Cellular Reprogramming

Despite its long history, the cloning of animals by nuclear transplantation is going through a "renaissance" after the birth of Dolly. The amount of work and achievements obtained in the last seven years are probably greater than those obtained in half a century of research. However, the principal obstacles outlined years ago with the work on somatic cell cloning in amphybia, are all still there in mammals. The importance of somatic cell nuclear transfer is, without any doubt, beyond the scope of replicating superior animal genotypes. It is an invaluable experimental tool to address fundamental scientific issues such as nuclear potency, cell de-differentiation, chromatin structure and function, epigenetics, and genome manipulation. For these reasons the importance of cloning is not for what it can achieve but for the technical support it can provide to biomedical research and in particular to the study of epigenetics, cancer and stem cell biology, cell therapy and regenerative medicine. In this introductory paper we will summarize the intellectual and technical framework of cloning animals by nuclear transfer that still remains the only absolute way of judging the success of the procedure. Together with the achievements of the recent past we will mention the very last developments and the many questions that still remain open. Current research efforts are expected to provide some answers and certainly new questions.

Over the past six years, hundreds of apparently normal calves have been cloned worldwide from bovine somatic donor cells. However, these surviving animals represent less than 5% of all cloned embryos transferred into recipient cows. Most of the remaining 95% die at various stages of development from a predictable pattern of placental and fetal abnormalities, collectively referred to as the "cloning-syndrome." The low efficiency seriously limits commercial applicability and ethical acceptance of somatic cloning and enforces the development of improved cloning methods. In this paper, we describe our current standard operating procedure (SOP) for cattle cloning using zona-free nuclear transfer. Following this SOP, the output of viable and healthy calves at weaning is about 9% of embryos transferred. Better standardization of cloning protocols across and within research groups is needed to separate technical from biological factors underlying low cloning efficiency.

Several breakthroughs in nuclear transfer research were first achieved in sheep, although cattle soon became the main livestock species of interest. However, sheep still offer significant advantages both in basic and applied research. With increased interest in cloning of livestock, new approaches have been developed for both sheep and cattle nuclear transfer technology. These include methods for zona-free nuclear transfer that can be performed with or without the use of micromanipulator. Here we describe four different nuclear transfer methods including the traditional micromanipulation-assisted method in sheep, zona-free method in sheep in which the order of enucleation and nucleus delivery have been reversed ("reverse-order" cloning) and zona free manual cloning methods ("handmade cloning") for embryonic and somatic cloning in cattle. The purpose of this paper is to encourage people to familiarize themselves with these different methods available and to help them choose and test the method most suitable for their particular circumstances.

Somatic cell reprogramming holds great promise for the development of novel cellular therapeutics. A number of sources of reprogramming potential have been identified, including oocytes, embryonic germ (EG) cells and embryonic stem (ES) cells. However, each of these sources of reprogramming factors is problematic, since they are either not freely available or have special growth requirements. Embryonal carcinoma (EC) cells are another source of pluripotent cells that, unlike ES and EG cells, do not usually require special growth conditions. Since they share many of the key characteristics of ES cells, such as pluripotency, EC cells may provide a readily amenable alternative source of reprogramming factors and could serve as a model for ES cells in this respect. Here we show that mouse EC cells can also function as donors of reprogramming factors. PEG-mediated fusion between murine EC cells (P19) and the cells of a human T-lymphoma cell line (CEM-GFP) resulted in inter-species hybrid colony formation. Colonies of hybrid cells displayed heterogeneity in cellular morphology as well as in their pattern of human gene expression. Expression of two human transcription factors characteristic of undifferentiated pluripotent stem cells, Oct-4 and Sox-2, was detected in the hybrid cells, demonstrating activation of endogenous human markers of pluripotency. Simultaneously, down-regulation of CD45, a marker present in lymphocytic cells, was observed in some hybrids. The detection of human specific markers of differentiation, such as nestin, lamininβ1, and collagen IVα1, indicates that fusion resulted in reprogramming of the human cells to reflect the differentiation potential of the murine EC partner.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro and in vivo developmental competence of parthenogenetic (parthenote) pig embryos derived from ovulated and in vitro matured (IVM) oocytes. A total of four experiments were carried out. These demonstrated that the mean blastocyst rates from stimulated ovulated and IVM pig oocytes were not significantly different (61% vs. 46%, p > 0.05) following in vitro culture. Both ovulated and IVM pig parthenotes were able to develop in vivo for 30 days. Parthenote fetuses collected 21 and 30 days post estrus were morphologically normal but significantly smaller and lighter than fertilized controls (p < 0.01). IVM pig parthenotes stopped development around 31 days post estrus.

This paper methodologically compares the electro-fusion (EF) and intracytoplasmic injection (ICI) methods, as well as simultaneous fusion/activation (SA) and delayed activation (DA), in somatic nuclear transfer in pigs using fetal fibroblast cells. Comparison of the remodeling pattern of donor nuclei after nuclear transfer by ICI or EF showed that a high rate (80-100%) of premature chromosome condensation occurred in both cases whether or not Ca²⁺ was present in the fusion medium. Formation of pseudo-pronuclei tended to be lower for nuclear transfer performed by the ICI method (65% vs. 85-97%, p < 0.05). In vitro developmental potential of nuclear transfer embryos reconstructed with IVM oocytes using the EF method was higher than that of those produced by the ICI method (blastocyst formation: 19 vs. 5%, p < 0.05), and it was not improved using in vivo-matured oocytes as recipient cytoplasts. Embryos produced using SA protocol developed to blastocysts with the same degree of efficiency as those produced under the DA protocol (11 vs. 12%). Use of the EF method in conjunction with SA was shown to be an efficient method for producing cloned pigs based on producing a cloned normal pig fetus. However, subtle differences in nuclear remodeling patterns between the SA and DA protocols may imply variations in their nuclear reprogramming efficiency.

Brief treatment of metaphase II (MII) stage porcine oocytes with 0.4 μg/mL demecolcine in the presence of 0.05 M sucrose produces a membrane protrusion that contains a condensed chromosome mass. The present study examined the optimal conditions for demecolcine and nocodazole treatment in chemically assisted removal of chromosomes. When matured oocytes were treated with 0.1-0.4 μg/mL demecolcine for 60 min or with 0.4 μg/mL demecolcine for 30 min or 3 μg/mL nocodazole for 30 or 60 min, more than 70% of oocytes had a membrane protrusion containing condensed chromosomes were located. There was no difference in the in vitro developmental potential of enucleated oocytes assisted by 0.1 and 0.4 μg/mL demecolcine or 3 μg/mL nocodazole that received porcine somatic cells. After transfer to 10 recipients, however, two of six recipients that received demecolcine-treated enucleated eggs produced four healthy cloned piglets, but none of the four recipients of nocodazole-treated enucleated eggs produced piglets. Further studies are required to increase the successful development to term because the proportion of live piglets was low (4/2, 672, 0.15%).