4.6 Review

Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: a salvage tool seeking first aid

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 217-228

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.01.016

关键词

Wild animals; Conservation strategy; Interspecific somatic cell nuclear transfer

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2007-StG 210103 angioplace]
  2. PRIN (Italian Ministry of Education) [2007MY2M92]
  3. Teramo University
  4. Next Gene, VII FP [244356]
  5. European Community [229915]
  6. Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education [N302 041 32/3424]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Much emphasis is currently given to the use of Interspecific Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (ISCNT) as a potential salvage tool for endangered animals. In this short review we present a survey on all data published so far on ISCNT, including abstract communication in international meetings. From the analysis of these data it appears that the results obtained are very preliminary and often confusing on the real stage of the embryonic development obtained. Moreover, the acronym ISCNT is improperly used because in many reports the nuclei and oocyte donor are not within the same species, but belong to different order and sometimes taxa, therefore, we classified all the ISCNT reports by allocating cell and oocyte donors to their respective order/species/class. The efficiency of cloning is low in all species owing to incomplete nuclear reprogramming of differentiated cells under the current procedures. ISCNT, however, poses additional hurdles which are rarely addressed in previously published work, and on which we focus in this review: mt/genomic DNA compatibility; embryonic genome activation of the donor nucleus by the recipient oocyte; availability of suitable foster mothers for ISCNT embryos. All these issues are discussed here, and possible solutions for the successful application of somatic cell nuclear transfer to endangered animals are also put forth. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据