Current status and future of gene engineering in livestock.

The application of gene engineering in livestock is necessary for various reasons, such as increasing productivity and producing disease resistance and biomedicine models. Overall, gene engineering provides benefits to the agricultural and research aspects, and humans. In particular, productivity can be increased by producing livestock with enhanced growth and improved feed conversion efficiency. In addition, the application of the disease resistance models prevents the spread of infectious diseases, which reduces the need for treatment, such as the use of antibiotics; consequently, it promotes the overall health of the herd and reduces unexpected economic losses. The application of biomedicine could be a valuable tool for understanding specific livestock diseases and improving human welfare through the development and testing of new vaccines, research on human physiology, such as human metabolism or immune response, and research and development of xenotransplantation models. Gene engineering technology has been evolving, from random, time-consuming, and laborious methods to specific, time-saving, convenient, and stable methods. This paper reviews the overall trend of genetic engineering technologies development and their application for efficient production of genetically engineered livestock, and provides examples of technologies approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for application in humans. [BMB Reports 2024; 57(1): 50-59].

Generation of double knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) electroporation.

BACKGROUND: Genome editing has been considered as powerful tool in agricultural fields. However, genome editing progress in cattle has not been fast as in other mammal species, for some disadvantages including long gestational periods, single pregnancy, and high raising cost. Furthermore, technically demanding methods such as microinjection and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) are needed for gene editing in cattle. In this point of view, electroporation in embryos has been risen as an alternative. RESULTS: First, editing efficiency of our electroporation methods were tested for embryos. Presence of mutation on embryo was confirmed by T7E1 assay. With first combination, mutation rates for MSTN and PRNP were 57.6% ± 13.7% and 54.6% ± 13.5%, respectively. In case of MSTN/BLG, mutation rates were 83.9% ± 23.6% for MSTN, 84.5% ± 18.0% for BLG. Afterwards, the double-KO embryos were transferred to surrogates and mutation rate was identified in resultant calves by targeted deep sequencing. Thirteen recipients were transferred for MSTN/PRNP, 4 calves were delivered, and one calf underwent an induction for double KO. Ten surrogates were given double-KO embryos for MSTN/BLG, and four of the six calves that were born had mutations in both genes. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrated that production of genome edited cattle via electroporation of RNP could be effectively applied. Finally, MSTN and PRNP from beef cattle and MSTN and BLG from dairy cattle have been born and they will be valuable resources for future precision breeding.

Germline transmission of MSTN knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9.

Although the production of several founder animals (F0) for gene editing in livestock has been reported in cattle, very few studies have assessed germline transmission to the next generation due to the long sexual maturation and gestation periods. The present study aimed to assess the germline transmission of MSTN mutations (-12bps deletion) in MSTN mutant F0 male and female cattle. For this purpose, oocytes and semen were collected after the sexual maturation of MSTN cattle, and embryos produced by in vitro fertilization were analyzed. In addition, the embryos were subjected to additional gene (PRNP) editing using electroporation. Embryos produced by in vitro fertilization with MSTN male and female cattle were transferred to a surrogate, and one calf was successfully born. MSTN heterozygous mutation was shown by sequencing of the F1 calf, which had no health issues. As a further experiment, using electroporation, additional gene-edited embryos fertilized with the MSTN male sperm showed a high mutation rate of PRNP (86.2 ± 3.4%). These data demonstrate that the cattle produced through gene editing matured without health issues and had transmitted MSTN mutation from the germ cells. Also, additional mutation of embryos fertilized with the MSTN male sperm could enable further mutagenesis using electroporation.

Application of transposon systems in the transgenesis of bovine somatic and germ cells.

BACKGROUND: Several DNA transposons including PiggyBac (PB), Sleeping Beauty (SB), and Tol2 have been applied as effective means for of transgenesis in many species. Cattle are not typically experimental animals, and relatively little verification has been presented on this species. Thus, the goal here was to determine the applicability of three transposon systems in somatic and embryo cells in cattle, while also investigating which of the three systems is appropriate for each cell type. Green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing transposon systems were used for electroporation and microinjection in the somatic cells and embryo stage, respectively. After transfection, the GFP-positive cells or blastocysts were observed through fluorescence, while the transfection efficiency was calculated by FACS. RESULTS: In bovine somatic cells, the PB (63.97 ± 11.56) showed the highest efficiency of the three systems (SB: 50.74 ± 13.02 and Tol2: 16.55 ± 5.96). Conversely, Tol2 (75.00%) and SB (70.00%) presented a higher tendency in the embryonic cells compared to PB (42.86%). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that these three transposon systems can be used in bovine somatic cells and embryos as gene engineering experimental methods. Moreover, they demonstrate which type of transposon system to apply depending on the cell type.

Production of MSTN-mutated cattle without exogenous gene integration using CRISPR-Cas9.

Many genome-edited animals have been produced using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 technology to edit specific genes. However, there are few guidelines for the application of this technique to cattle. The goal of this study was to produce trait-improved cattle using the genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9. Myostatin (MSTN) was selected as a target locus, and synthetic mRNA of sgRNA and Cas9 were microinjected into fertilized bovine embryos in vitro. As a result, 17 healthy calves were born, and three of them showed MSTN mutation rates of 10.5%, 45.4%, and 99.9%, respectively. Importantly, the offspring with the 99.9% MSTN mutation rate had a biallelic mutation (-12 bps) and a double-muscling phenotype. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 can produce genetically modified calves with improved traits.