Biol Reprod
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

BOR - Papers in Press, published online ahead of print December 15, 2004.
Biol Reprod 2004, 10.1095/biolreprod.104.035105
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
72/4/932    most recent
biolreprod.104.035105v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.
BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 72, 932–936 (2005)
DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.104.035105
© 2005 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc.

Establishment of Male and Female Nuclear Transfer Embryonic Stem Cell Lines from Different Mouse Strains and Tissues1

Sayaka Wakayama3,4,, Hiroshi Ohta3, Satoshi Kishigami3, Nguyen Van Thuan3, Takafusa Hikichi3, Eiji Mizutani3,5,, Masashi Miyake4, and Teruhiko Wakayama2,3

Center for Developmental Biology,3 RIKEN Kobe, Kobe 650-0047, Japan Department of Life Science,4 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan Graduate School of Agricultural Science,5 Tohoku University, Sendai 981-8555, Japan


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Nuclear transfer can be used to generate embryonic stem cell lines from somatic cells, and these have great potential in regenerative medicine. However, it is still unclear whether any individual or cell type can be used to generate such lines. Here, we tested seven different male and female mouse genotypes and three cell types as sources of nuclei to determine the efficiency of establishing nuclear transfer embryonic stem cell lines. Lines were successfully established from all sources. Cumulus cell nuclei from F1 mouse genotypes showed a significantly higher cumulative establishment rate from reconstructed oocytes than from other cells; however, there were no genotype differences in success rates from cloned blastocysts. Thus, the overall success depends on preimplantation development, and, once embryos have reached the blastocyst stage, the genotype differences disappear. All mouse genotypes that were tested demonstrated at least one cell line that subsequently contributed to germline transmission in chimeric mice, so these cell lines clearly possess the same potential as embryonic stem cells derived from fertilized embryos. Thus, nuclear transfer embryonic stem cells can be generated relatively easily from a variety of inbred mouse genotypes and cell types of both sexes, even though it may be more difficult to generate clones directly.

assisted reproductive technology, early development, embryo


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There is much active research into the possible applications of human embryonic stem (ES) cells in regenerative medicine, in which ES cells are envisioned as potential sources for use in cell replacement therapies. However, as with any allogeneic material, ES cells derived from fertilized blastocysts, and the progeny of such cells, inevitably face the risk of immunorejection when transplanted. It has been proposed that ES cells derived from embryos cloned from a host patient's own cells represent a potential solution to the problem of rejection, because any replacement cells would be genetically identical to the host's own [1–5]. Hwang et al. [6] have now successfully derived ES cells from a human embryo cloned from a somatic cell nucleus using nuclear transplantation technology. This in itself does not prove that such cells can be used effectively in regenerative medicine; many challenges remain, including the induction and targeting of differentiation, the control of stem cell proliferation, and the dilemma of persistent re-rejection in cases of autoimmune disease. However, it does provide an important first proof-of-principle of the feasibility of creating ES cells using a patient's own ES cells as a source. However, in this experiment, only one cell line was established, from a woman who provided both oocytes and somatic (cumulus) cell nuclei. It raises the question of whether only healthy women can act as ES cell donors or whether these cells can be derived from any individual.

ES-like cell lines generated from somatic cells via nuclear transfer (NTES cells) were first reported for the cow [7] and then the mouse [8, 9]. These NTES cell lines are believed to possess the same capacities for unlimited differentiation and self-renewal as those of conventional ES cell lines derived from normal embryos produced by fertilization. We have previously shown that NTES cell lines are capable of differentiating into all three germ layers in vitro, or into spermatozoa and oocytes in chimeric mice [10]. This was the first demonstration that NTES cells have the same developmental potential as fertilized ES cells. Moreover, cloned mice can be obtained from these NTES cell lines using a second nuclear transfer [10]. These techniques have now been applied to basic research, such as to demonstrate irreversible changes to DNA in adult lymphocytes [11], but not olfactory neurons [12, 13], and to examine the characteristics of different types of cancer cells [14, 15]. However, NTES cells are not yet fully characterized in terms of the effects of the animal strain genotype or sex of the donor nucleus. Such factors often affect the successful full-term development of cloned animals [16, 17]. For example, the success rate of establishing cloned mice depends on the mouse genotype; hybrid genotypes are more tolerant of cloning than inbred genotypes, such as C57BL/6 and C3H/He, which are in common use in mouse genetic studies, but which have never been cloned successfully [16, 17].

Here, we report that NTES cells can be generated from the tissues of both males and females of different mouse genotypes using different cell types, with higher success rates than for adult somatic cell nuclear cloning.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Animals

The nuclear donor mouse genotypes used were B6D2F1 (C57BL/6 x DBA/2), B6C3F1 (C57BL/6 x C3H/He), C57BL/6, C3H/He, DBA/2, and transgenic mouse lines (B6D2F1 and 129B6F1 backgrounds) with the green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene inserted [18, 19]. Enucleated B6D2F1 oocytes were used as recipients for nuclear transfer. In experiments to create chimeras, normally fertilized blastocysts of the BALB/c or ICR strains were used as recipients for NTES cell injections. The surrogate mothers carrying chimeric embryos to term were ICR mice. All animals (obtained from SLC, Shizuoka, Japan) were maintained in accordance with the Animal Experiment Handbook at the Riken Center for Developmental Biology.

Establishment of NTES Cell Lines

Nuclear transfer was performed as described [20]. Cultured tail-tip fibroblasts, freshly isolated cumulus cells, or testicular Sertoli cells were used as nuclear donors from the genotypes described above [10, 20–23]. After nuclear transfer, the reconstructed oocytes were activated by 10 mM SrCl2 in Ca2+-free CZB medium in the presence of 5 g/ml cytochalasin B and cultured for 4 days in KSOM medium (Specialty Media, Lavallette, NJ). When they had developed to the morula or blastocyst stages, they were used to establish NTES cell lines as described [10] with a slight modification, in that 20% Knock-out Serum Replacement (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) plus 0.1 mg/ml ACTH (fragments 1–24; American Peptide Company, Sunnyvale, CA) instead of fetal calf serum was added to the ES cell medium [24]. Briefly, morulae/blastocysts were treated with acid Tyrode solution to remove the zonae pellucidae and placed in 96-multiwell dishes precoated with mouse embryonic fibroblasts for 10 days or more. Proliferating outgrowths were dissociated using trypsin and replated on fibroblasts until stable cell lines grew out. Pluripotency of the established NTES cell lines was determined by alkaline phosphatase staining and from embryoid body formation. In some cell lines, the karyotypes were examined by spectral karyotyping and fluorescent in situ hybridization (SKY-FISH) chromosome painting (Applied Spectral Imaging, Carlsbad, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. As controls, we also established ES cell lines from C3H/He, C57BL/6, or DBA/2 fertilized embryos in which morulae or blastocysts were collected from the tracts of normally pregnant mice 4 days after mating, and cultured as above.

Production of Chimeric Mice and Confirmation of Germline Transmission of NTES Cells

The NTES cells (from dark or gray-colored donor mice) were introduced into the blastocoels of (albino) E3.5 BALB/c or ICR strain blastocysts by piezo-assisted microinjection (Primetech Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Immediately after injection, the blastocysts were transferred into pseudopregnant ICR-strain surrogate mothers [10]. When mature, chimeric offspring showing dark or gray coat colors were selected at random and mated with ICR mice. The chimeric mice constructed using NTES cells derived from Tg-mice expressing GFP were killed and dissected, and any GFP expression in tissues was detected using a UV lamp.

Statistical Analyses

Outcomes were evaluated using chi-square tests, and P < 0.05 was assumed to be statistically significant.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
To demonstrate that therapeutic cloning techniques can be applied to a range of genotypes, we used three inbred and two hybrid mouse genotypes of both sexes. The C3H strain has an agouti coat color; C57BL/6 is black; and DBA has a dilute brown, nonagouti coat color. Hybrids show both phenotypes of the parental genotypes used. We also used the 3 Tg genotype, which expresses GFP as a cell marker, to test for its contribution to the chimeric mice.

Establishment of NTES Cell Lines

A total of 2999 enucleated oocytes were subjected to nuclear transfer, and 1506 (50.2%) survived nuclear injection and artificial activation. Of those, 472 (31.3%) embryos developed to the morula or blastocyst stage, and 85 NTES cell lines (18.0% from blastocysts, and 5.6% from activated oocytes) were established.

Effects of Donor Cell Genotype on ES Cell Derivation

The overall success rates of pseudopronucleus formation, embryo development, and establishment of NTES cell lines were not significantly different between genotype (Tables 1 and 2). However, when comparing inbred and F1 genotypes, the blastocyst development and NTES cell derivation rates from reconstructed oocytes were significantly better from F1 cumulus cells than from others (blastocyst development, 45% vs. 4%–29%; NTES cell derivation, 8% vs. 1%–3%; P < 0.01 by chi-square tests, respectively; Fig. 1a). This difference was observed only when the data were compared from reconstructed oocytes. When we compared the rate of establishment of NTES cell lines from cloned blastocysts (Fig. 1b), there was no significant difference between groups. Thus, the better overall success rate for F1 cumulus cells was the result of more cells developing to the blastocyst stage after nuclear transfer.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Establishment of female ntES cell lines from different mouse strains using cumulus cell nuclei or tail-tip cell nuclei


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Establishment of male ntES cell lines from different mouse strains using tail-tip cell nuclei or Sertoli cell nuclei, and controls



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. Comparisons of the success rates in establishing NTES cell lines between genotype and sexes. a) Establishment rates were calculated based on the numbers of reconstructed oocytes. When the donor nuclei were from F1 female cumulus cell nuclei, the overall rate was significantly better than rates achieved using other sources. b) Establishment rates were calculated based on the numbers of cloned morulae or blastocysts. There were no statistically significant differences between sources

Effect of Donor Cell Sex on ES Cell Derivation

When we compared the effect of donor cell sex using tail-tip fibroblasts as donor nuclei, there was no significant difference between males and females in any group except that the rate of pseudopronuclear formation in inbred females was inferior (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 1, a and b).

Effects of Donor Cell Type on ES Cell Derivation

We compared the effect of donor cell type using female cumulus cell nuclei and female tail-tip cell nuclei. Pseudopronucleus formation, embryo development, and NTES cell derivation were all significantly better when F1 cumulus cells were used for donor nuclei than when tail-tip cells were used (pseudopronucleus formation, 89% vs. 48%–70%; morula or blastocyst development, 45% vs. 4%– 11%; NTES cell derivation, 8% vs. 1%–2%, respectively; P < 0.01). This difference was not observed when inbred genotype cumulus cells were compared with tail-tip cells (Fig. 1, a and b). We also used male Sertoli cells as nuclear donors and found a higher establishment rate, but the data are insufficient to make any conclusion. As a control for our conditions, we also established ES cell lines from fertilized embryos. The rate from fertilized blastocysts was 25%–68% for each genotype, as reported previously [24].

Germline Transmission

All established cell lines were positive for alkaline phosphatase staining and formed embryoid bodies (data not shown), suggesting that these NTES cell lines would have been pluripotent [10]. About 80% of the cells from six tested NTES cell lines (two from hybrid donors and four from inbred donors) had normal karyotypes, as shown by SKY-FISH chromosome painting (data not shown). To test the possible pluripotency of these NTES cells, chimeric mice were produced by injecting the NTES cells into BALB/c or ICR blastocysts and transferring these to pseudopregnant recipients. Chimeric mice with a donor genotype of dark, brown, or gray coat color were obtained from all NTES cell lines. After sexual maturation, the chimeric mice were mated with mice of the ICR strain. At least one chimeric animal of all mouse genotypes delivered nonalbino offspring, demonstrating true germline transmission of the NTES cell genotype (Table 3). When the organs of high-coat-color chimeric mice derived from GFP-expressing NTES cells were examined, all tissues examined (brain, lung, heart, kidney, intestines, liver, and pancreas) exhibited GFP emission under UV illumination (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Contribution of embryonic stem cells established from nuclear transferred embryos to chimeric mice after injection into in vivo-fertilized blastocysts


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the possibility of producing NTES cell lines from several tissues in various male and female mouse genotypes, because for therapeutic cloning, to be practical, one needs to be able to work with a variety of genotypes. We demonstrated that all genotypes, both male and female, could be used to derive NTES cell lines from somatic cell nuclei with a relatively high success rate, even in the case of inbred genotypes such as C57BL/6 and C3H/He. These genotypes have been used for somatic cell nuclear transfer experiments but have never produced clones [16]. Most (~80%) of the examined NTES cells we produced here showed normal karyotypes and demonstrated germ line transmission, which confirms their pluripotency. The characteristics of these NTES cells were nearly identical to those of ES cells derived from fertilized embryos and were able to differentiate into spermatozoa or oocytes in the chimeric mice in vivo.

Attaining blastocyst development from cloned embryos is relatively easy in all mouse genotypes and tissues, as previously reported [16, 17], but most of them degenerate during culture or just after implantation [10, 25]. Hochedlinger et al. [15] and Li et al. [26] reported that cloned embryos derived from cancer cell nuclei with abnormal chromosomes could develop to the blastocyst stage. However, most cloned embryos die immediately after implantation if transferred into pseudopregnant uteri [26], and this is believed to be caused either by abnormal chromosomes or through incomplete genomic reprogramming. Moreover, even if some embryonic genes that are essential for full-term development are not expressed in cloned embryo, they still develop to the blastocyst stage [27, 28]. On the other hand, when oocytes were fertilized with karyotypically abnormal spermatozoa produced by freeze-drying, more than half the embryos showed chromosomal abnormalities [29]. Those abnormal embryos could not develop to full term; however, most could develop to morphologically "normal" blastocysts [30]. This suggests that the presence of a normal karyotype or complete genomic reprogramming is not essential for preimplantation development.

In our previous work, the rate of production of NTES cell lines derived from cumulus cell nuclei was 14% from cloned blastocysts, which was significantly higher than from tail-tip cell nuclei (5%), and the overall establishment rate was 8.8% [10]. In the present study, the rate of establishment of NTES cell lines from cumulus cell nuclei was 9%–19%, as before, but that from tail-tip cell nuclei was 22%, and the overall success rate was 18%. This improvement could be explained by better nuclear transfer and NTES cell derivation techniques, such as a newly modified medium [24]. However, different mouse genotypes (either different genotypes or different supplying companies), and possibly increased skill of the experimentalists [31], were involved in this study. Blelloch et al. [14] reported that 44%–57% of cloned blastocysts derived from embryonic carcinoma (EC) and ES cell nuclei could be used successfully to establish NTES cell lines, and suggested that the epigenetic state of the EC/ES cell genomes can be more efficiently reprogrammed than somatic cell genomes. This is a reasonable hypothesis, but we may be able to increase the rate of establishing NTES cell lines from somatic cell nuclei even more by improving and optimizing the nuclear transfer and NTES cell derivation techniques.

The rate of establishment of NTES cell lines from hybrid genotype cumulus cell nuclei was significantly higher than from other donor cell nuclei (8% vs. 1%–3%) using reconstructed oocytes. However, this difference disappeared when the rates were compared from cloned blastocysts (19% vs. 9%–25%). Thus, the overall success rate appears to depend primarily on preimplantation development; once embryos have reached the blastocyst stage, the genotype differences are no longer significant. The tail-tip cells required extensive treatment before use, such as in vitro culture for 2 wk, trypsin treatment, and at least three washes. Moreover, those cells are large with a robust membrane, and it is difficult to isolate and inject the nuclei into enucleated oocytes. On the other hand, the cumulus cells could be collected at the same time as the oocytes and did not need any other treatment before use. Cumulus cells are smaller than fibroblasts and have a weaker cell membrane, so it is easier to isolate the nuclei and inject them into enucleated oocytes. It is therefore possible that the method of donor cell nuclei preparation is important for the successful preimplantation development of reconstructed oocytes. To increase the overall results, we thus need to improve the methods for preparing nuclei for transfer.

Although the success rates using fibroblast nuclei were limited, we showed a relatively high rate of establishment of NTES cell lines from all genotypes tested, including males and females (18% average from blastocyst). Fibroblasts are a ready source of nuclei that will enable us to apply these NTES cell techniques to basic science. For example, if mutant mouse genotypes of interest are infertile and produce no germ cells, this NTES cell technique may be the only way to preserve such genotypes [32]. However, for human therapeutic cloning, further study is required, because we do not yet know whether these NTES cells have the same potential as true ES cells.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Mr. D. Sipp, Dr. H. Niwa, and Dr. J. Cummins for critical and useful comments on the manuscript.


   FOOTNOTES
 
1 Supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Creative Scientific Research (13GS0008), Scientific Research in Priority Areas (15080211), Young Scientists A (15681014), and a project for the realization of regenerative medicine (the research field for the technical development of stem cell manipulation) to T.W. from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan. Back

2 Correspondence: Teruhiko Wakayama, 2-2-3 Minatojima-minamimachi Chuo-ku, Kobe 650-0047, Japan. FAX: 81 78 306 0101;teru{at}cdb.riken.go.jp Back

Received: 13 August 2004.

First decision: 13 September 2004.

Accepted: 2 December 2004.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Gurdon JB, Colman A. The future of cloning. Nature 1999 402:743-746[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Rideout WM 3rd, Hochedlinger K, Kyba M, Daley GQ, Jaenisch R. Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell 2002 109:17-27[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Barberi T, Klivenyi P, Calingasan NY, Lee H, Kawamata H, Loonam K, Perrier AL, Bruses J, Rubio ME, Topf N, Tabar V, Harrison NL, Beal MF, Moore MA, Studer L. Neural subtype specification of fertilization and nuclear transfer embryonic stem cells and application in parkinsonian mice. Nat Biotechnol 2003 21:1200-1207[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Mombaerts P. Therapeutic cloning in the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003 100:11924-11925[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Wakayama T. On the road to therapeutic cloning. Nat Biotechnol 2004 22:399-400[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, Park ES, Lee EG, Koo JM, Jeon HY, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kim SJ, Ahn C, Hwang JH, Park KY, Cibelli JB, Moon SY. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 2004 303:1669-1674[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Cibelli JB, Stice SL, Golueke PJ, Kane JJ, Jerry J, Blackwell C, Ponce de Leon FA, Robl JM. Transgenic bovine chimeric offspring produced from somatic cell-derived stem-like cells. Nat Biotechnol 1998 16:642-646[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Munsie MJ, Michalska AE, O'Brien CM, Trounson AO, Pera MF, Mountford PS. Isolation of pluripotent embryonic stem cells from reprogrammed adult mouse somatic cell nuclei. Curr Biol 2000 10:989-992[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Kawase E, Yamazaki Y, Yagi T, Yanagimachi R, Pedersen RA. Mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell lines established from neuronal cell-derived cloned blastocysts. Genesis 2000 28:156-163[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Wakayama T, Tabar V, Rodriguez I, Perry ACF, Studer L, Mombaerts P. Differentiation of embryonic stem cell lines generated from adult somatic cells by nuclear transfer. Science 2001 292:740-743[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hochedlinger K, Jaenisch R. Monoclonal mice generated by nuclear transfer from mature B and T donor cells. Nature 2002 415:1035-1038[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Eggan K, Baldwin K, Tackett M, Osborne J, Gogos J, Chess A, Axel R, Jaenisch R. Mice cloned from olfactory sensory neurons. Nature 2004 428:44-49[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Li J, Ishii T, Feinstein P, Mombaerts P. Odorant receptor gene choice is reset by nuclear transfer from mouse olfactory sensory neurons. Nature 2004 428:393-399[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Blelloch RH, Hochedlinger K, Yamada Y, Brennan C, Kim M, Mintz B, Chin L, Jaenisch R. Nuclear cloning of embryonal carcinoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004 101:13985-13990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hochedlinger K, Blelloch R, Brennan C, Yamada Y, Kim M, Chin L, Jaenisch R. Reprogramming of a melanoma genome by nuclear transplantation. Genes Dev 2004 18:1875-1885[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R. Mouse cloning with nucleus donor cells of different age and type. Mol Reprod Dev 2001 58:376-383[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Inoue K, Ogonuki N, Mochida K, Yamamoto Y, Takano K, Kohda T, Ishino F, Ogura A. Effects of donor cell type and genotype on the efficiency of mouse somatic cell cloning. Biol Reprod 2003 69:1394-1400[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Perry ACF, Wakayama T, Kishikawa H, Kasai T, Okabe M, Toyoda Y, Yanagimachi R. Mammalian transgenesis by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Science 1999 284:1180-1183[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Okabe M, Ikawa M, Kominami K, Nakanishi T, Nishimune Y. ‘Green mice’ as a source of ubiquitous green cells. FEBS Lett 1997 407:313-319[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Wakayama T, Perry ACF, Zuccotti M, Johnson KR, Yanagimachi R. Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature 1998 394:369-374[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R. Cloning of male mice from adult tail-tip cells. Nat Genet 1999 22:127-128[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Wakayama T, Rodriguez I, Perry ACF, Yanagimachi R, Mombaerts P. Mice cloned from embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 96:14984-14989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Ogura A, Inoue K, Ogonuki N, Noguchi A, Takano K, Nagano R, Suzuki O, Lee J, Ishino F, Matsuda J. Production of male cloned mice from fresh, cultured, and cryopreserved immature Sertoli cells. Biol Reprod 2000 62:1579-1584[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Ogawa K, Matsui H, Ohtsuka S, Niwa H. A novel mechanism for regulating clonal propagation of mouse ES cells. Genes Cells 2004 9:471-477[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R. Cloning the laboratory mouse. Semin Cell Dev Biol 1999 10:253-258[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Li L, Connelly MC, Wetmore C, Curran T, Morgan JI. Mouse embryos cloned from brain tumors. Cancer Res 2003 63:2733-2736[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Boiani M, Eckardt S, Scholer HR, McLaughlin KJ. Oct4 distribution and level in mouse clones: consequences for pluripotency. Genes Dev 2002 16:1209-1219[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Bortvin A, Eggan K, Skaletsky H, Akutsu H, Berry DL, Yanagimachi R, Page DC, Jaenisch R. Incomplete reactivation of Oct4-related genes in mouse embryos cloned from somatic nuclei. Development 2003 130:1673-1680[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Kusakabe H, Szczygiel MA, Whittingham DG, Yanagimachi R. Maintenance of genetic integrity in frozen and freeze-dried mouse spermatozoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 98:13501-13506[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R. Development of normal mice from oocytes injected with freeze-dried spermatozoa. Nat Biotechnol 1998 16:639-641[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Perry AC, Wakayama T. Untimely ends and new beginnings in mouse cloning. Nat Genet 2002 30:243-244[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Wakayama S, Kishigami S, Thuan NV, Ohta H, Hikichi T, Mizutani E, Yanagimachi R, Wakayama T. Propagation of an infertile hermaphrodite mouse lacking germ cells, using nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell technology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:29–33



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
H. Ohta, Y. Sakaide, K. Yamagata, and T. Wakayama
Increasing the Cell Number of Host Tetraploid Embryos Can Improve the Production of Mice Derived from Embryonic Stem Cells
Biol Reprod, September 1, 2008; 79(3): 486 - 492.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
B. Heindryckx, P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, M. Dhont, and J. Van der Elst
Embryo development after successful somatic cell nuclear transfer to in vitro matured human germinal vesicle oocytes
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 1982 - 1990.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ReproductionHome page
E. Mizutani, H. Ohta, S. Kishigami, N. Van Thuan, T. Hikichi, S. Wakayama, M. Kosaka, E. Sato, and T. Wakayama
Developmental ability of cloned embryos from neural stem cells.
Reproduction, December 1, 2006; 132(6): 849 - 857.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ReproductionHome page
R. Alberio, K. H Campbell, and A. D Johnson
Reprogramming somatic cells into stem cells.
Reproduction, November 1, 2006; 132(5): 709 - 720.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stem CellsHome page
S. Wakayama, M. L. Jakt, M. Suzuki, R. Araki, T. Hikichi, S. Kishigami, H. Ohta, N. Van Thuan, E. Mizutani, Y. Sakaide, et al.
Equivalency of Nuclear Transfer-Derived Embryonic Stem Cells to Those Derived from Fertilized Mouse Blastocysts
Stem Cells, September 1, 2006; 24(9): 2023 - 2033.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stem CellsHome page
R. Blelloch, Z. Wang, A. Meissner, S. Pollard, A. Smith, and R. Jaenisch
Reprogramming Efficiency Following Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Is Influenced by the Differentiation and Methylation State of the Donor Nucleus
Stem Cells, September 1, 2006; 24(9): 2007 - 2013.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
X.-M. Guo, Y.-S. Zhao, H.-X. Chang, C.-Y. Wang, L.-L. E, X.-A. Zhang, C.-M. Duan, L.-Z. Dong, H. Jiang, J. Li, et al.
Creation of Engineered Cardiac Tissue In Vitro From Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells
Circulation, May 9, 2006; 113(18): 2229 - 2237.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
S. L. Smith, R. E. Everts, X. C. Tian, F. Du, L.-Y. Sung, S. L. Rodriguez-Zas, B.-S. Jeong, J.-P. Renard, H. A. Lewin, and X. Yang
Global gene expression profiles reveal significant nuclear reprogramming by the blastocyst stage after cloning
PNAS, December 6, 2005; 102(49): 17582 - 17587.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
72/4/932    most recent
biolreprod.104.035105v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wakayama, T.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS