Cloning of Buffalo, a Highly Valued Livestock Species of South and Southeast Asia: Any Achievements?
Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is a major source of milk, meat, and draught power in many developing countries in Asia. Animal cloning holds a lot of potential for fast multiplication of elite buffaloes and conservation of their valuable germplasm. Although the progress of buffalo cloning has been slow in comparison to cattle or pig, several breakthroughs were reported in buffalo cloning such as the production of cloned calves from somatic cells isolated from over one-decade old frozen-thawed semen or from urine-derived cells. Since the initiation of buffalo cloning, several approaches have been tried to refine nuclear transfer protocols. This has resulted in increasing the blastocyst production rate and improving their quality leading to an increase in live birth rate. In this review, we discuss current developments in buffalo cloning, its challenges, and the future roadmap.
Reducing the cytoplasmic volume during hand-made cloning adversely affects the developmental competence and quality, and alters relative abundance of mRNA transcripts and epigenetic status of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) embryos.
Hand-made cloning (HMC) is a method of choice for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). There is 20% to 50% of cytoplasm lost during manual enucleation of oocytes with HMC. To compensate, two enucleated demicytoplasts, instead of one, are fused with each donor cell, which leads to cytoplasm pooling from two different demicytoplasts. In this study, effects of using one, instead of two demicytoplasts (controls) was examined, for production of embryos using HMC. Use of one demicytoplast decreased blastocyst development (12.7 ± 1.98% compared with 47.6 ± 3.49%, P < 0.001), total cell number (TCN, 167.6 ± 14.66 compared with 335.9 ± 58.96, P < 0.01), apoptotic index (2.11 ± 0.38 compared with 3.43±0.38, P < 0.05) but did not significantly alter inner cell mass:trophectoderm cell number ratio (0.17 ± 0.01 compared with 0.19 ± 0.02) and the global content of H3K9ac and H3K27me3 of blastocysts, compared to controls. There were gene expression alterations in pluripotency- (SOX2 and NANOG but not OCT4), epigenetic- (DNMT1 but not DNMT3a and HDAC1), apoptosis- (CASPASE3 but not BCL-2 and BAX), trophectoderm- (CDX2), development- (G6PD but not GLUT1) and cell cycle check point control-related related genes (P53) compared with controls. Transfer of cloned blastocysts from one demicytoplast (n = 8) to recipients resulted in a live calf birth that after 12 days died whereas, with transfer of control blastocysts (n = 14) there was birth of a healthy calf. In conclusion, use of one, instead of two demicytoplasts for HMC, compromises in vitro developmental competence, and alters expression of several important genes affecting embryo development.
Treatment of Donor Cells and Reconstructed Embryos with a Combination of Trichostatin-A and 5-aza-2'-Deoxycytidine Improves the Developmental Competence and Quality of Buffalo Embryos Produced by Handmade Cloning and Alters Their Epigenetic Status and Gene Expression.
The application of cloning technology on a large scale is limited by very low offspring rate primarily due to aberrant or incomplete epigenetic reprogramming. Trichostatin A (TSA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, and 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (5-aza-dC), an inhibitor of DNA methyltransferases, are widely used for altering the epigenetic status of cloned embryos. We optimized the doses of these epigenetic modifiers for production of buffalo embryos by handmade cloning and examined whether combined treatment with these epigenetic modifiers offered any advantage over treatment with the individual epigenetic modifier. Irrespective of whether donor cells or reconstructed embryos or both were treated with 50 nM TSA +7.5 nM 5-aza-dC, (1) the blastocyst rate was significantly higher (71.6 ± 3.5, 68.3 ± 2.6, and 71.8 ± 2.4, respectively, vs. 43.1 ± 3.4 for controls, p < 0.05); (2) the apoptotic index was lower (5.4 ± 1.1, 9.5 ± 1.0, and 7.4 ± 1.3, respectively, vs. 19.5 ± 2.1 for controls, p < 0.05) and was similar to that of in vitro fertilization blastocysts (6.0 ± 0.8); (3) the global level of H3K18ac was higher (p < 0.01) and that of H3K27me3 lower (p < 0.05) than in controls and was similar among all treatment groups; and (4) the expression level of epigenetic-(HDAC1, DNMT1, and DNMT3a), pluripotency-(OCT4 and NANOG), and development-related (FGF4) genes, but not that of SOX2 and CDX2, was similar among all treatment groups. These results demonstrate that similar levels of beneficial effects can be obtained following treatment of either donor cells or reconstructed embryos or both with the combination of TSA +5-aza-dC. Therefore, there is no advantage in treating both donor cells and reconstructed embryos when the combination of TSA and 5-aza-dC is used.