Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 115–122 | Cite as

Generation of transgenic goats by pronuclear microinjection: a retrospective analysis of a commercial operation (1995–2012)

  • W. Gavin
  • S. Blash
  • N. BuzzellEmail author
  • D. Pollock
  • L. Chen
  • N. Hawkins
  • J. Howe
  • K. Miner
  • J. Pollock
  • C. Porter
  • M. Schofield
  • Y. Echelard
  • H. Meade
Technical Report

Abstract

Production of transgenic founder goats involves introducing and stably integrating an engineered piece of DNA into the genome of the animal. At LFB USA, the ultimate use of these transgenic goats is for the production of recombinant human protein therapeutics in the milk of these dairy animals. The transgene or construct typically links a milk protein specific promoter sequence, the coding sequence for the gene of interest, and the necessary downstream regulatory sequences thereby directing expression of the recombinant protein in the milk during the lactation period. Over the time period indicated (1995–2012), pronuclear microinjection was used in a number of programs to insert transgenes into 18,120, 1- or 2- cell stage fertilized embryos. These embryos were transferred into 4180 synchronized recipient females with 1934 (47%) recipients becoming pregnant, 2594 offspring generated, and a 109 (4.2%) of those offspring determined to be transgenic. Even with new and improving genome editing tools now available, pronuclear microinjection is still the predominant and proven technology used in this commercial setting supporting regulatory filings and market authorizations when producing founder transgenic animals with large transgenes (> 10 kb) such as those necessary for directing monoclonal antibody production in milk.

Keywords

Transgenic Goat Microinjection Recombinant therapeutics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Charles R. Long, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas for his critical review of this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank Xiuchun (Cindy) Tian, Ph.D., Professor of Biotechnology, Department of Animal Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut for her critical review of the data and recommendations on the appropriate application of statistical analyses.

References

  1. Ayers SL et al (2006) Progesterone levels in goats using Norgestomet implants as part of an estrous synchronization, superovulation protocol during the breeding season. Theriogenology 66:681Google Scholar
  2. Baguisi A et al (1999) Production of goats by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nat Biotechnol 17:456–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Behboodi E et al (2001) Production of transgenic goats by adult somatic cell nuclear transfer. Theriogenology 55:254Google Scholar
  4. Buzzell N et al (2003) Effects of short-term nutritional priming and multiple superovulation regimes on superovulated dairy goats. J Animal Sci 81(Suppl. 1):126–127Google Scholar
  5. Ebert KM et al (1991) Transgenic production of a variant of human tissue-type plasminogen activator in goat milk: generation of transgenic goats and analysis of expression. Biotechnology (NY) 9(9):835–839Google Scholar
  6. Gavin WG et al (1999) The effect of DNA concentration on microinjected embryo survival, number of offspring born and transgenic rate in the caprine species. Theriogenology 51:421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon K et al (1987) Production of human tissue plasminogen activator in transgenic mouse milk. Biotechnology 5:1183–1187Google Scholar
  8. Jaenisch R, Mintz B (1974) Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice derived from preimplantation blastocysts injected with viral DNA. Proc Natl Acad 71(4):1250–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krimpenfort P et al (1991) Generation of transgenic dairy cattle using ‘in vitro’ embryo production. Biotechnology (NY) 9:844–847Google Scholar
  10. Melican D et al (2000) Comparison of follicle stimulating hormone source for superovulation in the caprine species. Theriogenology 53:503Google Scholar
  11. Melican D et al (2002) Comparison of norgestomet or progesterone implants for estrus synchronization and superovulation in dairy goats. Theriogenology 57:612Google Scholar
  12. Melican D et al (2005) Effect of serum concentration, method of trypsinization and fusion/activation utilizing transfected fetal cells to generate transgenic dairy goats by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Theriogenology 63:1549–1563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Menchaca A et al (2016) New insights and current tools for genetically engineered (GE) sheep and goats. Theriogenology 86(1):160–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollock DP et al (1999) Transgenic milk as a method for the production of recombinant antibodies. J Immunol Methods 231(1):147–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Selgrath JP et al (1990) Collection and transfer of microinjectable embryos from dairy goats. Theriogenology 34:1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Uchida M et al (2001) Production of transgenic miniature pigs by pronuclear microinjection. Transgenic Res 10(6):577–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilburn B et al (1998) Analysis of factors affecting embryo transfers in the production of transgenic goats. Theriogenology 49:397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright G et al (1991) High level expression of active human alpha-1-antitrypsin in the milk of transgenic sheep. Biotechnology 9(9):830–834PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Gavin
    • 1
  • S. Blash
    • 1
  • N. Buzzell
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • D. Pollock
    • 1
  • L. Chen
    • 1
  • N. Hawkins
    • 1
  • J. Howe
    • 1
  • K. Miner
    • 1
  • J. Pollock
    • 1
  • C. Porter
    • 1
  • M. Schofield
    • 1
  • Y. Echelard
    • 1
  • H. Meade
    • 1
  1. 1.LFB USA, Inc.FraminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations