title: DNA methylation at a bovine alpha satellite I repeat CpG site during development following fertilization and somatic cell nuclear transfer.
abstract: Incomplete epigenetic reprogramming is postulated to contribute to the low developmental success following somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Here, we describe the epigenetic reprogramming of DNA methylation at an alpha satellite I CpG site (αsatI-5) during development of cattle generated either by artificial insemination (AI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) and SCNT. Quantitative methylation analysis identified that SCNT donor cells were highly methylated at αsatI-5 and resulting SCNT blastocysts showed significantly more methylation than IVF blastocysts. At implantation, no difference in methylation was observed between SCNT and AI in trophoblast tissue at αsatI-5, however, SCNT embryos were significantly hyper-methylated compared to AI controls at this time point. Following implantation, DNA methylation at αsatI-5 decreased in AI but not SCNT placental tissues. In contrast to placenta, the proportion of methylation at αsatI-5 remained high in adrenal, kidney and muscle tissues during development. Differences in the average proportion of methylation were smaller in somatic tissues than placental tissues but, on average, SCNT somatic tissues were hyper-methylated at αsatI-5. Although sperm from all bulls was less methylated than somatic tissues at αsatI-5, on average this site remained hyper-methylated in sperm from cloned bulls compared with control bulls. This developmental time course confirms that epigenetic reprogramming does occur, at least to some extent, following SCNT. However, the elevated methylation levels observed in SCNT blastocysts and cellular derivatives implies that there is either insufficient time or abundance of appropriate reprogramming factors in oocytes to ensure complete reprogramming. Incomplete reprogramming at this CpG site may be a contributing factor to low SCNT success rates, but more likely represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of incompletely reprogramming. Until protocols ensure the epigenetic signature of a differentiated somatic cell is reset to a state resembling totipotency, the efficiency of SCNT is likely to remain low.
authors: Animal Productivity, AgResearch Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand. Christine.Couldrey@agresearch.co.nz
authors: Christine
authors: C
authors: Couldrey
authors: David N
authors: DN
authors: Wells
mesh_terms: D000311:Adrenal Glands / Q000378:metabolism; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D001755:Blastocyst / Q000378:metabolism*; D002417:Cattle; D018899:CpG Islands / Q000235:genetics* / Q000502:physiology; D019175:DNA Methylation / Q000235:genetics*; D017931:DNA Primers / Q000235:genetics; D004276:DNA, Satellite / Q000235:genetics*; D044127:Epigenesis, Genetic / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D005307:Fertilization in Vitro; D007315:Insemination, Artificial; D007668:Kidney / Q000378:metabolism; D008297:Male; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000378:metabolism; D053652:Nuclear Transfer Techniques; D010920:Placenta / Q000378:metabolism; D011247:Pregnancy; D012661:Semen / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: D017931:DNA Primers; D004276:DNA, Satellite
references: Placenta. 2012 Feb;33 Suppl:S99-S104
references: 22000472
references: Exp Gerontol. 2002 Aug-Sep;37(8-9):1005-14
references: 12213551
references: Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2011 Jan;38(1):1-6
references: 21368453
references: EMBO J. 2002 Mar 1;21(5):1092-100
references: 11867537
references: BMC Proc. 2011 Jun 03;5 Suppl 4:S3
references: 21645310
references: Cell Reprogram. 2011 Apr;13(2):171-7
references: 21473693
references: Theriogenology. 2006 Jan 7;65(1):178-91
references: 16266745
references: Biol Reprod. 2006 Oct;75(4):531-8
references: 16790688
references: Biol Reprod. 2004 Jul;71(1):217-23
references: 15028629
references: BMC Dev Biol. 2010 Mar 07;10:27
references: 20205951
references: Anim Sci J. 2011 Aug;82(4):523-30
references: 21794009
references: Mol Reprod Dev. 2003 Sep;66(1):32-7
references: 12874796
references: Curr Biol. 2001 Oct 2;11(19):1542-6
references: 11591324
references: Biol Reprod. 2002 Jun;66(6):1596-603
references: 12021036
references: Biol Reprod. 2004 Aug;71(2):470-8
references: 15044262
references: Chromosome Res. 2000;8(7):621-6
references: 11117358
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(18):e119
references: 17855397
references: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006;7:301-13
references: 16756479
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35619
references: 22532863
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 8;102(6):1957-62
references: 15684086
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Nov 20;98(24):13734-8
references: 11717434
references: Methods Mol Biol. 2006;348:307-18
references: 16988389
references: Mutat Res. 2012 Jan 3;729(1-2):100-5
references: 22032830
references: Front Biosci. 2005 Sep 01;10:3002-8
references: 15970554
references: Reproduction. 2006 Jun;131(6):1073-84
references: 16735546
references: Anim Reprod Sci. 2011 Aug;127(1-2):23-30
references: 21820255
references: Anim Reprod Sci. 2010 Dec;122(3-4):303-12
references: 21035970
references: J Reprod Dev. 2009 Oct;55(5):467-74
references: 19444005
references: J Mol Cell Biol. 2012 Oct;4(5):331-40
references: 22831836
references: Dev Biol. 2012 Apr 1;364(1):56-65
references: 22266425
references: Science. 2001 Nov 30;294(5548):1893-4
references: 11729307
references: Biol Reprod. 2004 Jan;70(1):1-11
references: 13679311
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 29;358(1436):1403-9; discussion 1409
references: 14511488
references: Reproduction. 2007 Jan;133(1):231-42
references: 17244749
references: Biol Reprod. 2003 Mar;68(3):1009-14
references: 12604655
references: Cloning Stem Cells. 2009 Jun;11(2):309-18
references: 19508113