Transgenic Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 773–784

Welfare assessment in transgenic pigs expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP)

  • Reinhard C. Huber
  • Liliana Remuge
  • Ailsa Carlisle
  • Simon Lillico
  • Peter Sandøe
  • Dorte B. Sørensen
  • C. Bruce A. Whitelaw
  • I. Anna S. Olsson
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s11248-011-9571-1

Cite this article as:
Huber, R.C., Remuge, L., Carlisle, A. et al. Transgenic Res (2012) 21: 773. doi:10.1007/s11248-011-9571-1

Abstract

Since large animal transgenesis has been successfully attempted for the first time about 25 years ago, the technology has been applied in various lines of transgenic pigs. Nevertheless one of the concerns with the technology—animal welfare—has not been approached through systematic assessment and statements regarding the welfare of transgenic pigs have been based on anecdotal observations during early stages of transgenic programs. The main aim of the present study was therefore to perform an extensive welfare assessment comparing heterozygous transgenic animals expressing GFP with wildtype animals along various stages of post natal development. The protocol used covered reproductory performance and behaviour in GFP and wildtype sows and general health and development, social behaviour, exploratory behaviour and emotionality in GFP and wildtype littermates from birth until an age of roughly 4 months. The absence of significant differences between GFP and wildtype animals in the parameters observed suggests that the transgenic animals in question are unlikely to suffer from deleterious effects of transgene expression on their welfare and thus support existing anecdotal observations of pigs expressing GFP as healthy. Although the results are not surprising in the light of previous experience, they give a more solid fundament to the evaluation of GFP expression as being relatively non-invasive in pigs. The present study may furthermore serve as starting point for researchers aiming at a systematic characterization of welfare relevant effects in the line of transgenic pigs they are working with.

Keywords

GFPTransgenic pigWelfareBehaviour

Supplementary material

11248_2011_9571_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 13 kb)
11248_2011_9571_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (23 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 22 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard C. Huber
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Liliana Remuge
    • 1
  • Ailsa Carlisle
    • 2
  • Simon Lillico
    • 2
  • Peter Sandøe
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dorte B. Sørensen
    • 5
  • C. Bruce A. Whitelaw
    • 2
  • I. Anna S. Olsson
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory Animal Science Group, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e CelularUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Division of Developmental Biology, The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary StudiesUniversity of EdinburghMidlothianUK
  3. 3.Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (CeBRA)Copenhagen SDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopehagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Veterinary Disease BiologyUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark