title: Comparison of bulk enucleation methods for porcine oocytes.
abstract: Cloning of mammalian oocytes requires that the recipient oocyte is enucleated to remove all genetic material associated with the chromosomes. The procedure currently used in most species requires careful micromanipulation of oocytes treated with cytochalasin B to prevent structural damage. Although functional, this procedure requires time and limits the number of oocytes available for cloning, and our ability to understand the mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming. Therefore, this study aimed at evaluating different procedures to enucleate large pools of oocytes in a time-efficient manner. Two different approaches were tested. The first approach involved centrifugation of zona-free oocytes through a percoll gradient to separate the portion containing the chromatin from the cytoplasmic portion. The second used etoposide to prevent chromatin segregation at first metaphase and resulting in the expulsion of all chromosomes in the polar body. Using the chemical approach an average enucleation rate of 39.4 +/- 7.5% was obtained, while the centrifugation approach resulted in an average enucleation rate of 66.9 +/- 6. In terms of time efficiency, the control manipulation method takes 0.11 min and the centrifugation took an average of 0.52 min per oocyte. The MPF activity at the end of procedure was estimated through the measurement of H1 activity and as expected, the etoposide-cycloheximide treated oocytes had lower H1 activity which was restored by further incubation in the maturation medium for 5 hr while the centrifugation gave a nonsignificant intermediary result. In conclusion, the results presented suggest that both the chemical and the mechanical methods are usable alternatives to micromanipulation of oocytes to generate a large number of chromosome free cytoplasm for biochemical analysis. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 67: 70-76, 2004.
authors.affiliation: Centre de Recherche en Biologie de la Reproduction, Département des Sciences Animales, Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada.
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Savard
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Novak
authors.forename: Antoine
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Saint-Cyr
authors.forename: Marc
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Moreau
authors.forename: Francois
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Pothier
authors.forename: Marc-André
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Sirard
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002458:Cell Fractionation / Q000379:methods*; D002467:Cell Nucleus; D019976:Cloning, Organism / Q000379:methods*; D003513:Cycloheximide / Q000494:pharmacology; D005047:Etoposide / Q000494:pharmacology; D016200:Maturation-Promoting Factor / Q000378:metabolism; D008846:Micromanipulation; D019384:Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors / Q000494:pharmacology; D009865:Oocytes / Q000166:cytology* / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D011494:Protein Kinases / Q000378:metabolism; D011500:Protein Synthesis Inhibitors / Q000494:pharmacology; D013552:Swine; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D019384:Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; D011500:Protein Synthesis Inhibitors; D005047:Etoposide; D003513:Cycloheximide; D011494:Protein Kinases; C102333:histone H1 kinase; D016200:Maturation-Promoting Factor