4.4 Article

Positive effects of treatment of donor cells with aphidicolin on the preimplantation development of somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos in Chinese Bama mini-pig (Sus Scrofa)

Journal

ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages 103-110

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00926.x

Keywords

aphidicolin; cell type; mini-pig; somatic cell nuclear transfer

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2008ZX08006-005, 2009ZX08006-014B]
  2. Shanghai Agriculture Committee of China [2005-3-5, 2007-3-7]
  3. Youth Foundation of Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China [2009-2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To optimize somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) procedures in mini-pigs, the present study was designed to examine the effects of donor cell types and aphidicolin (APC) treatment on in vitro development of reconstructed embryos. Oviduct epithelial cells (OEC), ear fibroblast cells (EFC) and cumulus cells (CC) derived from mini-pigs were treated with serum starvation only or serum starvation followed by treatment of 0.1 mu g/mL APC. The reconstructed embryos were cultured for 7 days to evaluate their developmental competency. Cleavage and blastocyst formation rates of reconstructed embryos derived from the OEC by APC treatment were significantly higher than the serum starvation (61.82% vs. 56.25%, 24.55% vs. 17.86%; P < 0.05). The cleavage rate from the EFC was significantly increased by APC treatment compared to serum starvation only (63.36% vs. 57.01%; P < 0.05). In the ooctyes with the CC, the reconstructed embryos could yield high blastocyst formation rate by APC treatment (29.63%; P < 0.05). In the presence of APC, CC gave rise to the highest cleavage and blastocyst formation rates among the three cell types. Therefore, our results suggest that treatment of CC with serum starvation plus APC prior to nuclear transfer is more suitable in SCNT of mini-pigs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available