Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:50:03.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New advances in cloning and their potential impact on genetic variation in livestock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. A. Woolliams  and
I. Wilmut
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
I. Wilmut
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Cloning has advanced through the recent demonstrations that it is feasible to produce, in principle and with significant effort, an unlimited number of individuals of identical genotype from differentiated cell lines that have been frozen and thawed. These advances have been based upon understanding the importance of interactions between the stage of the cell cycle of both the oocyte and donor cell for the success of the nuclear transfer. Whilst the impact of the biological advance is immense for biomedicai applications, the significance is less clear for livestock breeding. In our view the scientific issues for breeding programmes lie in whether clones can increase genetic progress without a cost to biodiversity. Biodiversity within a species may be categorized as: (i) betvjeen-breed variation; (ix) genetic variation among parents within breeds; (iii) genetic variation among individuals within a farm; and (iv) allelic variation within an individual. In the face of a rapid global decline in breed diversity, cloning, in particular cloning of adults, may be an important route to protect biodiversity since it may allow far more genetic variation to be made available for new breed development in the future than is practicable at present. For variation among parents, the judicious use of clones may give significantly faster rates of progress without increasing the rate of loss of genetic variation and furthermore can help improve traits associated with health and welfare which are at present less tractable than, say, milk yield. Local diversity within a farm may be greatly affected if cloning is utilized to disseminate genetic progress widely and more answers are required on the importance of genetic variation within any one locality either in buffering diseases or ameliorating other management problems. Experience from clonal forestry can provide some indications but now there are models capable of answering this question directly in livestock. Allelic variation within individuals per se is not generally advantageous but at loci where it is identified to he beneficial, the use of cloning may exploit it more widely.

Keywords

biodiversitycloninggenetic variationinbreedingrisk
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , March 1999 , pp. 245 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashworth, D., Bishop, M., Campbell, K., Coiman, A., Kind, A., Schnieke, A., Blott, S., Griffin, H., Haley, C, McWhir, J. and Wilmut, I. 1998. DNA microsatellite analysis of Dolly. Nature 394: 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, F. L., Collas, P., Powell, R., King, W. A., Westhusin, M. and Shepherd, D. 1993. Influence of recipient oocyte cell cycle stage on DNA synthesis, nuclear envelope breakdown, chromosome constitution, and development in nuclear transplant bovine embryos. Molecular Reproduction and Development 36: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, I. J. M. de, Brom, F. W. A. and Vorstenbosch, J. M. G. 1995. An ethical evaluation of animal biotechnology: the case of using clones in dairy cattle breeding. Animal Science 61: 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, I. J. M. de, Meuwissen, T. H. E. and Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1994. Combining the genetic and clonai response in a closed dairy cattle nucleus scheme. Animal Production 59: 345–358.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. H. S., Loi, P., Otaegui, P. J. and Wilmut, I. 1996a. Cell cycle co-ordination in embryo cloning by nuclear transfer. Reviews in Reproduction 1: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, K. H. S., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W. A. and Wilmut, I. 1996b. Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature 380: 64–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, K. H. S., Ritchie, W. A. and Wilmut, I. 1993. Nuclear-cytoplasmic interactions during the first cell cycle of nuclear transfer reconstructed bovine embryos: implications for deoxyribonucleic acid replication and development. Biology of Reproduction 49: 933–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cibelli, J.B., Stice, S. L., Golueke, P. J., Kane, J. J., Jerry, J., Blackwell, B., Ponce de Leon, F. A. and Robí, J. M. 1998. Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science 280: 1256–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colleau, J. J. 1992. Combining embryo sexing and cloning in closed mixed MOETs for selection in dairy cattle. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 24: 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M. and Dickerson, G. E. 1986. Genetic diversity among cattle breeds and its use to increase beef production efficiency in a temperate environment. Proceedings of the 3rd world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. IX, pp. 271–282.Google Scholar
Fehilly, C. B., Willadsen, S. M. and Tucker, E. M. 1984. Experimental chimaerism in sheep. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 70: 347–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, A. C., Kamphues, J. and Woolliams, J. A. 1983. The effect of dietary intake of calcium and phosphorus on the absorption and excretion of phosphorus in chimaera-derived sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101: 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1998. Secondary guidelines for development of national farm animal genetic resources management plaits: management of small populations at risk. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Grundy, B., Villanueva, B. and Woolliams, J. A. 1998. Dynamic selection procedures for constrained inbreeding and their consequence for pedigree development. Genetical Research In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleemann, D. O., Walker, S. K. and Seamark, R. F. 1994. Enhanced fetal growth in sheep administered progesterone during the first three days of pregnancy. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 102: 411–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, O. Y. and Kono, T. 1996. Production of identical sextuplet mice by transferring metaphase nuclei from four-cell embryos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93: 13010-13013.Google ScholarPubMed
Libby, W.J. 1982. What is safe number of clones per plantation? In Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees (ed. Heybrook, H. M., Stephan, B. R. and von Weissenberg, K.), pp. 342–360. PUDOC, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Liebo, S. P. and Rail, W. F. 1987. Increase in production of pregnancies by bisection of bovine embryos. Theriogenology 27: 245 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, K. and Bishop, S. C. 1999. A discrete-time epidemiological model to quantify selection for disease resistance. Animal Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1997. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 75: 934–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muhs, H. J. 1993. Policies, regulations, and laws affecting clonai forestry. In Clonai forestry. II. Conservation and application (ed. Ahuja, M. R. and Libby, W. J.), pp. 215–227. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. and Smith, C. 1983. Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Animal Production 36: 341–353.Google Scholar
Roberds, J. H. and Bishir, J. W. 1997. Risk analyses in clonai forestry. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnieke, A. E., Kind, A. J., Ritchie, W. A., Mycock, K., Scott, A. R., Ritchie, M., Wilmut, I., Coiman, A. and Campbell, K. H. S. 1997. Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science 278: 2130–2133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Signer, E. N., Dubrova, Y. E., Jeffreys, A. J., Wilde, C, Finch, L. M. B., Wells, M. and Peaker, M. 1998. DNA fingerprinting Dolly. Nature 394: 329–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiessen, R. B., Hnizdo, E., Maxwell, D. A. G., Gibson, D. and Taylor, St C. S. 1984. Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variation in body weight, growth rate and food intake. Animal Production 38: 323–340.Google Scholar
Thiessen, R.B., Taylor, St C. S. and Murray, J. 1985. Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variation in relative growth rate, relative food intake and food conversion efficiency. Animal Production 41: 193–199.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.M. 1996. Chromatin structure and gene expression in the preimplantation mammalian embryo. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 36: 619–635.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, P. B. 1998. Ethical issues in livestock cloning. Journal of Dairy Science 81: (supplement) 56 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. D. 1981. Potential impact of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning and selfing in dairy cattle. In New technologies in animal breeding (ed. Bracket, B. C., G. E., Seidel Jr and Seidel, S. M.), pp. 221–242. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. D. 1998. Implications for breed improvement strategies: are traditional methods of animal improvement obsolete? Journal of Dairy Science 81: (supplement) 56 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Woolliams, J. A. and Simm, G. 1998. Evaluation of embryo sexing and cloning in dairy cattle nucleus schemes under restricted inbreeding. Proceedings of the 6th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 25, pp. 451–454.Google Scholar
Wakayama, T., Perry, A. C. F., Zuccotti, M., Johnson, K. R. and Yanagimachi, R. 1998. Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature 394: 369–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, S. K., Heard, T. M. and Seamark, R. F. 1992. In vitro culture of sheep embryos without co-culture: successes and perspectives. Theriogenology 37:111-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, M. 1996. Control of meiotic arrest. Reviews in Reproduction 1: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, S. M. 1980. The viability of early cleavage stages containing half the normal number of blastomeres in the sheep. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 59: 357–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, S. M. 1986. Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature 320: 63–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, S. M., Janzen, R. E., McAlister, R. J., Shea, B. F., Hamilton, G. and McDermand, D. 1991. The viability of late morulae and blastocysts produced by nuclear transplantation in cattle. Theriogenology 35:161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmut, I. and Sales, D. I. 1981. Effect of an asynchronous environment on embryonic development in sheep. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 61: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J. and Campbell, K. H. S. 1997. Viable offspring from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385: 810–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, J. M., Williams, J. D., Bondioli, K. R., Looney, C. R., Westhusin, M. E. and McCalla, D. F. 1995. Comparison of birth weight and growth chracteristics of bovine calves produced by nuclear transfer (cloning), embryo transfer and natural mating. Animal Reproduction Science 38: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. 1989. The value of cloning in MOET nucleus breeding schemes for dairy cattle. Animal Production 48: 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. 1998. A recipe for the design of breeding schemes. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 25, pp. 427–430.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. and Wilmut, I. 1989. Embryo manipulation in cattle breeding and production. Animal Production 48: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. E., Sinclair, K. D. and Wilmut, I. 1998. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Reviews of Reproduction 3: 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed