Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Epigenetic modification does not determine the time of POU5F1 transcription activation in cloned bovine embryos

  • Epigenetics
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of epigenetic modification on pattern, time and capacity of transcription activation of POU5F1, the key marker of pluripotency, in cloned bovine embryos.

Methods

Bovine fibroblasts were stably transfected with POU5F1 promoter-driven enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP). This provided a visible marker to investigate the effect of post-activation treatment of cloned bovine embryos with trichostatin A (TSA) on time and capacity of POU5F1 expression and its subsequent effect on in vitro development of cloned bovine embryos.

Results

Irrespective of TSA treatment, POU5F1 expression was not detected until 8–16 cell stage, but was detected in both inner cell mass and trophectoderm at the blastocyst stage. TSA treatment significantly increased POU5F1 expression, and the yield and quality of cloned embryo development compared to control.

Conclusion

The POU5F1 expression of cloned embryos is strictly controlled by the stage of embryo development and may not be altered by TSA-mediated changes occur in DNA-methylation and histone-acetylation of the genome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilmut I, Beaujean N, De Sousa PA, Dinnyes A, King TJ, Paterson LA, et al. Somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nature. 2002;419:583–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhao J, Hao Y, Ross JW, Spate LD, Walters EM, Samuel MS, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibitors improve in vitro and in vivo developmental competence of somatic cell nuclear transfer porcine embryos. Cell Reprogram. 2010;12:75–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Iager AE, Ragina NP, Ross PJ, Beyhan Z, Cunniff K, Rodriguez RM, et al. Trichostatin A improves histone acetylation in bovine somatic cell nuclear transfer early embryos. Clon Stem Cells. 2008;10:371–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsuji Y, Kato Y, Tsunoda Y. The developmental potential of mouse somatic cell nuclear-transferred oocytes treated with trichostatin A and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine. Zygote. 2009;17:109–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jeon BG, Coppola G, Perrault SD, Rho GJ, Betts D, King WA. S-adenosylhomocysteine treatment of adult female fibroblasts alters X-chromosome inactivation and improves in vitro embryo development after somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reproduction. 2008;135:815–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tian XC, Park J, Bruno R, French R, Jiang L, Prather RS. Altered gene expression in cloned piglets. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009;21:60–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoshida M, Horinouchi S, Beppu T. Trichostatin A and trapoxin: novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in chromatin structure and function. Bioassays. 1995;17:423–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jafarpour F, Hosseini SM, Hajian M, Forouzanfar M, Ostadhosseini S, Abedi P, et al. Somatic-cell-induced hyperacetylation, but not hypomethylation, positively and reversibly affects the efficiency of in vitro cloned blastocyst production in cattle. Cellular Reprogramming. 2011. doi:10.1089/cell.2011.0005.

  9. Cervera RP, Martí-Gutiérrez N, Escorihuela E, Moreno R, Stojkovic M. Trichostatin A affects histone acetylation and gene expression in porcine somatic cell nucleus transfer embryos. Theriogenology. 2009;72:1097–110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wuensch A, Habermann FA, Kurosaka S, Klose R, Zakhartchenko V, Reichenbach HD, et al. Quantitative monitoring of pluripotency gene activation after somatic cloning in cattle. Biol Reprod. 2007;76:983–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirchhof N, Carnwath JW, Lemme E, Anastassiadis K, Scholer H, Niemann H. Expression pattern of Oct-4 in preimplantation embryos of different species. Biol Reprod. 2000;63:1698–705.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hosseini SM, Moulavi F, Foruzanfar M, Hajian M, Abedi P, Memar M, et al. Effect of donor cell type and gender on the efficiency of in vitro sheep somatic cell cloning. Small Rum Res. 2008;78:162–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nasr-Esfahani MH, Hosseini SM, Hajian M, Forouzanfar M, Ostadhosseini S, Abedi P, et al. Development of an optimized zona-free method of somatic cell nuclear transfer in the goat. Cell Reprogram. 2011;13:157–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell KHS. Nuclear equivalence, nuclear transfer, and the cell cycle. Cloning. 1999;1:3–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hosseini SM, Hajian M, Moulavi F, Abedi P, Forouzanfar M, Ostadhosseini S, et al. Highly efficient in vitro production of bovine blastocysts in cell-free sequential synthetic oviductal fluid VS. TCM 199 vero cell co-culture system. IJFS. 2008;2:66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oback B, Wiersema AT, Gaynor P, Laible G, Tucker FC, Oliver JE, et al. Cloned cattle derived from a novel zona-free embryo reconstruction system. Cloning Stem Cells. 2003;5:3–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hosseini SM, Hajian M, Moulavi F, Shahverdi AH, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Optimized combined electrical and chemical activation of in vitro matured bovine oocytes. Anim Reprod Sci. 2006;108:122–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vajta G, Peura TT, Holm P, Pald A, Greve T, Trounson AO, et al. New method for culture of zona-included or zona-free embryos: the Well of the Well (WOW) system. Mol Reprod Dev. 2000;55:256–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jafari Sh, Hosseini SM, Hajian M, Forouzanfar M, Jafarpour F, Abedi P, Ostadhosseini S, Abbasi H, Gourabi H, Shahverdi AH, Vosough Taghi Dizaj AD, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Improved in vitro development of cloned bovine embryos using S-adenosylhomocysteine, the non-toxic epigenetic modifying reagent. Mol Reprod Dev. [Epub ahead of print]

  20. Beaujean N, Hartshorne G, Cavilla J, Taylor J, Gardner J, Wilmut I, et al. Young: non-conservation of mammalian preimplantation methylation dynamics. Curr Biol. 2004;14:266–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moulavi F, Hosseini SM, Ashtiani SK, Shahverdi A, Nasr-Esfahani MH. Can Vero cell co-culture improve in-vitro maturation of bovine oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:404–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dean W, Santos F, Stojkovic M, Zakhartchenko V, Walter J, Wolf E, et al. Conservation of methylation reprogramming in mammalian development: aberrant reprogramming in cloned embryos. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:13734–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Santos F, Zakhartchenko V, Stojkovic M, Peters A, Jenuwein T, Wolf E, et al. Epigenetic marking correlates with developmental potential in cloned bovine preimplantation embryos. Curr Biol. 2003;13:1116–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kang Y, Koo D, Park J, Choi Y, Chung A, Lee K, et al. Aberrant methylation of donor genome in cloned bovine embryos. Nat Genet. 2001;28:173–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cedar H, Bergman Y. Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:295–304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Li J, Svarcova O, Villemoes K, Kragh PM, Schmidt M, Bøgh IB, et al. High in vitro development after somatic cell nuclear transfer and trichostatin A treatment of reconstructed porcine embryos. Theriogenology. 2008;70:800–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang F, Kou Z, Zhang Y, Gao S. Dynamic reprogramming of histone acetylation and methylation in the first cell cycle of cloned mouse embryos. Biol Reprod. 2007;77:1007–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Martinez-Diaz MA, Che L, Albornoz M, Seneda MM, Collis D, Coutinho AR, et al. Pre- and postimplantation development of swine-cloned embryos derived from fibroblasts and bone marrow cells after inhibition of histone deacetylases. Cell Reprogram. 2010;12:85–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yamanaka K, Sugimura S, Wakai T, Kawahara M, Sato E. Acetylation level of histone H3 in early embryonic stages affects subsequent development of miniature pig somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos. J Reprod Dev. 2009;55:638–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cibelli JB, Kocabas AM, Beyhan Z, Ross PJ. Cellular reprogramming for the creation of patient-specific embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Rev. 2006;2:289–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang YS, Xiong XR, An ZX, Wang LJ, Liu J, Quan FS, et al. Production of cloned calves by combination treatment of both donor cells and early cloned embryos with 5-aza-2/-deoxycytidine and trichostatin A. Theriogenology. 2011;15:819–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hansis C, Tang YX, Grifo JA, Krey LC. Analysis of Oct-4 expression and ploidy in individual human blastomeres. Mol Hum Reprod. 2001;7:155–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a grant from the Royan Institute of IRI. All the study was carried out in Royan Institute, IRI. The authors would like to thank Mrs. Hosseini for ovum pick up assistance. Authors also sincerely thank Mrs Mansouri for statistical analysis and Mr. Heidari, and Khajeh for preparation the ovaries.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Shahram Jafari & Halimatun Yaakub

  2. Department of Reproduction and Development, Cell Sciences Research Center, Royan Institute for Animal Biotechnology, ACECR, Isfahan, Iran

    Shahram Jafari, Sayyed Morteza Hosseini, Mehdi Hajian, Farnoosh Jafarpour, Parvaneh Abedi, Somayyeh Ostadhosseini, Hasan Abbasi & Mohammad Hosein Nasr-Esfahani

  3. Department of Basic Science, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht Branch, Marvdasht, Iran

    Mohsen Forouzanfar

  4. Department of Genetics, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

    Hamid Gourabi

  5. Department of Reproduction and Development, Cell Sciences Research Center, ACECR, Isfahan, Iran

    Abdolhossein H. Shahverdi

  6. Department of Imaging, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

    Ahmad Dizaj Vosough

  7. Department of Anatomical Science, University of Medical Science, Rafsanjan, Iran

    Maryam Anjomshoaa

  8. Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Abd Wahid Haron

  9. Department of Obstetric and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Norshariza Nordin

Authors
  1. Shahram Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sayyed Morteza Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehdi Hajian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohsen Forouzanfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farnoosh Jafarpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Parvaneh Abedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Somayyeh Ostadhosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hasan Abbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hamid Gourabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Abdolhossein H. Shahverdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ahmad Dizaj Vosough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Maryam Anjomshoaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Abd Wahid Haron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Norshariza Nordin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Halimatun Yaakub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Mohammad Hosein Nasr-Esfahani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Halimatun Yaakub or Mohammad Hosein Nasr-Esfahani.

Additional information

Authors contribution

Conceived and designed the experiments: SMH, FJ, MHN. Performed the experiments: SMH, MH, MF, FJ, PA, SO, HA, SJ. Analyzed the data: SMH, MHN. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MHN, HG, AHS, ADV. Wrote the paper: SMH, MHN.

Capsule

Epigenetic modification and cloning efficiency

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jafari, S., Hosseini, S.M., Hajian, M. et al. Epigenetic modification does not determine the time of POU5F1 transcription activation in cloned bovine embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 1119–1127 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9638-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9638-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation