Ansgenic clone pigsFigure 4. Integration and functionality of exogenous DNA in transgenic

Ansgenic clone pigsFigure 4. Integration and functionality of exogenous DNA in transgenic cloned pigs. (A) Cloned piglets produced from apoEshRNA1 transfected fibroblast cells. (B) Epifluorescence images showing GFP expression in the placenta, liver and testes of pigs cloned from control cells (top row) and apoE-shRNA1 fibroblasts (bottom row). (C) PCR detection of GFP-coding sequences in liver DNA from control (lanes 1?) and apoE-shRNA1 (lanes 4?) cloned pigs. M, DNA size markers; B, PCR no template control; F, apoE-shRNA1 fibroblast DNA template. doi:10.1371/298690-60-5 site journal.pone.0064613.gFigure 5. Detection of apoE and GFP proteins in control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) cloned pigs. (A) Immunoblots showing protein bands for apoE, GFP and b-actin in liver samples of control (lanes 1?) and transgenic (4?) cloned pigs. (B) Differences in apoE abundance between control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) liver samples was assessed by densitometric analysis. The intensity (mean 6 SEM) of the apoE bands was normalized to the intensity of corresponding b-actin bands. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA (*P = 0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064613.gGene Attenuation in Cloned PigsFigure 6. Detection of apoE in the plasma of control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) cloned pigs. (A) Immunoblots showing the detection of apoE protein in plasma of control (lanes 1?) and apoEshRNA1 transgenic (lanes 4?) cloned pigs. (B) The intensity (mean 6 SEM) of the apoE bands in equal volumes of plasma samples was assessed by densitometric analysis. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064613.gcleaved by the RNAi cell machinery to produce a functional interfering RNA molecule. Selection markers, such as GFP and antibiotic-resistance genes, can be included in the DNA vectors to enable detection and selection of cells with chromosomal integration of engineered transgenes [28,29]. In this study, we first confirmed that small interfering RNA targeting apoE mRNA sequences decreased apoE mRNA abundance in porcine granulosa cells, which are known to express the APOE gene [24], before introducing the shRNA expressing transgene in fibroblasts, which do not express the APOE gene. Along with 23148522 SCNT, the expression of shRNAs has the potential to greatly facilitate the production of transgenic ITI 007 web animals particularly in species, such as large domestic animals, where pluripotent stem cells are not available or still not fully characterized. To date, SCNT has been applied to clone animals of more than 20 different species. However, animal cloning efficiency from somatic cells is very low, generally less than 5 of the embryos produce by SCNT develop into live offspring [6,30,31]. There is overall agreement that defective epigenetic reprogramming is the main constraint affecting SCNT efficiency [30,32?7]. In fact, treatments that enhance epigenetic reprogramming have been shown to improve the development of SCNT embryos [38?1]. Nevertheless, this technology has been successfully applied for a variety of reasons such as to create copies of elite animals with desirable phenotypic traits, to rescue deceased or endangered animals, and to produce transgenic animals. Importantly, SCNT has allowed the production of transgenic large animal species [6,42,43]. Indeed, the overall efficiency of transgenic livestock production by DNA pronuclear microinjection is considerably l.Ansgenic clone pigsFigure 4. Integration and functionality of exogenous DNA in transgenic cloned pigs. (A) Cloned piglets produced from apoEshRNA1 transfected fibroblast cells. (B) Epifluorescence images showing GFP expression in the placenta, liver and testes of pigs cloned from control cells (top row) and apoE-shRNA1 fibroblasts (bottom row). (C) PCR detection of GFP-coding sequences in liver DNA from control (lanes 1?) and apoE-shRNA1 (lanes 4?) cloned pigs. M, DNA size markers; B, PCR no template control; F, apoE-shRNA1 fibroblast DNA template. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064613.gFigure 5. Detection of apoE and GFP proteins in control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) cloned pigs. (A) Immunoblots showing protein bands for apoE, GFP and b-actin in liver samples of control (lanes 1?) and transgenic (4?) cloned pigs. (B) Differences in apoE abundance between control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) liver samples was assessed by densitometric analysis. The intensity (mean 6 SEM) of the apoE bands was normalized to the intensity of corresponding b-actin bands. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA (*P = 0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064613.gGene Attenuation in Cloned PigsFigure 6. Detection of apoE in the plasma of control and transgenic (apoE-shRNA1) cloned pigs. (A) Immunoblots showing the detection of apoE protein in plasma of control (lanes 1?) and apoEshRNA1 transgenic (lanes 4?) cloned pigs. (B) The intensity (mean 6 SEM) of the apoE bands in equal volumes of plasma samples was assessed by densitometric analysis. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA. Mean band intensity between groups was compared by ANOVA (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064613.gcleaved by the RNAi cell machinery to produce a functional interfering RNA molecule. Selection markers, such as GFP and antibiotic-resistance genes, can be included in the DNA vectors to enable detection and selection of cells with chromosomal integration of engineered transgenes [28,29]. In this study, we first confirmed that small interfering RNA targeting apoE mRNA sequences decreased apoE mRNA abundance in porcine granulosa cells, which are known to express the APOE gene [24], before introducing the shRNA expressing transgene in fibroblasts, which do not express the APOE gene. Along with 23148522 SCNT, the expression of shRNAs has the potential to greatly facilitate the production of transgenic animals particularly in species, such as large domestic animals, where pluripotent stem cells are not available or still not fully characterized. To date, SCNT has been applied to clone animals of more than 20 different species. However, animal cloning efficiency from somatic cells is very low, generally less than 5 of the embryos produce by SCNT develop into live offspring [6,30,31]. There is overall agreement that defective epigenetic reprogramming is the main constraint affecting SCNT efficiency [30,32?7]. In fact, treatments that enhance epigenetic reprogramming have been shown to improve the development of SCNT embryos [38?1]. Nevertheless, this technology has been successfully applied for a variety of reasons such as to create copies of elite animals with desirable phenotypic traits, to rescue deceased or endangered animals, and to produce transgenic animals. Importantly, SCNT has allowed the production of transgenic large animal species [6,42,43]. Indeed, the overall efficiency of transgenic livestock production by DNA pronuclear microinjection is considerably l.