Mammalian Genome

, Volume 28, Issue 7–8, pp 338–347 | Cite as

Genome editing and genetic engineering in livestock for advancing agricultural and biomedical applications



Genetic modification of livestock has a longstanding and successful history, starting with domestication several thousand years ago. Modern animal breeding strategies predominantly based on marker-assisted and genomic selection, artificial insemination, and embryo transfer have led to significant improvement in the performance of domestic animals, and are the basis for regular supply of high quality animal derived food. However, the current strategy of breeding animals over multiple generations to introduce novel traits is not realistic in responding to the unprecedented challenges such as changing climate, pandemic diseases, and feeding an anticipated 3 billion increase in global population in the next three decades. Consequently, sophisticated genetic modifications that allow for seamless introgression of novel alleles or traits and introduction of precise modifications without affecting the overall genetic merit of the animal are required for addressing these pressing challenges. The requirement for precise modifications is especially important in the context of modeling human diseases for the development of therapeutic interventions. The animal science community envisions the genome editors as essential tools in addressing these critical priorities in agriculture and biomedicine, and for advancing livestock genetic engineering for agriculture, biomedical as well as “dual purpose” applications.


Genetic modification of livestock genomes by humans is not a novel concept. From the dawn of civilization, humans have engaged in the practice of deliberately modifying the animal genomes by selectively breeding them. In fact, domestication of all animals has its roots in selective breeding, where animals of perceived “high merit” were selectively bred for improving docility and adaptation to human management, then further selected for breed type and conformation, high milk production, carcass weight, disease resistance, adaptations to local environment, and other traits deemed critical for their respective applications. These techniques greatly improved the rate of genetic progress for a large suite of economically important traits and continue to evolve today. The advent of genomic technologies including marker arrays, have added to the power of traditional animal breeding technologies and are aiding in the rate of genetic progress. Unfortunately, these technologies are not amenable for the manipulation or isolation of specific novel traits or alleles that may be of singular interest to the animal breeder or researchers. Introgression of novel alleles, transfer of alleles between breeds, and introduction of exogenous traits require sophisticated genetic modifications. The latter is especially important for the use of animals in biomedical studies, where targeted genetic modifications are required in the animals to mimic human mutations or diseased states, or humanization of the genome for xenotransplantation studies. In this context, the genome editors are leading the way in livestock genetic engineering field. In this article, the current state of genetic engineering efforts in livestock will be discussed in the context of genome editors, and identify the many advantages they offer for agricultural and biomedical applications.

Genetic engineering in domestic animals: a progress report

Random transgenesis

In pioneering experiments by Szybalska and Szybalski about half a century ago, it was first demonstrated that exogenous genetic information can be transferred into mammalian cells by transforming cells deficient in hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase (HPRT) to become resistant to HAT (for Hypothanthine, Aminopterin, and Thymidine) selection medium (Szybalska and Szybalski 1962). In the experiments that followed, exogenous DNA was microinjected into cultured cells (Capecchi 1980; Gordon et al. 1980; Graessmann et al. 1979), which set the stage for microinjection of DNA into pronucleus (PN) of mouse zygotes (Gordon et al. 1980) for the generation of first transgenic mice (Brinster et al. 1981). This was soon followed by the generation of first transgenic livestock species (Hammer et al. 1985). Though conceptually simple, the procedure in livestock is complicated by the fact that the zygote of livestock species is opaque and the PN are not readily visible. This together with the low efficiency of generating stable founders and long generation intervals and small number of offspring being born (in ruminants) makes it less than an ideal option for generating transgenic founders (Prather et al. 2008). Others have attempted precomplexing of the DNA with sperm and fertilized the oocytes for the delivery of exogenous DNA into the egg (Gandolfi 2000; Lavitrano et al. 2006, 1997). The process known as sperm mediated gene transfer (SMGT) suffers from a lack of reproducibility in generating transgenic animals (Brinster et al. 1989). Retroviruses that stably transduce intact zygotes and integrate into their genomes when placed into the perivitelline space have also been successfully utilized in generating transgenic farm animals (Cabot et al. 2001; Hofmann et al. 2003). Unlike PN injection or SMGT, the retroviral approach has been found to be more reliable in generating transgenic founders as the vectors actively integrate into the genome with very minimal viral sequence. The main draw backs with this approach are the limitations on the size of the transgene (~8 kb), and a lack of consistency in stable expression and transmission, even from the same lab. That said, this technique is still a standard for generating transgenic poultry (Federspiel and Hughes 1997; Solaiman et al. 2000). Another tool in the tool box for livestock geneticists are the mobile “jumping genes”, notably transposons. The transposons are naturally existing mobile elements that can stably integrate into the genomes with minimal recognition sequences. Additionally, by utilizing transposable elements that are not native to the host species, any concern of activating endogenous transposable elements is offset (Clark et al. 2007; Plasterk et al. 1999). Several transposable elements are currently in use for farm animal transgenesis (Carlson et al. 2011; Kong et al. 2008; Ni et al. 2008).

Gene targeting by homologous recombination

Barring the mode of delivery and mechanism of integration, all the above approaches suffer somewhat from the same set of limitations including the lack of reliable and reproducible integration at target sites. The apparent randomness of genomic integration brings with it a host of unwanted side effects such as lack of control over the copy number and consequently dosage of the transgene; aberrant expression in non-target tissues based on the site of integration or silencing of transgene (positional variegation); insertion into functional genes and mutating the endogenous genes (insertional mutagenesis); to name a few. This has necessitated a need for refined approaches that utilize homologous recombination (HR) mediated gene targeting and modification of the genome. HR is a mechanism whereby gene cassettes between isogenic/homologous sequences are exchanged (Capecchi 1989), resulting in a targeted gene knockin (KI) of transgenes or disruption of target genes with selection cassettes to generate knockout (KO) animals.

Promise of stem cells that weren’t to be

A major limitation of HR-based gene targeting in livestock is the lack of embryonic stem cells for any livestock species that are amenable to genetic modification and subsequent testing. The establishment of authentic embryonic stem cells (ESC) like the one in mouse remains elusive despite more than three decades of intensive investigations (Nowak-Imialek and Niemann 2012). Although progress has been made in establishing stem cells of embryonic origin (Alberio et al. 2010), the established lines are clearly distinct from the mouse ESC characterized by a naïve phenotype, and are similar to human ESC representing the “epiblast stem cell” phenotype. The stem cells are FGF-dependent instead of LIF-dependent, are flattened, and do not tolerate dispersal as single cells. Additionally, gene targeting and HR is inefficient in these epiblast-type stem cell types (Gafni et al. 2013). Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) generated by upregulation of four reprogramming factors and cultured on LIF-based medium offer an alternative (Telugu et al. 2010, 2011). Contrary to the widely-touted advantages of stem cells, such as effective contribution to chimeras or in generating live offspring via NT, evidence in the livestock field so far has been underwhelming. Initial experiments with iPSC in NT experiments were less than encouraging, most likely due to persistent expression of reprogramming transgenes (Cuffee et al. 2014). It remains to be seen if the reported “naive”-type stem cell lines can contribute to chimeras and colonize the gonads (Telugu et al. 2010, 2011). In this regard, it would be prudent to actively pursue in parallel primordial germ cells (PGC), although germline specific imprinting could prove to be a barrier. Genetic modification utilizing PGC has been demonstrated in poultry (Macdonald et al. 2010). The PGC can be genetically modified in vitro and returned to chick embryos where they form eggs and sperm when the chicks reach sexual maturity. Conceivably, as an alternative to PGCs, spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) of prized males could be genetically modified in culture and transplanted into surrogates lacking an endogenous germline for effective transmission of genetic modifications in months rather than over years as with conventional breeding. The feasibility of this approach has already been demonstrated in a proof of concept study in goats (Honaramooz et al. 2008). Goat SSCs, modified by AAV-transduction in vitro, were transplanted into the testes of recipients with depleted endogenous germ cells. Subsequent use of sperm from these bucks for in vitro fertilization readily produced transgenic embryos. Potentially, this could be accelerated even further by in vitro differentiation of pluripotent stem cells of embryonic ESC or somatic iPSCs into oocytes and sperm (Geijsen et al. 2004; Hubner et al. 2003). These so-called artificial gametes might then be used for fertilization to produce viable offspring (Hayashi et al. 2012, 2011). Progress in the stem cell field has been slow but tangible. The many advances in deriving and culturing stem cells provide a positive outlook for this otherwise nascent field.

Cloning is a reliable option

In the absence of robust stem cells, the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or cloning has emerged as a method of choice for generating transgenic or gene targeted large animal models. Following successful demonstration that the nuclei of adult somatic cells could be reprogrammed to produce viable mammalian offspring (Wilmut et al. 1997), cloning from all domestic animals has now been reported (Cibelli et al. 1998; Onishi et al. 2000; Yin et al. 2005; Yong and Yuqiang 1998). The readers are referred to several excellent review articles on this subject, and will not be discussed in detail here (Galli et al. 2012; Whyte and Prather 2011). Briefly, the haploid genome of the oocytes arrested at the metaphase stage of meiosis II is removed alongside the extruded polar body. Following enucleation, the pre-screened somatic cell carrying the targeted genetic mutation is placed in the perivitelline space and fused by an electric pulse. The oocyte with its now reconstituted diploid genome will initiate the cleavage divisions and following transfer into recipients will generate live offspring. A requirement for pre-screening of the desired mutations in somatic cells (due to a relatively long generation interval), necessitated SCNT as a de facto option for generating genetically modified large animals. That said, SCNT is the most demanding of techniques for an average laboratory embarked on genetic engineering. The process is incredibly finicky, and is influenced by many factors including the species, source of donor cell, time of cell in culture, potential incomplete reprogramming of the epigenome of the donor nucleus in the reconstituted zygote, defects in extraembryonic membrane developments following implantation, among variables that effect outcome of this system.

At a cellular level, major hurdles remain in using fibroblasts or other somatic cells as a source material. Potential complications include the limited survival of fibroblasts in culture, and the poor efficiency of achieving the desired recombination events, typically ranging 1 in 106–107 in cultured cells, and time it takes to screen for the positive recombinants. In most cases, a round of gene targeting generates monoallelic modifications, requiring a second round of targeting for biallelic (homozygous) modifications that are a necessity to assess the altered/predicted phenotype. This typically entails another round of SCNT, embryo transfer, and harvesting of the fetal fibroblasts to perform a second gene targeting experiment. Given the already long gestation periods and length of time to reproductive age in large animals, generation of modified animals by nuclear transfer (cloning) and subsequent breeding to homozygosity, or performing multiple rounds of gene targeting and embryo transfer, both technically challenging and a cost prohibitive option.

Genetic engineering in the context of genome editors

The year 1996 marked two major events in genetic engineering arena, the advent of cloning (Campbell et al. 1996) and the first reports on the use of programmable genome editors (Kim et al. 1996). While, deservedly so, the cloning of dolly was received with much fan-fare, the response for genome editors has largely been muted. The genome editors, however, are beginning to capture public and scientific discourse alike in recent times. The editors, also referred to as site-specific nucleases or designer nucleases, are an innovative adaptation of the in vivo systems. They are either based of naturally occurring nucleases such as the Cas9 from the bacterial CRISPR/Cas system (Cong et al. 2013; Jinek et al. 2012, 2013; Mali et al. 2013) or the homing endonucleases identified from yeast gene-drives (Choulika et al. 1995); or, the artificial modular assemblies of zinc fingers (Kim et al. 1996) or the TALs (Christian et al. 2010) fused to a facultative nuclease such as Fok1. Albeit the differences, all editors perform the same basic function, which is to introduce a double strand break (DSB) at the target site. The introduction of DSB triggers either an error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair, or a conservative homology directed repair (HDR) pathway (Kass and Jasin 2010; Symington and Gautier 2011). The NHEJ events can be leveraged to introduce DSBs and subsequently errors within the open reading frame (ORF) resulting in out-of-frame mutations and knockout of the genes. When, the repair is facilitated by strand invasion into the repair template, the HDR pathway results in the introduction of subtle mutations or knockin of transgenes into the target site.

Among the four available editors, the CRISPR/Cas9 has emerged as a clear winner in the race for livestock genome editing. The system uses a 20 nucleotide RNA sequence as a guide along with a universal sequence (77 nucleotides) that permits loading into the Cas9 protein. The RNA is relatively easy to design and synthesize either in vitro, or purchased from many commercial vendors. Likewise, the Cas9 can be delivered as a DNA coding vector or in vitro transcribed RNA (both not preferable) or purchased as a commercial protein. The latter option in which the RNA is pre-complexed with the protein, and the ribonucleoprotein complex delivered into either cells for subsequent SCNT, or directly into the embryos. Already multiple groups including ours have demonstrated successful generation of knockout animals by injection of CRISPRs directly into the cytoplasm of zygotes (Chang et al. 2002; Chen et al. 2015; Hai et al. 2014; Kang et al. 2016; Park et al. 2017a; Peng et al. 2015; Petersen et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2015a, c, d; Whitworth et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2016, 2015). Efforts have similarly been successful in our laboratory to generate knockin animals (Park et al. 2017b). The availability of on-the-shelf reagents, coupled with the ease of delivering the reagents including electroporation (Tanihara et al. 2016), and a high reliability of introducing designer edits is expected to fast track genome editing in livestock species. Conceptually, a typical reproductive biology laboratory with access to livestock animals, and an ability to harvest and handle embryos can generate genome edited animals. This is a far cry from the technically demanding and laborious SCNT or inefficient transgenic approaches of the past. If the recent spike in publications utilizing genome editors are any indication, this prediction is likely going to be true, and the true impact of CRISPRs (and other editors) will likely be clearly visible in the livestock genetic engineering field. From a SCNT perspective, although HR mediated gene targeting events are rare in somatic cells (1:106–107 cells), the efficiencies can be improved by greater than threefolds of magnitude by introducing a DSB (Rouet et al. 1994). This essentially eliminates a perceived bottleneck in SCNT, which is generating homozygous biallelic edits in one generation. Although the merits of embryo injections vs SCNT based approaches are hotly debated, and a clear winner has yet to emerge, it is clear that the livestock genetic engineering field is poised for a take-off. Combined with the sequencing of animal genomes, the animal biotechnology field is ready to realize the full potential in addressing global agricultural and biomedical challenges.

Next generation breeding technologies facilitated by genome editors to meet global agricultural challenges

By year 2050, the current 7 billion world population is projected to grow by another 2.6 billion (, with a concomitant 70% increase in the requirement for animal products. The increase in global population is expected to occur predominantly in developing countries, with the majority residing in urban areas. Majority of arable land is already under production, and the land use is being further impacted by urbanization, production of biofuels, and climate change. Secondly, the animal agriculture is continuously under public scanner with production practices related to animal welfare such as castration and dehorning occupying headlines. Finally, risks of global pandemics affecting animals, such as foot-and-mouth disease virus, or zoonotic diseases that affect both the humans and animals alike (e.g. influenza), are one-Health challenges that need to be tackled.

In the past five decades, even though major gains in animal agriculture have been achieved via the use of selective breeding and better management practices, sustained selection pressure on a singular production trait has created bottlenecks in agricultural systems, potentially due to linkage of traits. Additionally, introducing novel alleles or traits for creating a new phenotype in a population is painstakingly slow because of crossing over (meiotic recombination) during gametogenesis and subsequent mixing of the genomes following fertilization. At a minimum, 5–6 generations of backcrossing are required to introduce the desired phenotype into an existing breed. In cattle, it translates to 30 years (Smith 1989) for achieving 30% gain in genetic value. Consequently, new “next generation” animal breeding technologies are needed to enable animal breeders to take advantage of independent introduction and transmission of desirable traits.

Additionally, a better understanding of factors influencing farm animal health, reproduction, and nutrient utilization will no doubt benefit our ability to produce food animals, while comparative biological studies will shed light on similar concerns in human medicine (e.g. health, fertility, obesity). Representative examples where genetic engineering has already made an impact are below:

  1. A.

    Modification of milk:

  • Production of hypoallergenic milk (Jabed et al. 2012).

  • Improving milk production. e.g. alpha-LA (lactalbumin) transgenic sow (Bleck et al. 1998)

  • Increasing the production of nutriceuticals in milk, such as lysozyme and lactoferrin (Maga et al. 2006a, b)

  • ‘Biofarming’: production of milk proteins and other proteins of pharmaceutical value e.g. recombinant human antithrombin produced in the milk of goats (marketed as ATryn) (Lavine 2009; Schmidt 2006) and recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor produced in the milk of rabbits (marketed as Ruconest) (van Veen et al. 2012), human IL-2 in the milk of transgenic rabbits (Buhler et al. 1990), human tissue type plasminogen activator in goat milk (Ebert et al. 1991), active alpha-1-antitrypsin in sheep milk (Wright et al. 1991).

  1. B.

    Modification of growth and carcass composition:

  • Fat-1 transgenic pig with elevated omega-3 fatty acid production- heart healthy pork (Lai et al. 2006)

  • Enhanced growth in porcine growth hormone transgenic pig (Vize 1988).

  • IGF-1 transgenic pigs with more loin mass and improved carcass characteristics (Pursel et al. 2004).

  • In addition, a myostatin (KO) pig and cattle that exhibit enhanced lean muscle mass throughout the carcass apparently due to muscle cell hyperplasia without any gross abnormalities-are currently being considered (Carlson et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2015b, d).

As can be expected there are many such genes that can be exploited for manipulating growth and carcass quality in meat producing animals.

  1. C.

    Modification of disease resistance:


There are many aspects of disease resistance or susceptibility in livestock that are genetically determined. Other examples include the generation of prion-gene KO sheep (Denning et al. 2001), goats (Yu et al. 2006), and cattle (Kuroiwa et al. 2004) that are resistant for spongiform encephalopathies (Scrapie and BSE, respectively), and the lysostaphin-cow that resists staphylococcal mastitis (Wall et al. 2005). Deletion of specific genes/inclusion of synthetic constructs to confer disease resistance include influenza-free birds (Lyall et al. 2011). PRRS resistant pigs have been generated by targeted ablation of CD163 (Whitworth et al. 2016), while pigs resistant to African Swine Fever are generated by modification of NF-kB RelA subunit (Lillico et al. 2016). Likewise, cattle resistant to Bovine respiratory disease are being considered for modification. Several such avenues for disease resistance can be identified and disease resistant transgenic lines created. With the improvement of gene targeting efficiencies, it is worth revisiting previous models that have failed to express transgenes efficiently.

  1. D.

    Modification of reproductive performance and prolificacy:


A prime example are mutations in oocyte-derived growth factors of the TGF-beta family and a related receptor. Mutations in growth differentiation factor 9, bone morphogenetic protein 15 and activin receptor-like kinase 6 are resulting in increased ovulation rates and thus litter size (McNatty et al. 2005). Several potential candidates have been identified which affect reproductive performance. One of these is the estrogen receptor gene. ESR gene is associated with increased litter size in pigs (1.4 more piglets between two homozygous genotypes) (Goliasova and Wolf 2004). Introduction of such genes can improve prolificacy in diverse breeds. Novel applications include germline ablation for germ cell transplantation (surrogate sires) for accelerating genetic selection (Park et al. 2017a).

  1. E.

    Generation of environmentally friendly animals:


Phytase transgenic pigs which are capable of expressing bacterial phytase in saliva and thereby reducing fecal phosphorous output have been developed for commercial production in Canada (Golovan et al. 2001).

Biomedical applications: “the mouse is no human

Even though the laboratory mouse remains a powerhouse genetic model species, the emphasis on using alternative animal model species for biomedical investigation has gained momentum due in part to several findings in which the mouse models and the resulting phenotypes (regarding modeling human biology) have been shown to be confounded and/or overly dependent on the genetic background or strain of mouse used in the study. For example, strain-specific differences (Harris and Juriloff 2010) have been reported to result in different neural tube closure phenotypes in mutants of: Casp3 (Houde et al. 2004), Sod2 (Huang et al. 2006), Egfr (Threadgill et al. 1995), Nnt (Nicholson et al. 2010), Bcl2l2 (Navarro et al. 2012), and associated mutants. In so far as most mouse studies involve inbred mouse strains (to help reduce variability in the response), almost all the domestic animals are crossbreeds, and the resulting phenotype from these animal models is more reliable and applicable to the human disease. An often cited example is that of cystic fibrosis, where mice carrying human mutations do not show the full panoply of symptoms associated with human cystic fibrosis (Carvalho-Oliveira et al. 2007; Grubb and Boucher 1999; Montier et al. 2004; Wilke et al. 2011); the same is true for other diseases such as Lesch-Nylan (Wu and Melton 1993) and Huntington’s Disease (Li and Li 2012; Morton and Howland 2013). As a result, focus is increasingly directed to larger animals with pigs and sheep seeing the greatest use (Casal and Haskins 2006) besides primates (Camus et al. 2015).

In addition to failing to replicate disease mutations, the mouse has both size and physiological limitations and thus inherently cannot fulfill the full spectrum of biomedical needs to address all human disease e.g. preventive medicine (obesity, infertility, cardiovascular disorders), prosthetics, identification of new or improved diagnostics, development of novel therapeutic strategies, and farm-derived zoonotic diseases. These and other examples underscore the need for alternative model species for biomedical investigation. For a comprehensive review of alternative large animal biomedical models, the readers are referred to other recent Review articles (Meurens et al. 2012; Petersen and Niemann 2015; Prather et al. 2008; Swindle et al. 2012; Tan et al. 2016; Whitelaw et al. 2016; Whyte and Prather 2011).

In addition to serving as models of human disease, domesticated animals are coveted for studies where the relatively long-life span, close similarity in body size, and physiology offer an advantage. Briefly, pigs are preferred models for nutritional studies and are a model of choice for investigation of nutrient uptake, trafficking, and metabolism (Patterson et al. 2008). Cattle have played a major role and still are a preferred model for development of in vitro fertilization, embryo culture in vitro, and embryo transfer procedures (Betteridge 2003). Sheep models have pioneered cloning technologies (Campbell et al. 1996) and have been invaluable for modeling human pregnancy and fetal development (Barry and Anthony 2008). They have also served as a model for research on cardiovascular disease and the toxicity of anesthetics (Scheerlinck et al. 2008). Chickens are used as a model for developmental fate mapping (Tickle 2004) and growth physiology (Porter et al. 1995). Taken together, depending on the biological question that needs to be addressed, a suitable or even a preferred large animal model is available for investigation. However, until now, there has been a lack of incentive for the use of large animals as “preferred models”, due to the relatively high costs of maintenance, a lack of suitable funding mechanisms, and genetic modification technologies that lag behind the mouse models. As discussed above, large animal research has entered an exciting phase; the availability of editors for precise alteration of the genome coupled with genome annotation and bio-informatics tools are now affording hitherto unavailable opportunities. In the same way that the genetically modified mouse catapulted mammalian biology to the forefront of biomedical research 30 years ago, we are now positioned to using comparative biology with large animals to further refine the gaps left by the murine era.

Summary: way forward

Animal agriculture is presented with unprecedented challenges. In addition to disease susceptibility and production issues, farmers are now faced with rising animal feed costs, regulatory hurdles including reducing growth promoting antibiotics in animal feed, animal welfare issues, and misguided consumer perceptions (to name a few). With burgeoning global population, ensuring food security and improving production efficiencies are top priorities that need to be dealt with urgently. Intensification of animal agriculture is the likely path forward and associated issues like animal pollution, food safety, and antibiotic usage while maintaining high animal output are topics that will need scientific input now and for years to come. Practices related to animal welfare such as castration and dehorning that are often vilified and are a poster issue for animal welfare organizations are similarly going to play on the public conscience and likely best dealt via novel strain construction rather than relying solely on better animal management tools. Finally, the risks of global pandemics affecting animals, such as foot-and-mouth virus, and zoonotic diseases that affect both the humans and animals alike, e.g. influenza, are other challenges where animal scientists and biomedical scientists will need to join forces. We are at the intersection of genomics and genetics, where causative genes, mutations, and polymorphisms associated with these unwanted traits are easier to identify and can often be eliminated. These modifications can be achieved such that hard earned genetic gains are not lost at the expense of selection for an individual (production or disease resistance) trait. Arguably, most if not all the outlined challenges can be addressed by genetic engineering, specifically precision editing techniques enabled by editors. A better understanding of issues related to large animal health and production are no doubt going to benefit humans in the long term (e.g. health, fertility, obesity). Investment into animal research, in this case, the livestock will have an added advantage of advancing veterinary medicine in addition to human medicine and will prove to be a better investment of resources.



The primary author was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant # 2015-67015-22845 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. Bhanu Telugu and Ki-Eun Park are co-founders of RenOVAte Biosciences Inc, a large animal genome editing company.


  1. Alberio R, Croxall N, Allegrucci C (2010) Pig epiblast stem cells depend on activin/nodal signaling for pluripotency and self renewal. Stem Cells Dev 19:1627–1636PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry JS, Anthony RV (2008) The pregnant sheep as a model for human pregnancy. Theriogenology 69:55–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betteridge KJ (2003) A history of farm animal embryo transfer and some associated techniques. Anim Reprod Sci 79:203–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleck GT, White BR, Miller DJ, Wheeler MB (1998) Production of bovine alpha-lactalbumin in the milk of transgenic pigs. J Anim Sci 76:3072–3078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinster RL, Chen HY, Trumbauer M, Senear AW, Warren R, Palmiter RD (1981) Somatic expression of herpes thymidine kinase in mice following injection of a fusion gene into eggs. Cell 27:223–231PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinster RL, Sandgren EP, Behringer RR, Palmiter RD (1989) No simple solution for making transgenic mice. Cell 59:239–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buhler TA, Bruyere T, Went DF, Stranzinger G, Burki K (1990) Rabbit beta-casein promoter directs secretion of human interleukin-2 into the milk of transgenic rabbits. Biotechnology (N Y) 8, 140–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabot RA, Kuhholzer B, Chan AW, Lai L, Park KW, Chong KY, Schatten G, Murphy CN, Abeydeera LR, Day BN, Prather RS (2001) Transgenic pigs produced using in vitro matured oocytes infected with a retroviral vector. Anim Biotechnol 12:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell KH, McWhir J, Ritchie WA, Wilmut I (1996) Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature 380:64–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camus S, Ko WK, Pioli E, Bezard E (2015) Why bother using non-human primate models of cognitive disorders in translational research? Neurobiol Learn Mem. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2015.06.012 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Capecchi MR (1980) High efficiency transformation by direct microinjection of DNA into cultured mammalian cells. Cell 22:479–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capecchi MR (1989) Altering the genome by homologous recombination. Science 244:1288–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlson DF, Geurts AM, Garbe JR, Park CW, Rangel-Filho A, O’Grady SM, Jacob HJ, Steer CJ, Largaespada DA, Fahrenkrug SC (2011) Efficient mammalian germline transgenesis by cis-enhanced Sleeping Beauty transposition. Transgenic Res 20:29–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlson DF, Tan W, Lillico SG, Stverakova D, Proudfoot C, Christian M, Voytas DF, Long CR, Whitelaw CB, Fahrenkrug SC (2012) Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:17382–17387PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carvalho-Oliveira I, Scholte BJ, Penque D (2007) What have we learned from mouse models for cystic fibrosis? Expert Rev Mol Diagn 7:407–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Casal M, Haskins M (2006) Large animal models and gene therapy. Eur J Hum Genet 14:266–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang K, Qian J, Jiang M, Liu YH, Wu MC, Chen CD, Lai CK, Lo HL, Hsiao CT, Brown L, Bolen J Jr, Huang HI, Ho PY, Shih PY, Yao CW, Lin WJ, Chen CH, Wu FY, Lin YJ, Xu J, Wang K (2002) Effective generation of transgenic pigs and mice by linker based sperm-mediated gene transfer. BMC Biotechnol 2:5PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen F, Wang Y, Yuan Y, Zhang W, Ren Z, Jin Y, Liu X, Xiong Q, Chen Q, Zhang M, Li X, Zhao L, Li Z, Wu Z, Zhang Y, Hu F, Huang J, Li R, Dai Y (2015) Generation of B cell-deficient pigs by highly efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene targeting. J Genet Genom 42:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choulika A, Perrin A, Dujon B, Nicolas JF (1995) Induction of homologous recombination in mammalian chromosomes by using the I-SceI system of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 15:1968–1973PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F, Hummel A, Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF (2010) Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 186:757–761PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cibelli JB, Stice SL, Golueke PJ, Kane JJ, Jerry J, Blackwell C, Ponce de Leon FA, Robl JM (1998) Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science 280:1256–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark KJ, Carlson DF, Fahrenkrug SC (2007) Pigs taking wing with transposons and recombinases. Genome Biol 8(Suppl 1):S13PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA, Zhang F (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339:819–823PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cuffee Y, Ogedegbe C, Williams NJ, Ogedegbe G, Schoenthaler A (2014) Psychosocial risk factors for hypertension: an update of the literature. Curr Hypertens Rep 16:483PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denning C, Burl S, Ainslie A, Bracken J, Dinnyes A, Fletcher J, King T, Ritchie M, Ritchie WA, Rollo M, de Sousa P, Travers A, Wilmut I, Clark AJ (2001) Deletion of the alpha(1,3)galactosyl transferase (GGTA1) gene and the prion protein (PrP) gene in sheep. Nat Biotechnol 19:559–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebert KM, Selgrath JP, DiTullio P, Denman J, Smith TE, Memon MA, Schindler JE, Monastersky GM, Vitale JA, Gordon K (1991) Transgenic production of a variant of human tissue-type plasminogen activator in goat milk: Generation of transgenic goats and analysis of expression. Nat Biotechnol 9:835–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Federspiel MJ, Hughes SH (1997) Retroviral gene delivery. Methods Cell Biol 52:179–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gafni O, Weinberger L, Mansour AA, Manor YS, Chomsky E, Ben-Yosef D, Kalma Y, Viukov S, Maza I, Zviran A, Rais Y, Shipony Z, Mukamel Z, Krupalnik V, Zerbib M, Geula S, Caspi I, Schneir D, Shwartz T, Gilad S, Amann-Zalcenstein D, Benjamin S, Amit I, Tanay A, Massarwa R, Novershtern N, Hanna JH (2013) Derivation of novel human ground state naive pluripotent stem cells. Nature 504:282–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galli C, Lagutina I, Perota A, Colleoni S, Duchi R, Lucchini F, Lazzari G (2012) Somatic cell nuclear transfer and transgenesis in large animals: current and future insights. Reprod Domest Anim 47(Suppl 3):2–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gandolfi F (2000) Sperm-mediated transgenesis. Theriogenology 53:127–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Geijsen N, Horoschak M, Kim K, Gribnau J, Eggan K, Daley GQ (2004) Derivation of embryonic germ cells and male gametes from embryonic stem cells. Nature 427:148–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goliasova E, Wolf J (2004) Impact of the ESR gene on litter size and production traits in Czech Large White pigs. Anim Genet 35:293–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Golovan SP, Meidinger RG, Ajakaiye A, Cottrill M, Wiederkehr MZ, Barney DJ, Plante C, Pollard JW, Fan MZ, Hayes MA, Laursen J, Hjorth JP, Hacker RR, Phillips JP, Forsberg CW (2001) Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus manure. Nat Biotechnol 19:741–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gordon JW, Scangos GA, Plotkin DJ, Barbosa JA, Ruddle FH (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:7380–7384PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Graessmann A, Graessmann M, Topp WC, Botchan M (1979) Retransformation of a simian virus 40 revertant cell line, which is resistant to viral and DNA infections, by microinjection of viral DNA. J Virol 32:989–994PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Grubb BR, Boucher RC (1999) Pathophysiology of gene-targeted mouse models for cystic fibrosis. Physiol Rev 79:S193–S214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hai T, Teng F, Guo R, Li W, Zhou Q (2014) One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res 24:372–375PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammer RE, Pursel VG, Rexroad CE Jr, Wall RJ, Bolt DJ, Ebert KM, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL (1985) Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature 315:680–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris MJ, Juriloff DM (2010) An update to the list of mouse mutants with neural tube closure defects and advances toward a complete genetic perspective of neural tube closure. Birth defects research. Birth Defects Res A 88:653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hayashi K, Ohta H, Kurimoto K, Aramaki S, Saitou M (2011) Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell 146:519–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayashi K, Ogushi S, Kurimoto K, Shimamoto S, Ohta H, Saitou M (2012) Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial germ cell-like cells in mice. Science 338:971–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hofmann A, Kessler B, Ewerling S, Weppert M, Vogg B, Ludwig H, Stojkovic M, Boelhauve M, Brem G, Wolf E, Pfeifer A (2003) Efficient transgenesis in farm animals by lentiviral vectors. EMBO Rep 4:1054–1060PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Honaramooz A, Megee S, Zeng W, Destrempes MM, Overton SA, Luo J, Galantino-Homer H, Modelski M, Chen F, Blash S, Melican DT, Gavin WG, Ayres S, Yang F, Wang PJ, Echelard Y, Dobrinski I (2008) Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated transduction of male germ line stem cells results in transgene transmission after germ cell transplantation. FASEB J 22:374–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Houde C, Banks KG, Coulombe N, Rasper D, Grimm E, Roy S, Simpson EM, Nicholson DW (2004) Caspase-7 expanded function and intrinsic expression level underlies strain-specific brain phenotype of caspase-3-null mice. J Neurosci 24:9977–9984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huang TT, Naeemuddin M, Elchuri S, Yamaguchi M, Kozy HM, Carlson EJ, Epstein CJ (2006) Genetic modifiers of the phenotype of mice deficient in mitochondrial superoxide dismutase. Hum Mol Genet 15:1187–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hubner K, Fuhrmann G, Christenson LK, Kehler J, Reinbold R, De La Fuente R, Wood J, Strauss JF 3rd, Boiani M, Scholer HR (2003) Derivation of oocytes from mouse embryonic stem cells. Science 300:1251–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jabed A, Wagner S, McCracken J, Wells DN, Laible G (2012) Targeted microRNA expression in dairy cattle directs production of beta-lactoglobulin-free, high-casein milk. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:16811–16816PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jinek M, East A, Cheng A, Lin S, Ma E, Doudna J (2013) RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2:e00471PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kang JT, Ryu J, Cho B, Lee EJ, Yun YJ, Ahn S, Lee J, Ji DY, Lee K, Park KW (2016) Generation of RUNX3 knockout pigs using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene targeting. Reprod Domest Anim 51:970–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kass EM, Jasin M (2010) Collaboration and competition between DNA double-strand break repair pathways. FEBS Lett 584, 3703–3708PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1156–1160PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kong BW, Carlson DF, Fahrenkrug SC, Foster DN (2008) Application of the Sleeping Beauty transposon system to avian cells. Anim Genet 39:180–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuroiwa Y, Kasinathan P, Matsushita H, Sathiyaselan J, Sullivan EJ, Kakitani M, Tomizuka K, Ishida I, Robl JM (2004) Sequential targeting of the genes encoding immunoglobulin-mu and prion protein in cattle. Nat Genet 36:775–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lai L, Kang JX, Li R, Wang J, Witt WT, Yong HY, Hao Y, Wax DM, Murphy CN, Rieke A, Samuel M, Linville ML, Korte SW, Evans RW, Starzl TE, Prather RS, Dai Y (2006) Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Nat Biotechnol 24:435–436PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lavine G (2009) FDA approves first biological product derived from transgenic animal. Am J Health-System Pharm 66:518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lavitrano M, Forni M, Varzi V, Pucci L, Bacci ML, Di Stefano C, Fioretti D, Zoraqi G, Moioli B, Rossi M, Lazzereschi D, Stoppacciaro A, Seren E, Alfani D, Cortesini R, Frati L (1997) Sperm-mediated gene transfer: production of pigs transgenic for a human regulator of complement activation. Transplant Proc 29:3508–3509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lavitrano M, Busnelli M, Cerrito MG, Giovannoni R, Manzini S, Vargiolu A (2006) Sperm-mediated gene transfer. Reprod Fertil Dev 18:19–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Li XJ, Li S (2012) Influence of species differences on the neuropathology of transgenic Huntington’s disease animal models. J Genet Genom 39:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lillico SG, Proudfoot C, King TJ, Tan W, Zhang L, Mardjuki R, Paschon DE, Rebar EJ, Urnov FD, Mileham AJ, McLaren DG, Whitelaw CB (2016) Mammalian interspecies substitution of immune modulatory alleles by genome editing. Scientific reports 6:21645PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lyall J, Irvine RM, Sherman A, McKinley TJ, Nunez A, Purdie A, Outtrim L, Brown IH, Rolleston-Smith G, Sang H, Tiley L (2011) Suppression of avian influenza transmission in genetically modified chickens. Science 331:223–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Macdonald J, Glover JD, Taylor L, Sang HM, McGrew MJ (2010) Characterisation and germline transmission of cultured avian primordial germ cells. PLoS ONE 5:e15518PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maga EA, Cullor JS, Smith W, Anderson GB, Murray JD (2006a) Human lysozyme expressed in the mammary gland of transgenic dairy goats can inhibit the growth of bacteria that cause mastitis and the cold-spoilage of milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 3:384–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maga EA, Walker RL, Anderson GB, Murray JD (2006b) Consumption of milk from transgenic goats expressing human lysozyme in the mammary gland results in the modulation of intestinal microflora. Transgenic Res 15:515–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM, Aach J, Guell M, DiCarlo JE, Norville JE, Church GM (2013) RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339:823–826PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McNatty KP, Smith P, Moore LG, Reader K, Lun S, Hanrahan JP, Groome NP, Laitinen M, Ritvos O, Juengel JL (2005) Oocyte-expressed genes affecting ovulation rate. Mol Cell Endocrinol 234:57–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Meurens F, Summerfield A, Nauwynck H, Saif L, Gerdts V (2012) The pig: a model for human infectious diseases. Trends Microbiol 20:50–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Montier T, Delepine P, Pichon C, Ferec C, Porteous DJ, Midoux P (2004) Non-viral vectors in cystic fibrosis gene therapy: progress and challenges. Trends Biotechnol 22:586–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Morton AJ, Howland DS (2013) Large genetic animal models of Huntington’s Disease. J Huntingtons Dis 2:3–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Navarro SJ, Trinh T, Lucas CA, Ross AJ, Waymire KG, Macgregor GR (2012) The C57BL/6 J mouse strain background modifies the effect of a mutation in Bcl2l2. G3 2:99–102Google Scholar
  71. Ni J, Clark KJ, Fahrenkrug SC, Ekker SC (2008) Transposon tools hopping in vertebrates. Brief Funct Genom Proteom 7:444–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nicholson A, Reifsnyder PC, Malcolm RD, Lucas CA, MacGregor GR, Zhang W, Leiter EH (2010) Diet-induced obesity in two C57BL/6 substrains with intact or mutant nicotinamide nucleotide transhydrogenase (Nnt) gene. Obesity 18:1902–1905PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nowak-Imialek M, Niemann H (2012) Pluripotent cells in farm animals: state of the art and future perspectives. Reprod Fertil Dev 25:103–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Onishi A, Iwamoto M, Akita T, Mikawa S, Takeda K, Awata T, Hanada H, Perry AC (2000) Pig cloning by microinjection of fetal fibroblast nuclei. Science 289:1188–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Park KE, Kaucher AV, Powell A, Waqas MS, Sandmaier SE, Oatley MJ, Park CH, Tibary A, Donovan DM, Blomberg LA, Lillico SG, Whitelaw CB, Mileham A, Telugu BP, Oatley JM (2017a) Generation of germline ablated male pigs by CRISPR/Cas9 editing of the NANOS2 gene. Sci Rep 7:40176PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Park KE, Powell A, Sandmaier SE, Kim CM, Mileham A, Donovan DM, Telugu BP (2017b) Targeted gene knock-in by CRISPR/Cas ribonucleoproteins in porcine zygotes. Sci Rep 7:42458PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Patterson JK, Lei XG, Miller DD (2008) The pig as an experimental model for elucidating the mechanisms governing dietary influence on mineral absorption. Exp Biol Med 233:651–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Peng J, Wang Y, Jiang J, Zhou X, Song L, Wang L, Ding C, Qin J, Liu L, Wang W, Liu J, Huang X, Wei H, Zhang P (2015) Production of human albumin in pigs through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockin of human cDNA into swine albumin locus in the zygotes. Sci Rep 5:16705PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Petersen B, Niemann H (2015) Molecular scissors and their application in genetically modified farm animals. Transgenic Res 24:381–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Petersen B, Frenzel A, Lucas-Hahn A, Herrmann D, Hassel P, Klein S, Ziegler M, Hadeler KG, Niemann H (2016) Efficient production of biallelic GGTA1 knockout pigs by cytoplasmic microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 into zygotes. Xenotransplantation 23:338–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Plasterk RH, Izsvak Z, Ivics Z (1999) Resident aliens: the Tc1/mariner superfamily of transposable elements. Trends Genet 15, 326–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Porter TE, Couger GS, Morpurgo B (1995) Evidence that somatotroph differentiation during chicken embryonic development is stimulated by a blood-borne signal. Endocrinology 136:3721–3728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Prather RS, Shen M, Dai Y (2008) Genetically modified pigs for medicine and agriculture. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 25:245–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Pursel VG, Mitchell AD, Bee G, Elsasser TH, McMurtry JP, Wall RJ, Coleman ME, Schwartz RJ (2004) Growth and tissue accretion rates of swine expressing an insulin-like growth factor I transgene. Anim Biotechnol 15:33–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rouet P, Smih F, Jasin M (1994) Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol Cell Biol 14:8096–8106PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Scheerlinck JP, Snibson KJ, Bowles VM, Sutton P (2008) Biomedical applications of sheep models: from asthma to vaccines. Trends Biotechnol 26:259–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schmidt C (2006) Belated approval of first recombinant protein from animal. Nat Biotechnol 24:877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Smith C (1989) Cloning and genetic improvement of beef cattle. Anim Prod 49:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Solaiman F, Zink MA, Xu G, Grunkemeyer J, Cosgrove D, Saenz J, Hodgson CP (2000) Modular retro-vectors for transgenic and therapeutic use. Mol Reprod Dev 56:309–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Swindle MM, Makin A, Herron AJ, Clubb FJ Jr, Frazier KS (2012) Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 49:344–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Symington LS, Gautier J (2011) Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45:247–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Szybalska EH, Szybalski W (1962) Genetics of human cess line. IV. DNA-mediated heritable transformation of a biochemical trait. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 48:2026–2034PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tan W, Proudfoot C, Lillico SG, Whitelaw CB (2016) Gene targeting, genome editing: from Dolly to editors. Transgenic Res. doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9932-x PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Tanihara F, Takemoto T, Kitagawa E, Rao S, Do LT, Onishi A, Yamashita Y, Kosugi C, Suzuki H, Sembon S, Suzuki S, Nakai M, Hashimoto M, Yasue A, Matsuhisa M, Noji S, Fujimura T, Fuchimoto D, Otoi T (2016) Somatic cell reprogramming-free generation of genetically modified pigs. Sci Adv 2:e1600803PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Telugu BP, Ezashi T, Roberts RM (2010) Porcine induced pluripotent stem cells analogous to naive and primed embryonic stem cells of the mouse. Int J Dev Biol 54:1703–1711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Telugu BP, Ezashi T, Sinha S, Alexenko AP, Spate L, Prather RS, Roberts RM (2011) Leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF)-dependent, pluripotent stem cells established from inner cell mass of porcine embryos. J Biol Chem 286:28948–28953PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Threadgill DW, Dlugosz AA, Hansen LA, Tennenbaum T, Lichti U, Yee D, LaMantia C, Mourton T, Herrup K, Harris RC et al (1995) Targeted disruption of mouse EGF receptor: effect of genetic background on mutant phenotype. Science 269:230–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tickle C (2004) The contribution of chicken embryology to the understanding of vertebrate limb development. Mech Dev 121:1019–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. van Veen HA, Koiter J, Vogelezang CJ, van Wessel N, van Dam T, Velterop I, van Houdt K, Kupers L, Horbach D, Salaheddine M, Nuijens JH, Mannesse ML (2012) Characterization of recombinant human C1 inhibitor secreted in milk of transgenic rabbits. J Biotechnol 162:319–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vize PD (1988) Introduction of a porcine growth hormone fusion gene into transgenic pigs promotes growth. J Cell Sci 90:295–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Wall RJ, Powell AM, Paape MJ, Kerr DE, Bannerman DD, Pursel VG, Wells KD, Talbot N, Hawk HW (2005) Genetically enhanced cows resist intramammary Staphylococcus aureus infection. Nat Biotechnol 23:445–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wang K, Ouyang H, Xie Z, Yao C, Guo N, Li M, Jiao H, Pang D (2015a) Efficient generation of myostatin mutations in pigs using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5:16623PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wang X, Yu H, Lei A, Zhou J, Zeng W, Zhu H, Dong Z, Niu Y, Shi B, Cai B, Liu J, Huang S, Yan H, Zhao X, Zhou G, He X, Chen X, Yang Y, Jiang Y, Shi L, Tian X, Wang Y, Ma B, Huang X, Qu L, Chen Y (2015b) Generation of gene-modified goats targeting MSTN and FGF5 via zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5:13878PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wang X, Zhou J, Cao C, Huang J, Hai T, Wang Y, Zheng Q, Zhang H, Qin G, Miao X, Wang H, Cao S, Zhou Q, Zhao J (2015c) Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated biallelic gene disruption and site-specific knockin after rapid selection of highly active sgRNAs in pigs. Sci Rep 5:13348PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wang Y, Du Y, Shen B, Zhou X, Li J, Liu Y, Wang J, Zhou J, Hu B, Kang N, Gao J, Yu L, Huang X, Wei H (2015d) Efficient generation of gene-modified pigs via injection of zygote with Cas9/sgRNA. Sci Rep 5:8256PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Whitelaw CB, Sheets TP, Lillico SG, Telugu BP (2016) Engineering large animal models of human disease. J Pathol 238:247–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Whitworth KM, Lee K, Benne JA, Beaton BP, Spate LD, Murphy SL, Samuel MS, Mao J, O’Gorman C, Walters EM, Murphy CN, Driver J, Mileham A, McLaren D, Wells KD, Prather RS (2014) Use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to produce genetically engineered pigs from in vitro-derived oocytes and embryos. Biol Reprod 91:78PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Whitworth KM, Rowland RR, Ewen CL, Trible BR, Kerrigan MA, Cino-Ozuna AG, Samuel MS, Lightner JE, McLaren DG, Mileham AJ, Wells KD, Prather RS (2016) Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nat Biotechnol 34:20–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Whyte JJ, Prather RS (2011) Genetic modifications of pigs for medicine and agriculture. Mol Reprod Dev 78:879–891PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilke M, Buijs-Offerman RM, Aarbiou J, Colledge WH, Sheppard DN, Touqui L, Bot A, Jorna H, de Jonge HR, Scholte BJ (2011) Mouse models of cystic fibrosis: phenotypic analysis and research applications. J Cyst Fibros 10 Suppl 2, S152–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH (1997) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wright G, Carver A, Cottom D, Reeves D, Scott A, Simons P, Wilmut I, Garner I, Colman A (1991) High level expression of active human alpha-1-antitrypsin in the milk of transgenic sheep. Bio/Technology 9, 830–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Wu CL, Melton DW (1993) Production of a model for Lesch-Nyhan syndrome in hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase-deficient mice. Nat Genet 3:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Yin XJ, Lee HS, Lee YH, Seo YI, Jeon SJ, Choi EG, Cho SJ, Cho SG, Min W, Kang SK, Hwang WS, Kong IK (2005) Cats cloned from fetal and adult somatic cells by nuclear transfer. Reproduction 129:245–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Yong Z, Yuqiang L (1998) Nuclear-cytoplasmic interaction and development of goat embryos reconstructed by nuclear transplantation: production of goats by serially cloning embryos. Biol Reprod 58:266–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Yu G, Chen J, Yu H, Liu S, Chen J, Xu X, Sha H, Zhang X, Wu G, Xu S, Cheng G (2006) Functional disruption of the prion protein gene in cloned goats. J Gen Virol 87:1019–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zhou X, Xin J, Fan N, Zou Q, Huang J, Ouyang Z, Zhao Y, Zhao B, Liu Z, Lai S, Yi X, Guo L, Esteban MA, Zeng Y, Yang H, Lai L (2015) Generation of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene-targeted pigs via somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell Mol Life Sci 72:1175–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zhou X, Wang L, Du Y, Xie F, Li L, Liu Y, Liu C, Wang S, Zhang S, Huang X, Wang Y, Wei H (2016) Efficient generation of gene-modified pigs harboring precise orthologous human mutation via CRISPR/Cas9-induced homology-directed repair in zygotes. Hum Mutat 37:110–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhanu P. Telugu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ki-Eun Park
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Chi-Hun Park
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Animal and Avian ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Animal Bioscience and Biotechnology LaboratoryARS, USDABeltsvilleUSA
  3. 3.RenOVAte Biosciences IncReisterstownUSA

Personalised recommendations