Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:51:33.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultrastructural changes in goat interspecies and intraspecies reconstructed early embryos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

Yong Tao
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Lizi Cheng
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Meiling Zhang
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Bin Li
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Jianping Ding
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Yunhai Zhang
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China. Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 7, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Fugui Fang
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Xiaorong Zhang*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Poul Maddox-Hyttel
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 7, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
*
*All correspondence to: Zhang Xiaorong. Faculty of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Changjiang West Rd 130, Hefei, 230036, China. Tel: +86 551 5782 488. Fax: +86 551 5785 543. e-mail: zxr@ahau.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The low efficiency of somatic cell nuclear transfer may be related to the ultrastructural deviations of reconstructed embryos. The present study investigated ultrastructural differences between in vivo-produced and cloned goat embryos, including intra- and interspecies embryos. Goat ear fibroblast cells were used as donors, while the enucleated bovine and goat oocytes matured in vitro as recipients. Goat–goat (GG), goat–cattle (GC) and goat in vivo-produced embryos at the 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell and 16-cell stages were compared using transmission electron microscopy. These results showed that the three types of embryos had a similar tendency for mitochondrial change. Nevertheless, changes in GG embryos were more similar to changes in in vivo-produced embryos than were GC embryos, which had more extreme mitochondrial deviation. The results indicate the effects of the cytoplast on mitochondria development. The zona pellucida (ZP) in all three types of embryos became thinner and ZP pores in both GC and GG embryos showed an increased rate of development, especially for GC embryos, while in vivo-produced embryos had smooth ZP. The Golgi apparatus (Gi) and rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER) of the two reconstructed embryos became apparent at the 8-cell stage, as was found for in vivo embryos. The results showed that the excretion of reconstructed embryos was activated on time. Lipid droplets (LD) of GC and GG embryos became bigger, and congregated. In in vivo-produced embryos LD changed little in volume and dispersed gradually from the 4-cell period. The nucleolus of GC and GG embryos changed from electron dense to a fibrillo-granular meshwork at the 16-cell stage, showing that nucleus function in the reconstructed embryos was activated. The broken nuclear envelope and multiple nucleoli in one blastomere illuminated that the nucleus function of reconstructed embryos was partly changed. In addition, at a later stage in GC embryos the nuclear envelope displayed infoldings and the chromatin was concentrated, implying that the blastomeres had an obvious trend towards apoptosis. The gap junctions of the three types of embryos changed differently and GG and GC embryos had bigger perivitelline and intercellular spaces than did in vivo-produced embryos. These results are indicative of normal intercellular communication at an early stage, but this became weaker in later stages in reconstructed embryos. In conclusion, inter- and intraspecies reconstructed embryos have a similar pattern of developmental change to that of in vivo-produced embryos for ZP, rough ER, Gi and nucleolus, but differ for mitochondria, LD, vesicles, nucleus and gap junction development. In particular, the interspecies cloned embryos showed more severe destruction. These ultrastructural deviations might contribute to the compromised developmental potential of reconstructed embryos.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008
Figure 0

Figure 1 Representative zona pellucida (ZP) morphology of different embryos. (a) Goat–cattle reconstructed embryo at the 2-cell stage. (b) Goat–cattle reconstructed embryo at the 8-cell stage. (c) Goat–goat reconstructed embryo at the 2-cell stage. (d) Goat–goat reconstructed embryo at the 8-cell stage. (e) Goat in vivo fertilized embryos at the 2-cell stage. (f) Goat in vivo fertilized embryos at the 8-cell stage. The gathering glycogen is shown (circle). The pores in the zona pellucida are shown (arrow). ZP, zona pellucida; PVS, perivitelline space, PM, cytoplasmic membrane. Bar = 1μm.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Change of ZP thickness of different embryos. Each value was the mean from photographs (n = 7–9) of three embryos. No significant difference was found between the three types of embryo at the same stage (p < 0.05).

Figure 2

Figure 3 Electron micrographs showing different types of mitochondria. (a) Hooded mitochondria (HM) containing few cristae and a typical hood (arrow). (b) Vacuolated mitochondria (VM). The vacuole (arrow) and cristae (arrowhead) are shown. (c) Mature mitochondria (MM) presenting many cristae (arrowhead). Bar = 200 nm.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Proportion of hooded mitochondria in different embryos. a, b – Values compared at different stages of the same type of embryos, Groups lacking common letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). A,B – Values compared in different types of embryos at the same stage. Groups lacking common letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Figure 4

Figure 5 Proportion of mature mitochondria of different embryos. a,b – Values compared at different stages of the same type of embryos, Groups lacking common letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). A,B – Values compared in different types of embryos at the same stage. Groups lacking common letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Figure 5

Figure 6 Electron micrographs showing representative morphology of abnormal mitochondria. (a) Myelin denaturation. (b) Lucent mitochondrial matrix. (c) Membrane breakdown, ruptured cristae. The abnormal structures in mitochondria were shown respectively (arrowheads). Bar = 200 nm.

Figure 6

Table 1 Proportion of abnormal mitochondria in different embryos

Figure 7

Figure 7 Electron micrographs showing Golgi apparatus. (a) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8-cell embryo. (b) Goat–cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo. (c) Goat–goat reconstructed 8-cell embryo. (d) Goat–goat reconstructed 16-cell embryo. (e) In vivo fertilized 8-cell embryo. (f) In vivo fertilized 16-cell embryo. SER, smooth endoplasmic reticulum. Gi, Golgi apparatus. Bar = 500 nm.

Figure 8

Figure 8 Electron-micrographs showing representative images of endoplasmic reticulum. (a) In vivo fertilized 8-cell embryo. (b) Goat–goat reconstructed 8-cell embryo. (c) Goat–cattle 8-cell embryo. (d) Goat–cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo. (e,f) Representative structure of smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SER). The mitochondria surrounded by SER. RER, rough endoplasmic reticulum; M, mitochondria; N, nucleus. Long and thin arrows showed the gathering ribosomes. Thick and empty arrows showed RER. Triangle arrows indicate the aggregated ribosomes. Bars = 1μm.

Figure 9

Figure 9 Electron-micrographs showing lipid droplets. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 4-cell embryo. (b) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo. (c) Goat–goat reconstructed 4-cell embryo. (d) Goat–goat reconstructed 8-cell embryo. (e) Goat–cattle reconstructed 4-cell embryo. (f) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8-cell embryo. LD, Lipid droplet; m, mitochondria. Bar = 400 nm.

Figure 10

Table 2 Lipid droplet diameter change in different embryos

Figure 11

Table 3 Ratio of lipid droplet diameter to mitochondria diameter of different embryos

Figure 12

Figure 10 Electron-micrographs showing lysosomes. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo. A few lysosomes are contained. (b) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8-cell embryo. Many lysosomes are contained in perivitelline space (PVS). (c) Goat–goat reconstructed 8-cell embryo. Many lysosomes are contained with the abnormal mitochondria. LY, lysosomes; LD, lipid droplet; M, mitochondria; ZP, zona pellucida. Bar = 1μm.

Figure 13

Figure 11 Electron-micrographs showing representative images of the vesicles. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo. The vesicles have membrane. (b) Goat–goat reconstructed 4-cell embryo. Some vesicles have no membrane. (c) Goat–cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo. V, vesicle. Bar = 1μm.

Figure 14

Figure 12 Electron-micrographs showing representative nucleus images. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo with integrated nuclear envelope and dense nucleolus (Nu). (b) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo with integrated nuclear envelope and meshwork nucleolus. (c) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8-cell embryo with dense nucleolus. The broken nuclear envelope is shown. (d) Goat–cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo with meshwork nucleus, nuclear envelope infolding. (e) Goat–goat reconstructed 4-cell embryo containing two nuclei with integrated nuclear envelope. (f) Goat-cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo. N, nucleus (N), arrow shows nuclear envelope. The concentrated chromatin is shown (arrow). Bar = 500 nm.

Figure 15

Figure 13 Electron micrographs showing representative microvilli morphology. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo with short microvilli (Mi). Scale bar, 400 nm. (b) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8–cell embryo with long microvilli. Scale bar, 200 nm. The Mi is shown with triangle arrow.

Figure 16

Figure 14 Electron micrographs showing junctions within the blastomeres. (a) Goat in vivo-fertilized 2-cell embryo with a microvilli (Mi) enchased junction. (b) Goat in vivo-fertilized 8-cell embryo with gap junction. Bar = 1μm. (c) Goat in vivo-fertilized 16-cell embryo with a gap junction. (d) Goat–cattle reconstructed 2-cell embryo with a few Mi enchased junctions. Bar = 1μm. (e) Goat–cattle reconstructed 8-cell embryo with a large intercellular space. Bar = 300 nm. (f) Goat–cattle reconstructed 16-cell embryo, has loose junction and large intercellular space. Bar = 300 nm. (g) Goat–goat reconstructed 2-cell embryo with gap junctions and a Mi enchased junction. (h) Goat–goat reconstructed 8-cell embryo contains few Mi and large ICS with no junctions. Bar = 1μm. (i) Goat–goat reconstructed 16-cell embryo has a few gap junctions and a large intercellular space. ICS, intercellular space. Arrow heads shows the microvilli, thick and empty arrows show the desmosomes, and the circle shows the junctions.