What Was The First Livestock Animal To Have Its Genome Mapped? Horses Swine Sheep Cattle
Abstract
-
With the advent of robust genome editing tools, strains of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, and fowls with no transgenes take been bred.
-
Food products derived from genome-edited livestock are expected to enter the market soon after the condom is confirmed in a state. However, previous controversy over genetically modified (GM) animals and cloned animals suggests that many people will be unlikely to accept the products from genome-edited animals.
-
The social acceptance of such subcontract brute products would depend on the major premise that creature breeding by genome editing is performed after due considerations with regard to people's sense of ethics as well as animal welfare.
Introduction
The agronomical application of genetic engineering has advanced in the field of ingather breeding. In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a genetically modified (GM) love apple diverseness, the world'southward beginning GM crop for food consumption (Bruening and Lyons, 2000). In this GM lycopersicon esculentum (the Flavr Savr), ripening was delayed by the insertion of an antisense cistron that interferes with polygalacturonase production. Although the regulatory approval of GM crops largely demands strict assessments of the environmental risks and food safety, the commercial cultivation of GM crops with an exogenous factor (termed transgene) has spread to at least 28 countries, including the Us, Brazil, Argentina, Republic of india, Canada, China, and some European countries (Ishii and Araki, 2016). Conversely, there accept been few regulatory approvals regarding GM livestock, with the exception of GM goats for "pharming" in which biopharmaceuticals are manufactured using transgenesis (FDA, 2009).
Currently, older genetic technology practices, such as transgenesis, are giving fashion to genome editing. Genome editing tools, such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs; Klug, 2010), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs; Joung and Sander, 2013), and the clustered regularly interspaced brusque palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas 9 (Barrangou and Doudna, 2016), can intermission Dna double strands at target sites and then accomplish various types of genetic modification via non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR), thus potentially adding new value to agriculture (Figure 1). Recent reviews suggest that NHEJ is preferred in crop genome editing because the resultant plants are considered to incorporate no transgenes, which is 1 of the major concerns over GM crops from regulatory and social aspects (Hartung and Schiemann, 2014; Voytas and Gao, 2014; Araki and Ishii, 2015). Genome editing has besides been applied in livestock breeding (Carlson et al., 2012; Hai et al., 2014; Crispo et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2015; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2015b; Wang et al., 2015c; Carlson et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2016; Oishi et al., 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Tanihara et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Whitworth et al., 2016). Animals modified via NHEJ are unlikely to impose substantial risks on the environment considering they can exist managed inside a farm, unlike GM crops, which are intentionally released into the surroundings (field cultivation). Thus, one tin presume that the products derived from genome-edited livestock will presently exist accepted in society if the food safety can be confirmed.
Effigy ane.
Ii major pathways of genome editing. Double-stranded interruption (DSB) is induced at a targeted sequence by introducing site-directed nuclease. Non-homologous stop-joining (NHEJ) is a DSB repair pathway that ligates or joins two broken ends together, resulting in the introduction of small insertions or deletions (indels) at the site of the DSB (gene disruption). Homology-directed repair (HDR) is a DNA template-dependent pathway for DSB repair, using a homology-containing donor template forth with a site-specific nuclease, enabling the insertion of single or multiple transgenes (factor insertion) in addition to some nucleotide changes in which amino acid substitutions of a protein occur (copy of a variant), or a mutation is completely repaired in the resultant organism genome (mutation repair).
Figure i.
Ii major pathways of genome editing. Double-stranded break (DSB) is induced at a targeted sequence by introducing site-directed nuclease. Non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) is a DSB repair pathway that ligates or joins 2 broken ends together, resulting in the introduction of small insertions or deletions (indels) at the site of the DSB (factor disruption). Homology-directed repair (HDR) is a DNA template-dependent pathway for DSB repair, using a homology-containing donor template along with a site-specific nuclease, enabling the insertion of single or multiple transgenes (gene insertion) in add-on to some nucleotide changes in which amino acid substitutions of a protein occur (copy of a variant), or a mutation is completely repaired in the resultant organism genome (mutation repair).
However, it would be inappropriate to presume that such a favorable class of events is the only possibility. In November 2015, the FDA canonical a GM salmon for food consumption (FDA, 2015). Nevertheless, denizen groups and environmentalists withal loudly oppose the FDA's conclusion virtually its safety. In addition, they questioned the ecology risk that it posed to wild salmon populations; despite that the sterile GM fish is but raised in landlocked tanks (Pollack, 2015). Such public movements may have prolonged the FDA review of the GM salmon. It took about a quarter of a century and cost more than than $77 million (Van Eenennaam and Muir, 2011). Psychological investigations have suggested that GM animals are viewed equally less acceptable than GM plants and that people's sense of ethics has a more than significant upshot on the credence than other factors such as the perceived risks, the recognized benefits, or the trust in regulators and researchers (Zechendorf, 1994; Siegrist, 2000). Too, complex situations are probable to emerge in the case of livestock genome editing because animals modified via NHEJ are also genetically modified. In the present article, we consider the practical and ethical bottlenecks in obtaining the social acceptance of animal breeding by genome editing, focusing on the development of livestock strains.
Genome Editing in Livestock
Zinc-finger nucleases and TALENs are artificial DNA cut enzymes (nucleases) with a Deoxyribonucleic acid–protein binding domain that directs the nucleases to a target sequence in the genome. CRISPR/Cas9 adopts a separate blazon of DNA-RNA binding system that tin can exist readily prepared in most laboratories. Thus, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 has been especially spreading worldwide.
The microinjection of the site-directed nucleases (in the form of plasmids, mRNAs, or proteins) into one-cell-stage animal embryos (zygotes) tin effectively generate genome-edited offspring (Ishii, 2015). This arroyo is much simpler than GM creature production involving the transfer of embryonic stem (ES) cells into animal embryos. In add-on, the ane-step-generation approach is applicative even in animal species for which no ES cell line is available. This methodology has been employed for NHEJ, primarily using the cytoplasmic injection of CRISPR/Cas9 mRNA and single-guide (sg) RNA into bovine, swine, ovine, and caprine zygotes (Table 1). The efficiency of genetic modification in neonates is largely high, as illustrated in the bovine [xix% (Proudfoot et al., 2015)], swine [50%: biallelic modification (Petersen et al., 2016)], ovine [23%: homozygous KO (Crispo et al., 2015)], and caprine [xiii%: double KO (Wang et al., 2015a)] cases. Other approaches adopted NHEJ in primordial germ cells to generate knockout fowls (Oishi et al., 2016), NHEJ in somatic cells to generate double-knockout pigs via somatic jail cell nuclear transfer (SCNT; Fischer et al., 2016), and HDR in somatic cells to develop cattle and goats in which a variant was copied or a transgene was introduced via SCNT (Wang et al., 2015a; Carlson et al., 2016).
Table one.
Examples of genome editing-mediated genetic modification in livestock
| Subject | Target Gene | Efficiency in zygotes* | Efficiency in Live Born | Off-target Mutation | Cistron Editing | Delivery | Remarks | Reference |
| NHEJ (non-homologous end-joining) | ||||||||
| Bovine zygotes | MSTN | - | xix%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Bovine zygotes | LDLR | 3.8% | – | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Porcine zygotes | MSTN | – | twenty% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Cas9 protein, sgRNA | Mosaicism, electroporation | Tanihara et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | GGTA1 | – | 50% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Petersen et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | CD163 | – | 9%** | N.D. | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Whitworth et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | MITF | – | 5% (biallelic)** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015b |
| Porcine zygotes | Npc1l1 | – | 11%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism. cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015c |
| Porcine zygotes | vWF | – | 15%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Hai et al., 2014 |
| Porcine zygotes | RELA | 0.5% | – | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN, ASIP, BCO2 | – | 6% (triple KO) | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2016 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | iv.6% | 23% (homo-zygous KO) | Yeah (20% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Crispo et al., 2015 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | – | iv%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Caprine zygotes | MSTN, FGF5 | – | xiii% (double KO) | Yes (23% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015a |
| Chicken PGCs | OVM | > xc% | G1 from #372: 58% G1 from #376: 48% | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Transfection | Oishi et al., 2016 |
| PKFs | CMAH, GTA1 | – | 0.five% ** (double KO) | North.D. | Cas9 | mRNA | Sequential SCNTs of edited cell lines | Fischer et al., 2016 |
| HDR (homology-directed repair) | ||||||||
| BEFs | POLLED introgression | – | 7% (Day seventy) | No | TALEN | mRNA, Oligo DNA | SCNT of edited cell lines | Carlson et al., 2016 |
| GFFs | hLF insertion later on BLG KO | – | forty% (3 mo) | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA, pBLG-hLF-puro | SCNT of edited cell lines | Cui et al., 2015 |
| Subject | Target Gene | Efficiency in zygotes* | Efficiency in Alive Built-in | Off-target Mutation | Cistron Editing | Delivery | Remarks | Reference |
| NHEJ (non-homologous finish-joining) | ||||||||
| Bovine zygotes | MSTN | - | 19%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Bovine zygotes | LDLR | three.8% | – | North.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Porcine zygotes | MSTN | – | twenty% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Cas9 protein, sgRNA | Mosaicism, electroporation | Tanihara et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | GGTA1 | – | 50% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Petersen et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | CD163 | – | 9%** | Northward.D. | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Whitworth et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | MITF | – | 5% (biallelic)** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015b |
| Porcine zygotes | Npc1l1 | – | 11%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism. cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015c |
| Porcine zygotes | vWF | – | 15%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Hai et al., 2014 |
| Porcine zygotes | RELA | 0.v% | – | Due north.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN, ASIP, BCO2 | – | vi% (triple KO) | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2016 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | 4.six% | 23% (human being-zygous KO) | Yes (20% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Crispo et al., 2015 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | – | 4%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Caprine zygotes | MSTN, FGF5 | – | 13% (double KO) | Yes (23% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015a |
| Chicken PGCs | OVM | > 90% | G1 from #372: 58% G1 from #376: 48% | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Transfection | Oishi et al., 2016 |
| PKFs | CMAH, GTA1 | – | 0.5% ** (double KO) | N.D. | Cas9 | mRNA | Sequential SCNTs of edited cell lines | Fischer et al., 2016 |
| HDR (homology-directed repair) | ||||||||
| BEFs | POLLED introgression | – | 7% (Mean solar day 70) | No | TALEN | mRNA, Oligo Dna | SCNT of edited cell lines | Carlson et al., 2016 |
| GFFs | hLF insertion subsequently BLG KO | – | xl% (3 mo) | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA, pBLG-hLF-puro | SCNT of edited jail cell lines | Cui et al., 2015 |
* Genetically modified embryos per injected zygote (%).
** Genetically modified offspring per injected embryo (%).
Due north.D.: non determined.
PKF: Porcine Kidney Fibroblast.
PGC: Primordial Germ Cell.
GFF: Caprine animal Fetal Fibroblast. Bovine Embryo Fibroblasts.
SCNT: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.
Table one.
Examples of genome editing-mediated genetic modification in livestock
| Subject | Target Gene | Efficiency in zygotes* | Efficiency in Alive Born | Off-target Mutation | Cistron Editing | Delivery | Remarks | Reference |
| NHEJ (non-homologous cease-joining) | ||||||||
| Bovine zygotes | MSTN | - | 19%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Bovine zygotes | LDLR | 3.8% | – | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Porcine zygotes | MSTN | – | 20% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Cas9 poly peptide, sgRNA | Mosaicism, electroporation | Tanihara et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | GGTA1 | – | 50% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Petersen et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | CD163 | – | 9%** | N.D. | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Whitworth et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | MITF | – | 5% (biallelic)** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015b |
| Porcine zygotes | Npc1l1 | – | 11%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism. cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015c |
| Porcine zygotes | vWF | – | 15%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Hai et al., 2014 |
| Porcine zygotes | RELA | 0.v% | – | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN, ASIP, BCO2 | – | 6% (triple KO) | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2016 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | 4.vi% | 23% (human-zygous KO) | Yeah (xx% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Crispo et al., 2015 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | – | 4%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Caprine zygotes | MSTN, FGF5 | – | xiii% (double KO) | Yep (23% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015a |
| Craven PGCs | OVM | > xc% | G1 from #372: 58% G1 from #376: 48% | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Transfection | Oishi et al., 2016 |
| PKFs | CMAH, GTA1 | – | 0.five% ** (double KO) | Northward.D. | Cas9 | mRNA | Sequential SCNTs of edited cell lines | Fischer et al., 2016 |
| HDR (homology-directed repair) | ||||||||
| BEFs | POLLED introgression | – | 7% (Day lxx) | No | TALEN | mRNA, Oligo Deoxyribonucleic acid | SCNT of edited cell lines | Carlson et al., 2016 |
| GFFs | hLF insertion after BLG KO | – | twoscore% (3 mo) | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA, pBLG-hLF-puro | SCNT of edited jail cell lines | Cui et al., 2015 |
| Discipline | Target Gene | Efficiency in zygotes* | Efficiency in Live Born | Astray Mutation | Cistron Editing | Delivery | Remarks | Reference |
| NHEJ (non-homologous end-joining) | ||||||||
| Bovine zygotes | MSTN | - | 19%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Bovine zygotes | LDLR | 3.8% | – | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Porcine zygotes | MSTN | – | 20% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Cas9 poly peptide, sgRNA | Mosaicism, electroporation | Tanihara et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | GGTA1 | – | l% (biallelic) | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Petersen et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | CD163 | – | 9%** | N.D. | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Whitworth et al., 2016 |
| Porcine zygotes | MITF | – | v% (biallelic)** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015b |
| Porcine zygotes | Npc1l1 | – | eleven%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism. cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015c |
| Porcine zygotes | vWF | – | fifteen%** | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Hai et al., 2014 |
| Porcine zygotes | RELA | 0.5% | – | Northward.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Carlson et al., 2012 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN, ASIP, BCO2 | – | half-dozen% (triple KO) | No | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2016 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | 4.half-dozen% | 23% (homo-zygous KO) | Yes (20% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Mosaicism, cytoplasmic injection | Crispo et al., 2015 |
| Ovine zygotes | MSTN | – | 4%** | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Proudfoot et al., 2015 |
| Caprine zygotes | MSTN, FGF5 | – | thirteen% (double KO) | Yeah (23% in mutants) | Cas9 | mRNA/sgRNA | Cytoplasmic injection | Wang et al., 2015a |
| Chicken PGCs | OVM | > xc% | G1 from #372: 58% G1 from #376: 48% | No | Cas9 | Plasmid | Transfection | Oishi et al., 2016 |
| PKFs | CMAH, GTA1 | – | 0.5% ** (double KO) | N.D. | Cas9 | mRNA | Sequential SCNTs of edited cell lines | Fischer et al., 2016 |
| HDR (homology-directed repair) | ||||||||
| BEFs | POLLED introgression | – | seven% (Twenty-four hour period 70) | No | TALEN | mRNA, Oligo Deoxyribonucleic acid | SCNT of edited prison cell lines | Carlson et al., 2016 |
| GFFs | hLF insertion afterwards BLG KO | – | 40% (3 mo) | N.D. | TALEN | mRNA, pBLG-hLF-puro | SCNT of edited cell lines | Cui et al., 2015 |
* Genetically modified embryos per injected zygote (%).
** Genetically modified offspring per injected embryo (%).
N.D.: non adamant.
PKF: Porcine Kidney Fibroblast.
PGC: Primordial Germ Cell.
GFF: Goat Fetal Fibroblast. Bovine Embryo Fibroblasts.
SCNT: Somatic Jail cell Nuclear Transfer.
Overall, CRISPR/Cas9 is predominantly used in livestock genome editing. Moreover, 1-stride-generation via NHEJ is frequently used for cistron disruption. Meanwhile, SCNT following HDR in somatic cells is applied for efficiently attaining transgenesis or copying a variant in the animal genome. Such reports have rendered precision livestock convenance technically feasible in the era of genome editing.
Practical Aspects
Consider the GM salmon once again. The GM fish tin grow twice as fast as conventional Atlantic salmon, through the introduction of two different transgenes: a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and a promoter sequence of an anti-freezing poly peptide cistron from the eel-like ocean pout. As mentioned higher up, the FDA concluded that this food production is safe in 2015. Subsequently, ii Canadian regulators likewise declared that the aforementioned GM fish is safe for employ equally a food and as livestock feed in 2016 (Wellness Canada, 2016). In the case of genetic modification via NHEJ, the resultant livestock have no transgenes, and thus potentially bypass current GM organism (GMO) regulations. However, will the deregulation based on the lack of transgenes lead to the social acceptance of products derived from genome-edited animals?
Despite its ability to perform robust genetic modifications, some applied issues currently remain in genome editing. The ane-stride-generation approach may result in not only systemic genetic modification, only as well mosaicism in which wild-type cells, including germ cells, coexist with genetically modified cells in the resultant organisms (Table 1). However, this is only a technical issue that can be avoided by more carefully because the injection methods (the timing or employ of pronuclear injection) in addition to the dose and the form of the nucleases. Although the site-directed nucleases may fail to induce a biallelic modification in the resultant animals, thereby resulting in an individual beast with a monoallelic modification, this as well represents a technical effect that may be surmounted by careful screening or past optimizing the conditions of genome editing (Table ane). More importantly, if the guiding molecule of nucleases is inappropriately designed and its specificity is insufficiently validated, so the bogus nucleases could create off-target mutations at unintended sites in the animate being genome. Notably, two of the 17 reports on genome-edited animals described the occurrence of off-target mutations in the resultant sheep and goats (Crispo et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015a) (Table i). Although the absence of off-target mutations was confirmed past analyses in the modified animals in eight reports, the remaining reports did not address this issue (7/17; Table 1).
Off-target mutations may consequence in a silent mutation or a loss of role. Nonetheless, other mutation could result in the formation of an aberrant form of protein that confers allergenicity in food consumption. Like to the GM salmon, the use of genome editing in the food industry is new. Thus, in the USA, nether sections 201(due south) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Corrective Act, any food products derived from genome-edited livestock would be considered to exist a "food additive," which is subject to an FDA premarket review to examine whether the products can be mostly recognized as safe (and so-called GRAS; FDA, 2016b). Even so, FDA review is performed based on the opinions of qualified experts, and the opinions of the representatives of the public are not included. Moreover, some people will be probable to ask: "Exercise off-target mutations only touch on food safe?"
Recent and Previous Discussions Surrounding Brute Biotechnology
What are the of import norms regarding brute biotechnology? Religions may impact the development of animate being strains using genetic engineering. Muslims and Jews avoid eating pork product. Cattle are sacred to Hindus. However, it is unlikely that religions will have a significant impact on beast biotechnology in secular nations.
In December 2015, a 2-d National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) workshop was held to consider the scientific and ethical implications of animal genome editing for inquiry purposes (NASEM, 2015). In addition to the regulatory implications, the attendees argued the welfare of animals that undergo genome editing based on the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement). Subsequently, a news study appeared with a headline, "Panel tackles—and is tackled past—genome editing in animals" (Elizabeth, 2015). The written report stated that information technology was difficult to conclude that the use of genome editing reduces the number of laboratory animals, replaces higher animals with lower animals, or refines creature welfare although genome editing is a robust form of genetic technology that can be applied in a wide range of animal species. With regard to the relevant regulations, some attendees preferred different or increased regulations, some asserted that genome editing should be less strictly regulated, and some wished to maintain the current regulations. Thus, the report described the workshop every bit less conclusive (Elizabeth, 2015). Although the meeting offered a precious opportunity for because the implications of animate being genome editing, a more than specific or dissimilar focus might have been useful when planning the workshop.
Some lessons tin be learned from the history of animal cloning in the debates that stemmed from the birth of a cloned sheep, Dolly in 1996 (Campbell et al., 1996). At present, the agronomical apply of cloning is not common. In the The states, some companies have used cloning, simply primarily for breeding, not nutrient product. Meanwhile, a Chinese company plans to produce 100,000 cattle embryos a year, initially for meat production (Phillips, 2015). In retrospect, the FDA had held a voluntary moratorium on livestock cloning for food product since 2001. In 2008, the FDA concluded, based on an investigation, that there were no discernable differences between cloned and wild-blazon cattle, swine, and goats and declared that products derived from cloned animals are safe (FDA, 2016a). However, denizen groups opposed the regulatory decision, questioning the long-term safety and expressing animal welfare and upstanding concerns in relation to the high rates of abnormalities and mortality and the inevitable necessity of euthanasia in cloned animals (Martin and Pollack, 2008). In 2009, the Food Safety Commission of Nihon also ended that the food safety of cloned cattle and swine is equivalent to that of such animals raised by conventional breeding (Food Safety Commision of Japan, 2009). People expressed concerns similar to those expressed in the The states. Conversely, in 2015, the European Parliament took animal welfare and ethical concerns into account and voted to prohibit the cloning of all livestock, (Vogel, 2015). The proposed bans include the sale of cloned livestock and products derived from them.
With regard to the cloning of animals for agricultural purposes, the European Parliament considered animal welfare and ethical concerns, whereas the United states of america and Japanese regulators did not: they focused on nutrient safety based on the opinions of experts. Despite the different regulatory positions, the course of events in these jurisdictions suggests that it is important to consider the people's sense of ethics also as animal welfare when considering biotechnology developments that are related to animals.
People's Sense of Ideals in Relation to Animal Cloning
For further considerations in relation to animal genome editing, it is worth gaining deeper insight into people's concerns over animal cloning because animal welfare is addressed by people, non the animals themselves. Nosotros analyzed 99 public comments regarding the results of an investigation on the food safety of cloned cattle and swine, which were submitted to the Japan Food Prophylactic Commission in 2009 (Food Safety Commision of Nihon, 2009; Figure 2a). We categorized the comments into six subcategories, some of which overlapped. Some people looked forwards to food products derived from cloned animals (8%). However, almost people were not satisfied with the results or conclusion of the investigation and showed distrust in the researchers or regulators (full 65%), suggesting that many people did not appreciate the regulators or researchers. Other comments included questions due to a lack of scientific cognition (10%: eastward.g., mistaking cloned animals for GM animals), concerns over the welfare of cloned animals (nine%: east.g., concerns most the loftier rates of mortality and aberration in the resultant offspring), and insufficient communications (8%: eastward.one thousand., suggesting the need to agree public meetings regarding food safe and animal welfare). These public attitudes advise the need to sufficiently inform people of the pros and cons in relation to the technology, to agree more public dialogues, and to carefully consider animal welfare (Effigy one).
Figure 2a.
An analysis of the public opinions regarding livestock bred by somatic cloning and their products. The public opinions were accustomed from 12 Mar. to 10 Apr. 2009. Fifty-four people submitted 99 opinions to the Food Safety Committee via the internet, fax, and postal mail. Further details: http://www.fsc.go.jp/iken-bosyu/pc1_shinkaihatu_clone_210312.html (in Japanese).
Figure 2a.
An analysis of the public opinions regarding livestock bred by somatic cloning and their products. The public opinions were accustomed from 12 Mar. to ten Apr. 2009. Fifty-four people submitted 99 opinions to the Food Safety Commission via the internet, fax, and postal mail. Further details: http://www.fsc.go.jp/iken-bosyu/pc1_shinkaihatu_clone_210312.html (in Japanese).
Food does not but supply nutrition to sustain human lives; it also provides gustatory modality, pleasure, entertainment, and company. Ethics must be more than advisedly considered in the evolution of animal-related biotechnology. Although some might affirm that livestock are, whether or not they accept undergone a biotechnological process, just animals that are raised to produce bolt such as food, hides, and cobweb for apply by humans. Moreover, one might also assert that NHEJ in genome editing does non differ from conventional breeding due to the similarity to naturally occurring mutations as well as the absence of transgenes. Nonetheless, the welfare of genome-edited livestock is of great importance until such animals are used for agriculture, as illustrated by the previous and electric current debates surrounding the use of cloned animals. Greater efforts to address animal welfare might change people's mental attitude toward researchers and regulators and enhance the possibility of the social acceptance of products derived from genome-edited livestock. It may be useful to consider the Aristotelian concept of "telos": the essence and purpose of a brute (GM, cloned or genome-edited animals) in improver to the moral imperative of producing such animals (Rollin, 2003; Elizabeth and Ortiz, 2004).
Case Studies
Next, genome editing-mediated on-target genetic modification for an creature breeding program is discussed. This section considers the blazon of animal breeding that can all-time satisfy concerns over the animal welfare and people's sense of ethics. Enquiry reports on livestock genome editing, which were shown in Table 1, were selected and categorized into four purposes (Figure 2b). The implications of on-target mutations in each written report are scrutinized in due considerations of the moral imperatives and "telos."
Figure 2b.
The major agronomical purposes for the utilize of genome editing in livestock breeding. Contempo reports on genome editing in livestock were selected from Table i and were categorized into iv purposes.
Figure 2b.
The major agronomical purposes for the employ of genome editing in livestock breeding. Recent reports on genome editing in livestock were selected from Table i and were categorized into 4 purposes.
Genome editing for human health.
The major causative antigen of egg allergy is ovalbumin and ovomucoid (Anet et al., 1985). Ovalbumin is readily denatured by heating, resulting in a reduction of the antigenicity. In contrast, heat treatments only cannot reduce the allergenicity of ovomucoid in egg whites. To engagement, the genetic modification in chickens has been delayed due to the difficulty in accessing and manipulating zygotes. Recently, a report demonstrated CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis in chickens to disrupt an egg white allergen, the ovomucoid cistron (OVM; Oishi et al., 2016). Primordial germ cells, in which OVM was disrupted via NHEJ, were transferred into recipient chicken embryos, resulting in the establishment of 3 germline chimeric roosters, all of which had donor-derived mutant-OVM spermatozoa. Subsequently, OVM-homozygous offspring mutant were produced by crossing the chicken mutants. This report shows the possibility of generating a chicken strain with low allergenicity.
However, egg white allergy normally only occurs in infants and young children (Sampson and McCaskill, 1985; Bock and Atkins, 1990). Moreover, it is unclear whether there is a compelling need of producing ovomucoid-deficient chickens because the heated and ovomucoid-depleted egg whites display less allergenic (Urisu et al., 1997). Moreover, egg substitutes are available for cooking and in that location are plenty of recipes without egg whites (The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 2016). Furthermore, the eggs of the chickens that underwent the genome editing lost a major protein, which may exist regarded as a loss of "essence in a creature."
Genome editing to amend productivity.
As shown in Table ane, the knockout of MSTN has often been performed in animal genome editing. Other than cattle, MSTN knockout has been performed in sheep, goats, and pigs. MSTN encodes myostatin, which is exclusively observed in the skeletal muscles. The expression of MSTN is already active before nativity. Because myostatin unremarkably regulates muscle growth to prevent excessive abound, MSTN knockout animals display an ultra-muscular physique (so-called, "double-muscling"; Lin et al., 2002). Some animals accept naturally occurring MSTN mutations. For example, a brood of beefiness cattle from Belgium (the Belgian Blue) has lean muscle due to an MSTN mutation (McPherron and Lee, 1997). Thus, NHEJ-mediated MSTN mutagenesis is a conceivable line of breeding research that may amend the meat productivity of private animals.
However, many upstanding concerns can be expected arise by promoting double-muscling through genome editing (Treston, 2015). Difficult delivery abounds in Belgian Blue cattle because the active expression of MSTN starts in pregnancy and oftentimes necessitates Caesarean department. Belgian Bluish calves can suffer from leg problems (due to their heavier weight), animate complications, and enlarged tongues. Some people would consider that animals that are destined to acquire double-muscling through genome editing lose their "purpose equally a animal."
Genome editing for creature health.
Because farmed animals are raised in close proximity to each other, the outbreak of an communicable diseases in a barn would likely lead to disastrous consequences of reduced animal production or euthanasia for preventing the spread of infectious disease. Genome editing may serve infection command by providing animals with disease resistance. Recent studies on genome editing accept described the generation of two breed of grunter with mutations of the CD163 and RELA (p65) genes, which confer tolerance for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and African swine fever, respectively (Carlson et al., 2012; Whitworth et al., 2016). Of particular note, pigs that lacked a functional CD163 after NHEJ were resistant to a PRRS virus isolate, displaying no clinical signs (fever or respiratory signs) and remaining salubrious for 35 d later on infection.
Vaccines have been ineffective for preventing PRRS. If genome editing can truly contribute to the command of virus infections, the genetic modification can be considered to have improved fauna health. Ane could rebut this type of genome editing past stating that factor disruption diminishes or changes the "telos" in pigs (Verhoog, 1992). Still, given that livestock breeding is accepted in many countries and that animals that live in close proximity to other animals are vulnerable to virus outbreaks, a moral imperative may be recognized in this form of creature breeding. Although more investigations are notwithstanding required to ostend that the NHEJ has no side event on animal wellness, people might have a favorable view of the NHEJ every bit serving a "purpose in a fauna." In humans, the case reports of the "Berlin patient" who benefitted from CCR5 D32 mutation (Hutter et al., 2009) justified the world'due south commencement genome editing trial in which the CCR5 in T cells was intentionally disrupted ex vivo to provide patients with the resistance to HIV infection (Tebas et al., 2014).
Genome editing to improve animal welfare.
There has been an ongoing contend surrounding the dehorning of cattle. Although dehorning frequently uses invasive and laborious procedures such every bit disbudding and oestrus cauterization, it is performed worldwide to avoid causing injuries to other cattle and farm workers (Carroll et al., 2016). Thus, in addition to farmers, the public are concerned about the welfare of cattle that undergo painful dehorning. A recent study described the product of a hornless strain of dairy (Holstein) cattle by copying the POLLED of beef cattle (Angus) via HDR and somatic cloning (Carlson et al., 2016). The frequency of POLLED in Holstein cattle is much lower due to the small-scale number of sires that produce commercially available POLLED semen. Therefore, this breeding could reduce the frequency of dehorning in the dairy industry, potentially enhancing the welfare of cattle.
However, people are probable to contemplate the implications of the visible change in the cattle. Thus, some consider this visible modify to represent a loss of the "essence of a fauna" through genome editing. One might affirm that hornless cattle are generated to prevent injury to both farmers and other cattle. However, some would still view the use of genome editing in this regard equally the initiation of "increasingly imbalanced distribution of power between humans and animals" (Schicktanz, 2006). In addition, the need for this animal genome editing would be questioned. There are alternatives: enriching the rearing surroundings to forbid accidents, the use of horn covers (Zen-Noh Livestock Co., 2016), and performing the dehorning of cattle nether anesthesia. Information technology appears that the moral imperative for animals is scant in this convenance program. Equally a result, it is unlikely that people would accept that the use of genome editing in this setting enhances creature welfare.
Taken together, the aforementioned arguments suggest that genome editing to prevent viral infections (for the purpose of animal health) may best satisfy the animate being welfare concerns and would exist most adequate under people's sense of ethics. Thus, this type of convenance may exist considered for a priority program for a research group or a enquiry institute.
Rethinking Astray Mutations
Genome editing differs from older genetic technology techniques that require the intracellular utilise of artificial nucleases that a researcher has designed. Some off-target mutations could be deleterious mutations that negatively affect fauna health; this may lead to concerns over animal welfare. For instance, missed off-target mutations could affect animal health if such unintended genetic changes lead to tumor formation due to mechanisms such as the disruption of a tumor suppressor gene. Equally the history of cloned animals suggests, the investigation of astray mutations seems vital to the use of genome editing in livestock breeding from the viewpoint of animal welfare. Notably, the negative mental attitude of people toward GMOs is, in role, based on a lack of trust in researchers and regulators (Ishii and Araki, 2016). Thus, the farther consideration of animal welfare past reducing the risk of off-target mutations might enhance people's trust and eventually foster the social acceptance of products from genome-edited livestock.
At that place are iii chief approaches past which off-target mutations may be detected: the sequencing of merely potential off-target sites, whole-genome sequencing (WGS), and whole-exome sequencing (WXS). Although it is cost-constructive to interrogate potential off-target sites that are deduced in silico from a target sequence, some would question its appropriateness for securing brute wellness. In contrast, WGS is a comprehensive arroyo that can be used to interrogate coding regions too every bit the promotors and terminators that impact a gene'due south expression. However, it seems hard to distinguish small off-target mutations from a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) or spontaneous mutations that occur during prison cell culture. Whole-exome sequencing, which analyzes all of the protein-coding regions (approximately 2.four% of the cattle genome: 64 Mb), might exist an efficient method for ensuring creature safety considering an off-target mutation in an exome is more likely to exert a serious influence on a protein part than in the remaining region. Nonetheless, in that location is currently no consensus regarding the means of assessing off-target mutations in genome-edited organisms (Joung, 2015). At present, it would exist advisable to investigate astray mutations in animal embryos or somatic cells as deeply as possible, as a written report on bovine genome editing demonstrated (Carlson et al., 2016).
Summary
Rapid advances in livestock genome editing enquiry suggest that fauna products will enter the marketplace soon after their food safety is confirmed in a state. However, previous controversy over GM animals and animal cloning underscores the importance of people's sense of ideals besides every bit animal welfare (Effigy 3).
Figure 3.
A schematic diagram of the interactions among farm animals, researchers, regulators and the public. Researchers and regulators primarily consider the feasibility of fauna genome editing and the food prophylactic of the creature products, respectively. In plow, the public view genome editing and the modified animals based on their sense of ethics. Then, people assess the researchers' and regulators' attitudes through their upstanding lens. It is of import that animal welfare is a priority matter to discuss genome editing in farm animals in guild.
Figure 3.
A schematic diagram of the interactions among subcontract animals, researchers, regulators and the public. Researchers and regulators primarily consider the feasibility of animal genome editing and the food condom of the animal products, respectively. In turn, the public view genome editing and the modified animals based on their sense of ideals. And so, people assess the researchers' and regulators' attitudes through their upstanding lens. It is important that animal welfare is a priority thing to hash out genome editing in subcontract animals in society.
The breeding of subcontract animals using genome editing should be performed afterward due considerations in relation to the ethical implications of animal genetic modification in society. Moreover, for animal welfare, developers should thoroughly investigate the occurrence of astray mutations in the breeding of genome-edited animals. Regulators should interrogate developers about off-target mutations and promote public dialogues nearly livestock convenance using genome editing if they wish to enhance the public credence without whatsoever major disputes in society. Such farm animal products volition never be accustomed without consideration about both the applied and upstanding aspects of animal genome editing.
Tetsuya Ishii obtained his Ph.D in bioscience, 2003 at Hokkaido Academy. He joined Japan Science and Technology Bureau and worked as a program officer. In 2005, he completed the international program officer training plan in the United states NIH John E. Forgaty International Middle. Subsequently, he worked at Heart for iPS Prison cell Research and Awarding (CiRA), Kyoto University (Managing director, Shinya Yamanaka). Currently, he is a professor of Function of Health and Safe, Hokkaido University, studying bioethics regarding the relationship between biotechnology and guild. In 2015, he was invited to the U.s.a. NASEM International Summit on Human Gene Editing every bit a guest speaker.
Literature Cited
Araki
One thousand.
, Ishii T.
2015
.
Towards social credence of institute convenance by genome editing
.
Trends Plant Sci.
20
:
145
–
149
.
doi:ten.1016/j.tplants.2015.01.010
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
.
2016
.
Cooking and blistering without egg ingredients
.
Kids with Food Allergies.
.
Barrangou
R.
, Doudna J.A.
2016
.
Applications of CRISPR technologies in research and beyond
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
:
933
–
941
.
doi:10.1038/nbt.3659
Bock
Southward.A.
, Atkins F.M.
1990
.
Patterns of nutrient hypersensitivity during xvi years of double-bullheaded, placebo-controlled food challenges
.
J. Pediatr.
117
:
561
–
567
.
doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(05)80689-4
Bruening
Chiliad.
, Lyons J.M.
2000
.
The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato
.
Calif. Agric.
54
:
6
–
seven
.
doi:10.3733/ca.v054n04p6
Campbell
K.H.
, McWhir J. Ritchie W.A. Wilmut I.
1996
.
Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured jail cell line
.
Nature
380
:
64
–
66
.
doi:x.1038/380064a0
Carlson
D.F.
, Lancto C.A. Zang B. Kim E.S. Walton M. Oldeschulte D. Seabury C. Sonstegard T.S. Fahrenkrug S.C.
2016
.
Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited jail cell lines
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
:
479
–
481
.
doi:10.1038/nbt.3560
Carlson
D.F.
, Tan Due west. Lillico Due south.G. Stverakova D. Proudfoot C. Christian M. Voytas D.F. Long C.R. Whitelaw C.B. Fahrenkrug Southward.C.
2012
.
Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.s.a.
109
:
17382
–
17387
.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1211446109
Carroll
D.
, Van Eenennaam A.Fifty. Taylor J.F. Seger J. Voytas D.F.
2016
.
Regulate genome-edited products, not genome editing itself
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
:
477
–
479
.
doi:10.1038/nbt.3566
Crispo
M.
, Mulet A.P. Tesson L. Barrera Northward. Cuadro F. dos Santos-Neto P.C. Nguyen T.H. Creneguy A. Brusselle L. Anegon I. Menchaca A.
2015
.
Efficient generation of myostatin knock-out sheep using CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microinjection into zygotes
.
PLoS 1
x
:
e0136690
.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136690
Cui
C.
, Song Y. Liu J. Ge H. Li Q. Huang H. Hu L. Zhu H. Jin Y. Zhang Y.
2015
.
Cistron targeting by TALEN-induced homologous recombination in goats directs product of beta-lactoglobulin-gratuitous, high-human lactoferrin milk
.
Sci. Rep.
5
:
10482
.
doi:x.1038/srep10482
Elizabeth
P.
2015
.
Science: NAS console tackles—and is tackled by—genome editing in animals. Science, eighteen December
.
.
Elizabeth
S.
, Ortiz G.
2004
.
Beyond welfare: Fauna integrity, beast dignity, and genetic engineering
.
Ethics Environ.
9
:
94
–
120
.
doi:10.2979/ETE.2004.ix.i.94
FDA
.
2015
.
FDA has determined that the AquAdvantage salmon is as safe to eat as non-GE salmon
.
.
FDA
.
2016a
.
Animal cloning
.
.
FDA
.
2016b
.
More often than not recognized as prophylactic (GRAS)
.
.
Fischer
K.
, Kraner-Scheiber S. Petersen B. Rieblinger B. Buermann A. Flisikowska T. Flisikowski Grand. Christan S. Edlinger M. Baars W. Kurome M. Zakhartchenko 5. Kessler B. Plotzki E. Szczerbal I. Switonski M. Denner J. Wolf Due east. Schwinzer R. Niemann H. Kind A. Schnieke A.
2016
.
Efficient product of multi-modified pigs for xenotransplantation by "combineering," gene stacking and gene editing
.
Sci. Rep.
6
:
29081
.
doi:ten.1038/srep29081
Food Safety Commision of Nihon
.
2009
.
Concerning situations surrounding animals past somatic cloning. (In Japanese.)
.
Hai
T.
, Teng F. Guo R. Li W. Zhou Q.
2014
.
One-step generation of knockout pigs past zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system
.
Cell Res.
24
:
372
–
375
.
doi:x.1038/cr.2014.eleven
Hartung
F.
, Schiemann J.
2014
.
Precise plant convenance using new genome editing techniques: Opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU
.
Plant J.
78
:
742
–
752
.
doi:10.1111/tpj.12413
Wellness Canada
.
2016
.
Health Canada and Canadian Nutrient Inspection Bureau approve AquAdvantage salmon
.
.
Hutter
Thou.
, Nowak D. Mossner M. Ganepola South. Mussig A. Allers K. Schneider T. Hofmann J. Kucherer C. Blau O. Blau I.W. Hofmann W.Grand. Thiel East.
2009
.
Long-term control of HIV by CCR5 Delta32/Delta32 stem-jail cell transplantation
.
North. Engl. J. Med.
360
:
692
–
698
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802905
Ishii
T.
2015
.
Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications
.
Trends Mol. Med.
21
:
473
–
481
.
doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006
Ishii
T.
, Araki One thousand.
2016
.
Consumer acceptance of food crops adult by genome editing
.
Institute Cell Rep.
35
:
1507
–
1518
.
doi:10.1007/s00299-016-1974-2
Joung
J.K.
2015
.
Unwanted mutations: Standards needed for cistron-editing errors
.
Nature
523
:
158
.
doi:ten.1038/523158a
Joung
J.1000.
, Sander J.D.
2013
.
TALENs: A widely applicable engineering for targeted genome editing
.
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
14
:
49
–
55
.
doi:10.1038/nrm3486
Klug
A.
2010
.
The discovery of zinc fingers and their applications in gene regulation and genome manipulation
.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
79
:
213
–
231
.
doi:ten.1146/annurev-biochem-010909-095056
Lin
J.
, Arnold H.B. Della-Fera M.A. Azain 1000.J. Hartzell D.L. Baile C.A.
2002
.
Myostatin knockout in mice increases myogenesis and decreases adipogenesis
.
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
291
:
701
–
706
.
doi:10.1006/bbrc.2002.6500
Martin
A.
, Pollack A.
2008
.
F.D.A. says food from cloned animals is safe. The New York Times, 16 January
.
.
McPherron
A.C.
, Lee South.J.
1997
.
Double muscling in cattle due to mutations in the myostatin gene
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94
:
12457
–
12461
.
doi:10.1073/pnas.94.23.12457
NASEM
.
2015
.
ILAR roundtable: Cistron editing to change animal genomes for research scientific and upstanding considerations
.
.
Oishi
I.
, Yoshii K. Miyahara D. Kagami H. Tagami T.
2016
.
Targeted mutagenesis in craven using CRISPR/Cas9 system
.
Sci. Rep.
6
:
23980
.
doi:ten.1038/srep23980
Petersen
B.
, Frenzel A. Lucas-Hahn A. Herrmann D. Hassel P. Klein S. Ziegler Grand. Hadeler One thousand.G. Niemann H.
2016
.
Efficient production of biallelic GGTA1 knockout pigs by cytoplasmic microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 into zygotes
.
Xenotransplantation
23
:
338
–
346
.
doi:10.1111/xen.12258
Phillips
T.
2015
.
Largest animal cloning factory can save species, says Chinese founder. The Guardian, 24 November
.
.
Pollack
A.
2015
.
Genetically engineered salmon approved for consumption. The New York Times, 19 November
.
.
Proudfoot
C.
, Carlson D.F. Huddart R. Long C.R. Pryor J.H. King T.J. Lillico S.G. Mileham A.J. McLaren D.G. Whitelaw C.B. Fahrenkrug South.C.
2015
.
Genome edited sheep and cattle
.
Transgenic Res.
24
:
147
–
153
.
doi:10.1007/s11248-014-9832-10
Rollin
B.
2003
.
On telos and genetic-engineering
.
Routledge
,
London
.
Sampson
H.A.
, McCaskill C.C.
1985
.
Food hypersensitivity and atopic dermatitis: Evaluation of 113 patients
.
J. Pediatr.
107
:
669
–
675
.
doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(85)80390-5
Schicktanz
S.
2006
.
Upstanding considerations of the human–animal-relationship nether conditions of disproportion and ambivalence
.
J. Agric. Environ. Ideals
19
:
7
–
16
.
doi:10.1007/s10806-005-4374-0
Siegrist
Yard.
2000
.
The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene engineering science
.
Risk Anal.
20
:
195
–
204
.
doi:ten.1111/0272-4332.202020
Tanihara
F.
, Takemoto T. Kitagawa Eastward. Rao S. Do L.T. Onishi A. Yamashita Y. Kosugi C. Suzuki H. Sembon South. Suzuki S. Nakai M. Hashimoto 1000. Yasue A. Matsuhisa G. Noji S. Fujimura T. Fuchimoto D. Otoi T.
2016
.
Somatic prison cell reprogramming-free generation of genetically modified pigs
.
Sci. Adv.
ii
:
e1600803
.
doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600803
Tebas
P.
, Stein D. Tang West.W. Frank I. Wang S.Q. Lee 1000. Spratt South.K. Surosky R.T. Giedlin M.A. Nichol G. Holmes Thousand.C. Gregory P.D. Ando D.M. Kalos M. Collman R.G. Binder-Scholl G. Plesa Thousand. Hwang W.T. Levine B.L. June C.H.
2014
.
Gene editing of CCR5 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
370
:
901
–
910
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1300662
Treston
K.
2015
.
18 things you should know about Belgian Blue cattle. That's farming
.
.
Urisu
A.
, Ando H. Morita Y. Wada E. Yasaki T. Yamada K. Komada K. Torii S. Goto M. Wakamatsu T.
1997
.
Allergenic activity of heated and ovomucoid-depleted egg white
.
J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.
100
:
171
–
176
.
doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(97)70220-iii
Van Eenennaam
A.Fifty.
, Muir West.M.
2011
.
Transgenic salmon: A last spring to the grocery shelf? Nat
.
Biotechnol.
29
:
706
–
710
.
doi:x.1038/nbt.1938
Verhoog
H.
1992
.
The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals
.
J. Agric. Environ. Ethics
5
:
147
–
160
.
doi:10.1007/BF01966357
Vogel
K.
2015
.
E.U. parliament votes to ban cloning of subcontract animals
.
Science
,
.
Voytas
D.F.
, Gao C.
2014
.
Precision genome applied science and agriculture: Opportunities and regulatory challenges
.
PLoS Biol.
12
:
e1001877
.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001877
Wang
10.
, Niu Y. Zhou J. Yu H. Kou Q. Lei A. Zhao X. Yan H. Cai B. Shen Q. Zhou S. Zhu H. Zhou G. Niu Westward. Hua J. Jiang Y. Huang X. Ma B. Chen Y.
2016
.
Multiplex gene editing via CRISPR/Cas9 exhibits desirable muscle hypertrophy without detectable off-target effects in sheep
.
Sci. Rep.
6
:
32271
.
doi:10.1038/srep32271
Wang
X.
, Yu H. Lei A. Zhou J. Zeng W. Zhu H. Dong Z. Niu Y. Shi B. Cai B. Liu J. Huang S. Yan H. Zhao Ten. Zhou One thousand. He Ten. Chen X. Yang Y. Jiang Y. Shi L. Tian X. Wang Y. Ma B. Huang 10. Qu L. Chen Y.
2015a
.
Generation of cistron-modified goats targeting MSTN and FGF5 via zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas9 organization
.
Sci. Rep.
5
:
13878
.
doi:ten.1038/srep13878
Wang
X.
, Zhou J. Cao C. Huang J. Hai T. Wang Y. Zheng Q. Zhang H. Qin One thousand. Miao X. Wang H. Cao S. Zhou Q. Zhao J.
2015b
.
Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated biallelic gene disruption and site-specific knockin afterward rapid option of highly active sgRNAs in pigs
.
Sci. Rep.
five
:
13348
.
doi:10.1038/srep13348
Wang
Y.
, Du Y. Shen B. Zhou X. Li J. Liu Y. Wang J. Zhou J. Hu B. Kang N. Gao J. Yu L. Huang Ten. Wei H.
2015c
.
Efficient generation of cistron-modified pigs via injection of zygote with Cas9/sgRNA
.
Sci. Rep.
5
:
8256
.
doi:10.1038/srep08256
Whitworth
Grand.M.
, Rowland R.R. Ewen C.L. Trible B.R. Kerrigan M.A. Cino-Ozuna A.Grand. Samuel M.S. Lightner J.E. McLaren D.G. Mileham A.J. Wells K.D. Prather R.Southward.
2016
.
Factor-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
:
20
–
22
.
doi:10.1038/nbt.3434
Zechendorf
B.
1994
.
What the public thinks most biotechnology
.
Biotechnology
12
(
9
):
870
–
875
.
doi:10.1038/nbt0994-870
Zen-Noh Livestock Co
.
2016
.
Horn cover. (In Japanese.)
.
© 2017 Ishii
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past-nc/four.0/), which permits non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-employ, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
Source: https://academic.oup.com/af/article/7/2/24/4638829
Posted by: beasleydody1988.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Was The First Livestock Animal To Have Its Genome Mapped? Horses Swine Sheep Cattle"
Post a Comment