers of reprogramming potential. Cellular parameters were similar across cell lines. While some statistically significant differences were observed in DNMT1, DNMT3B, and HAT1, but not HDAC1, their biological relevance could not be determined with the information at hand. This study lays the foundation for understanding cellular characteristics in cultured cell lines; however, further studies are required to determine any correlation with reprogramming potential.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderB., CoppolaG., PerraultS.D., PeuraT.T., BettsD.H., and KingW.A. (2007). Telomere length status of somatic cell sheep clones and their offspring. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 74, 1525–1537.
2.
AllsoppR.C., VaziriH., PattersonC., GoldsteinS., YounglaiE.V., FutcherA.B., GreiderC.W., and HarleyC.B. (1992). Teleomere length predicts replicative capacity of human fibroblasts. PNAS, 89, 10114–10118.
3.
AratS., RzucidloS.J., GibbonsJ., MiyoshiK., and SticeS.L. (2001). Production of transgenic bovine embryos by transfer of transfected granulosa cells into enucleated oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 60, 20–26.
4.
ArmstrongL., LakoM., DeanW., and StojkovicM. (2006). Epigenetic modification is central to genome reprogramming in somatic cell nuclear transfer. Stem Cells, 24, 805–814.
5.
BestorT.H. (2000). The DNA methyltransferases of mammals. Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 2395–2402.
6.
BirdA. (2002). DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev. 16, 6–21.
7.
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.
8.
BorgesA.A., and PereiraA.F. (2019). Potential role of intraspecific and interspecific cloning in the conservation of wild mammals. Zygote, 27, 111–117.
9.
BrambrinkT., ForemanR., WelsteadG.G., LengnerC.J., WernigM., SuhH., and JaenischR. (2008). Sequential expression of pluripotency markers during direct reprogramming of mouse somatic cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 151–159.
10.
BrinkhofB., van TolH.T.A., Groot KoerkampM.J.A., RiemersF.M., IJzerS.G., MashayekhiK., HaagsmanH.P., and RoelenB.A.J. (2015). A mRNA landscape of bovine embryos after standard and MAPK-inhibited culture conditions: A comparative analysis. BMC Genomics, 16, 277–294.
11.
CampbellK.H., McWhirJ., RitchieW.A., and WilmutI. (1996). Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature, 380, 64–66.
12.
CampisiJ., and d'Adda di FagagnaF. (2007). Cellular senescence: When bad things happen to good cells. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 8, 729–740.
CawthonR.M. (2009). Telomere length measurement by a novel monochrome multiplex quantitative PCR method. Nucleic Acids Res. 37,e21.
15.
ChenZ., and ZhangY. (2020). Role of mammalian DNA methyltransferases in development. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 89, 135–158.
16.
ChoiY.-H., HartmanD.L., FissoreR.A., Bedford-GuausS.J., and HinrichsK. (2009). Effect of sperm extract injection volume, injection of PLCζ cRNA, and tissue cell line on efficiency of equine nuclear transfer. Cloning Stem Cells, 11, 301–308.
17.
ClarkeA.G. (2009). The Frozen Ark Project: The role of zoos and aquariums in preserving the genetic material of threatened animals. Int. Zoo Yearb. 43, 222–230.
18.
CristofaloV.J., AllenR.G., PignoloR.J., MartinB.G., and BeckJ.C. (1998). Relationship between donor age and the replicative lifespan of human cells in culture: A reevaluation. PNAS, 95, 10614–10619.
19.
DadheechN., SrivastavaA., BelaniM., GuptaS., PalR., BhondeR.R., SrivastavaA.S., and GuptaS. (2013). Basal expression of pluripotency-associated genes can contribute to stemness property and differentiation potential. Stem Cells Dev. 22, 1802–1817.
20.
DavoliT., DenchiE.L., and de LangeT. (2010). Persistent telomere damage induces bypass of mitosis and tetraploidy. Cell. 141, 81–93.
21.
DelinasiosJ.G., AngeliF., KoumakisG., KumarS., KangW.-H., SicaG., IacopinoF., LamaG., LamprechtS., Sigal-BatikoffI., TsangarisG.T., FarfarelosC.D., FarfarelosM.C., VairaktarisE., VassiliouS., and DelinasiosG.J. (2015). Proliferating fibroblasts and HeLa cells co-cultured in vitro reciprocally influence growth patterns, protein expression, chromatin features and cell survival. Anticancer Res. 35, 1881–1916.
22.
DiaoY.-F., NaruseK.-J., HanR.-X., LiX.-X., OqaniR.K., LinT., and JinD.-I. (2013). Treatment of fetal fibroblasts with DNA methylation inhibitors and/or histone deacetylase inhibitors improves the development of porcine nuclear transfer-derived embryos. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 141, 164–171.
23.
EhrlichM. (2003). Expression of various genes is controlled by DNA methylation during mammalian development. J. Cell. Biochem. 88, 899–910.
24.
GaoR., WangC., GaoY., XiuW., ChenJ., KouX., ZhaoY., LiaoY., BaiD., QiaoZ., YangL., WangM., ZangR., LiuX., JiaY., LiY., ZhangY., YinJ., WangH., WanX., LiuW., ZhangY., and GaoS. (2018). Inhibition of aberrant DNA re-methylation improves post-implantation development of somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos. Cell Stem Cell, 23, 426–435.
25.
GaoS., McGarryM., FerrierT., PallanteB., GasparriniB., FletcherJ., HarknessL., De SousaP., McWhirJ., and WilmutI. (2003). Effect of cell confluence on production of cloned mice using an inbred embryonic stem cell line. Biol. Reprod. 68, 595–603.
26.
GilbertI., RobertC., DielemanS., BlondinP., and SirardM.-A. (2011). Transcriptional effect of the LH surge in bovine granulosa cells during the peri-ovulation period. Reproduction, 141, 193–205.
27.
GoldingM.C., WilliamsonG.L., StroudT.K., WesthusinM.E., and LongC.R. (2011). Examination of DNA methyltransferase expression in cloned embryos reveals an essential role for Dnmt1 in bovine development. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 78, 306–317.
28.
GómezM.C., PopeC.E., LopezM., DumasC., GiraldoA., and DresserB.L. (2006). Chromosomal aneuploidy in African wildcat somatic cells and cloned embryos. Cloning Stem Cells, 8, 69–78.
29.
HayflickL., and MoorheadP.S. (1961). The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains. Exp. Cell. Res. 25, 585–621.
30.
HuanY., WuZ., ZhangJ., ZhuJ., LiuZ., and SongX. (2015). Epigenetic modification agents improve gene-specific methylation reprogramming in porcine cloned embryos. PLoS One 10,e0129803.
31.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? Board on Health Sciences Policy. National Academy Press, Washington,DC.
32.
JagannathanL., CuddapahS., and CostaM. (2016). Oxidative stress under ambient and physiological oxygen tension in tissue culture. Curr. Pharmacol. Rep. 2, 64–72.
33.
KasinathanP., KnottJ.G., MoreiraP.N., BurnsideA.S., JerryD.J., and RoblJ.M. (2001). Effect of fibroblast donor cell age and cell cycle on development of bovine nuclear transfer embryos in vitro. Biol. Reprod. 64, 1487–1493.
34.
KühholzerB., HawleyR.J., LaiL., Kolber-SimondsD., and PratherR.S. (2001). Clonal lines of transgenic fibroblast cells derived from the same fetus result in different development when used for nuclear transfer in pigs. Biol. Reprod. 64, 1695–1698.
35.
KyttäläA., MoraghebiR., ValensisiC., KettunenJ., AndrusC., PasumarthyK.K., NakanishiM., NishimuraK., OhtakaM., WeltnerJ., Van HandelB., ParkkonenO., SinisaloJ., JalankoA., HawkinsR.D., WoodsN.B., OtonkoskiT., and TrokovicR. (2016). Genetic variability overrides the impact of parental cell type and determines iPSC differentiation potential. Stem Cell Rep. 6, 200–212.
36.
LagutinaI., LazzariG., DuchiR., ColleoniS., PonderatoN., TuriniP., CrottiG., and GalliC. (2005). Somatic cell nuclear transfer in horses: Effect of oocyte morphology, embryo reconstruction method and donor cell type. Reproduction, 130, 559–567.
37.
LeeD.Y., HayesJ.J., PrussD., and WolffeA.P. (1993). A positive role for histone acetylation in transcription factor access to nucleosomal DNA. Cell, 72, 73–84.
38.
LiuH.-J., PengH., HuC.-C., LiX.-Y., ZhangJ.-L., ZhengZ., and ZhangW.-C. (2016). Effects of donor cells' sex on nuclear transfer efficiency and telomere lengths of cloned goats. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 51, 789–794.
39.
LoiP., BeaujeanN., KhochbinS., FulkaJ.Jr., and PtakG. (2008). Asymmetric nuclear reprogramming in somatic cell nuclear transfer?. Bioessays, 30, 66–74.
40.
LoiP., PtakG., BarboniB., FulkaJ.J., CappaiP., and ClintonM. (2001). Genetic rescue of an endangered mammal by cross-species nuclear transfer using post-mortem somatic cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 962–964.
41.
LuoC., LuF., WangX., WangZ., LiX., GongF., JiangJ., LiuQ., and ShiD. (2013). Treatment of donor cells with trichostatin A improves in vitro development and reprogramming of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) nucleus transfer embryos. Theriogenology, 80, 878–886.
42.
MastromonacoG.F., González-GrajalesL.A., FiliceM., and ComizzoliP. (2014). Somatic cells, stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells: How do they now contribute to conservation? In Reproductive Sciences in Animal Conservation. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. W.V. Holt, J.L. Brown, and P. Comizzoli, eds. (Springer, New York, NY) pp. 385–427.
43.
MastromonacoG.F., PerraultS.D., BettsD.H., and KingW.A. (2006). Role of chromosome stability and telomere length in the production of viable cell lines for somatic cell nuclear transfer. BMC Dev. Biol 6,41.
44.
MikkelsenT.S., HannaJ., ZhangX., KuM., WernigM., SchorderetP., BernsteinB.E., JaenischR., LanderE.S., and MeissnerA. (2008). Dissecting direct reprogramming through integrative genomic analysis. Nature, 454, 49–55.
45.
MillerV.M. (2012). In pursuit of scientific excellence: Sex matters. Am. J. Physiol. Heart C, 302, H1771–H1772.
46.
MoonS.-Y., EunH.-J., BaekS.-K., JinS.-J., KimT.-S., KimS.-W., SeongH.-H., ChoiI.-C., and LeeJ.-H. (2016). Activation-induced cytidine deaminase induces DNA demethylation of pluripotency genes in bovine differentiated cells. Cell. Reprogram. 18, 298–308.
47.
NetaL.B.d.Q, LiraG.P.d.O., BorgesA.A., SantosM.V.d.O., SilvaM.B, OliveiraL.R.M.d., SilvaA.R., OliveiraM.F.d., and PereiraA.F. (2018). Influence of storage time and nutrient medium on recovery of fibroblast-like cells from refrigerated collared peccary (Pecari tajacu Linnaeus, 1758) skin. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 54, 486–495.
48.
NiemannH., CarnwathJ.W., HerrmannD., WieczorekG., LemmeE., Lucas-HahnA., and OlekS. (2010). DNA methylation patterns reflect epigenetic reprogramming in bovine embryos. Cell. Reprogram. 12, 33–42.
49.
OkanoM., BellD.W., HaberD.A., and LiE. (1999). DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell, 99, 247–257.
50.
PanS., ChenW., LiuX., XiaoJ., WangY., LiuJ., DuY., WangY., and ZhangY. (2015). Application of a novel population of multipotent stem cells derived from skin fibroblasts as donor cells in bovine SCNT. PLoS One 10,e0114423.
51.
PergamentE., FiddlerM., ChoN., JohnsonD., and HolmgrenW.J. (1994). Fertilization and early embryology: Sexual differentiation and preimplantation cell growth. Hum. Reprod. 9, 1730–1732.
52.
PfafflM.W. (2001). A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 29,e45.
53.
PowellA.M., TalbotN.C., WellsK.D., KerrD.E., PurselV.G., and WallR.J. (2004). Cell donor influences success of producing cattle by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Biol. Reprod. 71, 210–216.
54.
QuintanillaR.H., AsprerJ.S., VazC., TanavdeV., and LakshmipathyU. (2014). CD44 is a negative cell surface marker for pluripotent stem cell identification during human fibroblast reprogramming. PLoS One 9,e85419.
55.
RhinnM., RitschkaB., and KeyesW.M. (2019). Cellular senescence in development, regeneration and disease. Development 146,dev151837.
56.
Rodríguez-AlvarezL., ManriquezJ., VelasquezA., and CastroF.O. (2013). Constitutive expression of the embryonic stem cell marker Oct4 in bovine somatic donor cells influences blastocystsrate and quality after nucleus transfer. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 49, 657–667.
57.
RohS., ShimH., HwangW.S., and YoonJ.T. (2000). In vitro development of green fluorescent protein (GFP) transgenic bovine embryos after nuclear transfer using different cell cycles and passages of fetal fibroblasts. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 12, 1–6.
58.
RyderO.A. (2018). Opportunities and challenges for conserving small populations: An emerging role for zoos in genetic rescue. In The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. B.A. Minteer, J. Maienschein and J.P. Collins, eds. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp. 255–266.
59.
SansinenaM.J., HylanD., HebertK., DennistonR.S., and GodkeR.A. (2005). Banteng (Bos javanicus) embryos and pregnancies produced by interspecies nuclear transfer. Theriogenology, 63, 1081–1091.
60.
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.
61.
ShahK., McCormackC.E., and BradburyN.A. (2014). Do you know the sex of your cells? Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 306, C3–C18.
62.
Slimane BureauW., BordignonV., LéveilléeC., SmithL.C., and KingW.A. (2003). Assessment of chromosomal abnormalities in bovine nuclear transfer embryos and in their donor cells. Cloning Stem Cells, 5, 123–132.
63.
StadtfeldM., MaheraliN., and HochedlingerK. (2008). Defining molecular cornerstones during fibroblast to iPS cell reprogramming in mouse. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 230–240.
64.
TalbotN.C., PowellA.M., and CapernaT.J. (2004). Comparison of colony-formation efficiency of bovine fetal fibroblast cell lines cultured with low oxygen, hydrocortisone, L-carnosine, bFGF, or different levels of FBS. Cloning Stem Cells, 6, 37–47.
65.
TamadaH., and KikyoN. (2004). Nuclear reprogramming in mammalian somatic cell nuclear cloning. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 105, 285–291.
66.
TamashiroK.L.K., WakayamaT., AkutsuH., YamazakiY., LacheyJ.L., WortmanM.D., SeeleyR.J., D'AlessioD.A., WoodsS.C., YanagimachiR., and SakaiR.R. (2002). Cloned mice have an obese phenotype not transmitted to their offspring. Nat. Med. 8, 262–267.
67.
ThorntonB., and BasuC. (2011). Real-time PCR (qPCR) primer design using free online software. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Edu. 39, 145–154.
68.
TooraniT., MackieP.M., and MastromonacoG.F. (2021). Validation of reference genes for use in untreated bovine fibroblasts. Manuscript under consideration in Sci. Rep.
69.
TurnerB.M. (1998). Histone acetylation as an epigenetic determinant of long-term transcriptional competence. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 54, 21–31.
70.
von ZglinickiT., SaretzkiG., DöckeW., and LotzeC. (1995). Mild hyperoxia shortens telomeres and inhibits proliferation of fibroblasts: A model for senescence? Exp. Cell Res. 220, 186–193.
71.
WangX., QuJ., LiJ., HeH., Liu, Z and HuanY. (2020). Epigenetic reprogramming during somatic cell nuclear transfer: recent progress and future directions. Front. Genet. 11,205.
72.
WangZ., ZhaoT., ZhangP., ZhangS., GuanJ., MaX., YinY., ZhangJ., TangB., and LiZ. (2011). Histone deacetylase 1 down-regulation on developmental capability and histone acetylation in bovine oocytes and parthenogenetic embryos. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 46, 1022–1028.
73.
WaniN.A., and HongS.B. (2017). Source, treatment and type of nuclear donor cells influences in vitro and in vivo development of embryos cloned by somatic cell nuclear transfer in camel (Camelus dromedarius). Theriogenology, 15, 186–191.
74.
WeiQ., ZhongL., ZhangS., MuH., XiangJ., YueL., DaiY., and HanJ. (2017). Bovine lineage specification revealed by single-cell gene expression analysis from zygote to blastocyst. Biol. Reprod. 97, 5–17.
75.
WellsD.N., LaibleG., TuckerF.C., MillerA.L., OliverJ.E., XiangT., ForsythJ.T., BergM.C., CockremK., L'HuillierP.J., TervitH.R., and ObackB. (2003). Coordination between donor cell type and cell cycle stage improves nuclear cloning efficiency in cattle. Theriogenology, 59, 45–59.
76.
XieX., HioraA., LeeA.S., CaoF., HuangM., LiZ., CherryA., PeiX., and WuJ.C. (2011). Effects of long-term culture on human embryonic stem cell aging. Stem Cells Dev. 20, 127–138.
77.
XiongX.-R., LanD.-L., LiJ., ZiX.-D., MaL., and WangY. (2014). Cellular extract facilitates nuclear reprogramming by altering DNA methylation and pluripotency gene expression. Cell. Reprogram. 16, 215–222.
78.
ZhangS., ChenX., WangF., AnX., TangB., ZhangX., SunL., and LiZ. (2016). Aberrant DNA methylation reprogramming in bovine SCNT preimplantation embryos. Sci. Rep. 6,30345.
79.
ZhouQ., YangS.H., DingC.H., HeX.C., XieY.H., HildebrandtT.B., MitalipovS.M., TangX.H., WolfD.P., and JiW.Z. (2006). A comparative approach to somatic cell nuclear transfer in the rhesus monkey. Hum Reprod. 21, 2564–2571.
80.
ZhouW., SadeghiehS., AbruzzeseR., UppadaS., MeredithJ., and OhlrichsC. (2009). Transcript levels of several epigenome regulatory genes in bovine somatic donor cells are not correlated with their cloning efficiency. Cloning Stem Cells, 11, 397–405.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
