263 Introduction to Animal Biotechnology
Semester Spring

February News

5. CLONING 2 (575136)

In breakthrough, cloned wildcats prove ability to reproduce; August 22, 2005; Agence France Presse; Maxim Kniazkov; WASHINGTON -- In a potential breakthrough for bioengineering, three cloned African wildcats living in the United States have, according to this story, produced two healthy litters of kittens, demonstrating for the first time that clones of wild animals can breed. The story says that the successful experiment, unveiled by the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans, Louisiana, over the weekend, appeared to open the way to bringing severely endangered species back from the brink of extinction. But it also raised the question if "Jurassic Park", a fictional nature preserve teeming with cloned dinosaurs and velociraptors invented by novelist Michael Crichton and popularized in a blockbuster 1993 movie, was getting closer to becoming a reality. Ron Forman, president of the Audubon Nature Institute, was quoted as saying, "The science which produced these beautiful kittens is nothing short of wondrous. We are thrilled to play a part in a scientific journey holding such enormous potential for the worlds animals." The frisky eight, who sport light brown fur, stripes on the back, perked-up ears, and innocent green-blue eyes, were produced by a feline menage a trois that included Ditteaux, the prolific father, and his two female mates -- Madge and Caty. The threesome are all clones, who owe their very existence to transfers of frozen embryos taken from two other African wildcats to a domestic cat.

Cloning prospects multiplying; August 23, 2005; Fort Wayne Mercury; Steve Johnson
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/business/technology/12452067.htm; While the idea of human cloning has met with nearly universal abhorrence, prospects for commercial animal cloning are, according to this story, picking up momentum in the Bay Area and elsewhere on the hope that it could result in everything from new vaccines to more nutritious steaks. Geron of Menlo Park just launched a company to license its animal cloning technology to improve livestock, make drugs and develop pig body parts that can be transplanted into humans. Genetic Savings & Clone of Sausalito is cloning pet cats and hopes to clone a dog, similar to the one South Korean researchers created recently. And the FDA is widely expected to soon lift its ban on selling food from cloned cows and other animals, which some people say could lead to a bonanza of consumer products. David Earp, Geron's senior vice president of business development, was quoted as saying "Everybody is waiting with bated breath for the FDA's pronouncement on this. There is a lot of potential here." But most businesses are skittish about cloning. It can be costly, for one thing. Experts say ranchers hoping to improve their herd would have to pay $20,000 or more for a cloned breeding animal. More significantly, many fear it could trigger public outrage. Joseph O'Donnell, executive director of the California Dairy Research Foundation was quoted as saying "Nobody is going to be doing anything if the consumers get up in arms about this technology." Cloning involves removing the nucleus containing the DNA from an animal egg cell and replacing it with a nucleus from a donor animal's cell. The reconstituted cell then is grown into an embryo and implanted in the uterus of a surrogate mother animal. The baby born is an essentially identical genetic twin of the animal that donated the DNA.

Is livestock cloning another form of genetic engineering?; September 2005; Agricultural Biotechnology White Paper; Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Extension Specialist; University of California, Davis; http://agribiotech.info/AlisoncloningRS.doc; The birth of Dolly, the first cloned sheep, was not universally celebrated. Critics of genetic engineering worried that gene-altered humans would be next, filling the population with identical copies of someone's idea of unnatural perfection. That concern is misplaced because cloning and genetic engineering are not the same thing.
Q: What is a clone?
A: A clone is an organism that is descended from — and is genetically identical to — a single common ancestor. Animals can be cloned by two different methods: embryo splitting or nuclear transfer. Embryo splitting involves bisecting the multi-cellular embryo at an early stage of development to generate "twins." A 32-cell embryo, for example, might be bisected into two 16-cell twins. This type of cloning occurs naturally (human identical twins are produced this way, but fraternal twins are not) and embryo splitting has been performed in the laboratory with a number of animal species. When cloning is done by nuclear transfer, the genetic material from one cell is placed into a "recipient" unfertilized egg that has had its genetic material removed by a process called enucleation. Biologists then reprogram the egg to start dividing as if it had been fertilized. In the case of mammals, the egg is artificially inseminated into a surrogate mother where it will gestate until birth. The first mammals were cloned via nuclear transfer during the early 1980s, almost 30 years after the initial successful experiments with frogs 1. Numerous mammalian clones followed — including mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, goats, sheep, cattle, and even two rhesus monkeys named Neti and Detto 2 — thanks to nuclear transfer.
Q: How did Dolly come about?
A: Dolly, the sheep, was the first animal to be cloned via nuclear transfer from a cultured somatic adult cell 3. This process, known as SCNT (for somatic cell nuclear transfer), allows cloning to be performed on an adult animal whose traits are well known. A diverse range of species have now been successfully cloned from adult tissues using SCNT including cattle 4-10, mice 11-13, pigs 14, cats 15, rabbits 16, goats 17, and zebra fish 18.
Q: Why is cloning a hit-or-miss proposition?
A: The proportion of adult cell nuclei to successfully develop into live offspring, after transfer into an enucleated egg, is very low 5,19. High rates of abortion have been observed at various stages of pregnancy after placement of the eggs containing the adult cell nuclei into recipient animals 5. Various abnormalities have been observed in cloned cows and mice after birth and this has been found to be somewhat dependent on the type of tissue that originated the nuclei used to make the clone 20. Many of these problems appear to result from incorrect reprogramming of the transferred nuclear DNA as it transitions from directing the cellular activities of a somatic cell to directing the complex developmental pathway required to develop into an entirely new embryo. Various researchers have documented abnormal gene expression patterns in cloned offspring, and errors in both imprinting and X chromosome inactivation 21.
Q: How about milk or meat from clones? Is it the same?
A: The main underlying food safety concern with clones is whether the cloning process has any influence on the composition of animal food products. There is no fundamental reason to suspect that clones would produce novel toxins or allergens. Several studies examining the composition of products derived from animal clones comparing the performance of clones and other types of cattle found that there were no obvious differences in the composition of milk or meat from cloned cows 22-26. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine is ultimately responsible for evaluating the food safety and animal health implications of cloning 27, as well as its environmental impact. Their draft risk assessment on livestock cloning states, "the current weight of evidence suggests that there are no biological reasons, either based on underlying scientific assumptions or empirical studies, to indicate that consumption of edible products from clones of cattle, pigs, sheep or goats poses a greater risk than consumption of those products from their non-clone counterparts" (Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. FDA Draft Executive Summary, October 2003; http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Documents/CLRAES.pdf). As of July, 2005, producers of SCNT-cloned animals continue to observe a voluntary moratorium on the sale of these animals into the food chain while waiting for guidance from the FDA on the marketing of these animals.
Q: When will genetically engineered animals be cloned?
A: They already are. Cloning is not genetic engineering per se, but there is a logical partnership between the two technologies. Cloning offers the opportunity to make transgenic animals more efficiently from cultured cells that have been genetically engineered 20. The first genetically engineered or transgenic mammalian clones were sheep born in 1997 to carry the coding sequences for human clotting factor IX, which is an important therapeutic for hemophiliacs. One of these transgenic sheep, Polly, expressed this protein in her milk 28. Since that time cloned transgenic cattle producing milk with higher levels of caseins 29 and "xenotransplantation-friendly" pigs lacking antigenic residues on the surface of their cells have been reported 30. Cloning may also be useful for the preservation of rare and endangered species 31.
References and further reading
1. Briggs, R. and King, T.J., "Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs' eggs," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 39, 455–463 (1952).
2. Meng, L., Ely, J.J., Stouffer, R.L., and Wolf, D.P., "Rhesus monkeys produced by nuclear transfer," Biol. Reprod. 57, 454–459 (1997).
3. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J., and Campbell, K.H., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," Nature 385, 810–813 (1997).
4. Galli, C., Duchi, R., Moor, R.M., and Lazzari, G., "Mammalian leukocytes contain all of the genetic information necessary for the development of a new individual," Cloning 1, 161–170 (1999).
5. Hill, J.R., Burghardt, R.C., Jones, K., Long, C.R., Looney, C.R., Shin, T., Spencer, T.E., Thompson, J.A., Winger, Q.A., and Westhusin, M.E., "Evidence for placental abnormality as the major cause of mortality in first-trimester somatic cell cloned bovine fetuses," Biol. Reprod. 63, 1787–1794 (2000).
6. Kato, Y., Tani, T., Sotomaru, Y., Kurokawa, K., Kato, J., Doguchi, H., Yasue, H., and Tsunoda, Y., "Eight calves cloned from somatic cells of a single adult," Science 282, 2095–2098 (1998).
7. Kubota, C., Yamakuchi, H., Todoroki, J., Mizoshita, K., Tabara, N., Barber, M., and Yang, X, "Six cloned calves produced from adult fibroblast cells after long-term culture," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 97, 990–995 (2000).
8. Shiga, K., Fujita, T., Hirose, K., Sasae, Y., and Nagai, T., "Production of calves by transfer of nuclei from cultured somatic cells obtained from Japanese black bulls," Theriogenology 52, 527–535 (1999).
9. Wells, D.N., Misica, P.M., and Tervit, H.R., "Production of cloned calves following nuclear transfer with cultured adult mural granulosa cells," Biol. Reprod. 60, 996–1005 (1999).
10. Zakhartchenko, V., Alberio, R., Stojkovic, M., Prelle, K., Schernthaner, W., Stojkovic, P., Wenigerkind, H., Wanke, R., Duchler, M., Steinborn, R., Mueller, M., Brem, G., and Wolf, E., "Adult cloning in cattle: potential of nuclei from a permanent cell line and from primary cultures," Mol. Reprod. Dev. 54, 264–272 (1999).
11. Ogura, A., Inoue, K., Ogonuki, N., Noguchi, A., Takano, K., Nagano, R., Suzuki, O., Lee, J., Ishino, F., and Matsuda, J., "Production of male cloned mice from fresh, cultured, and cryopreserved immature Sertoli cells," Biol. Reprod. 62, 1579–1584 (2000).
12. Wakayama, T., Perry, A.C., Zuccotti, M., Johnson, K.R., and Yanagimachi, R., "Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei," Nature 394, 369–374 (1998).
13. Wakayama, T. and Yanagimachi, R., "Cloning of male mice from adult tail-tip cells," Nat. Genet. 22, 127–128 (1999).
14. Polejaeva, I.A., Chen, S.H., Vaught, T.D., Page, R.L., Mullins, J., Ball, S., Dai, Y., Boone, J., Walker, S., Ayares, D.L., Colman, A., and Campbell, K.H., "Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells," Nature 407, 86–90 (2000).
15. Shin, T., Kraemer, D., Pryor, J., Liu, L., Rugila, J., Howe, L., Buck, S., Murphy, K., Lyons, L., and Westhusin,M., "A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation," Nature 415, 859 (2002).
16. Chesne, P., Adenot, P.G., Viglietta, C., Baratte, M., Boulanger, L., and Renard, J.P., "Cloned rabbits produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells," Nature Biotechnology 20, 366–369 (2002).
17. Keefer, C.L., Baldassarre, H., Keyston, R., Wang, B., Bhatia, B., Bilodeau, A.S., Zhou, J.F., Leduc, M., Downey, B.R., Lazaris, A., and Karatzas, C.N., "Generation of dwarf goat (Capra hircus) clones following nuclear transfer with transfected and nontransfected fetal fibroblasts and in vitro-matured oocytes," Biol. Reprod. 64, 849–856 (2001).
18. Lee, K.Y., Huang, H.G., Ju, B.S., Yang, Z.G., and Lin, S., "Cloned zebrafish by nuclear transfer from long-term-cultured cells," Nature Biotechnology 20, 795–799 (2002).
19. Tsunoda, Y. and Kato, Y., "Recent progress and problems in animal cloning," Differentiation 69, 158–161 (2002).
20. Di Berardino, M.A., "Animal cloning—the route to new genomics in agriculture and medicine," Differentiation 68, 67–83 (2001).
21. Thibault, C., "Recent data on the development of cloned embryos derived from reconstructed eggs with adult cells," Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 43, 303–324 (2003).
22. Norman, H.D. and Walsh, M.K., "Performance of dairy cattle clones and evaluation of their milk composition," Cloning and Stem Cells 6, 157–164 (2004).
23. Takahashi, S. and Ito, Y., "Evaluation of meat products from cloned cattle: Biological and biochemical properties," Cloning and Stem Cells 6, 165–171 (2004).
24. Tian, X.C., Kubota, C., Sakashita, K., Izaike, Y., Okano, R., Tabara, N., Curchoe, C., Jacob, L., Zhang, Y.Q., Smith, S., Bormann, C., Xu, J., Sato, M., Andrew, S., and Yang, X.Z., "Meat and milk compositions of bovine clones," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 6261–6266 (2005).
25. Tome, D., Dubarry, M., and Fromentin, G., "Nutritional value of milk and meat products derived from cloning," Cloning Stem Cells 6, 172–177 (2004).
26. Walsh, M.K., Lucey, J.A., Govindasamy-Lucey, S., Pace, M.M., and Bishop, M.D., "Comparison of milk produced by cows cloned by nuclear transfer with milk from non-cloned cows," Cloning and Stem Cells 5, 213–219 (2003).
27. Rudenko, L., Matheson, J.C., Adams, A.L., Dubbin, E.S., and Greenlees, K.J., "Food consumption risks associated with animal clones: what should be investigated?" Cloning Stem Cells 6, 79–93 (2004).
28. Schnieke, A.E., Kind, A.J., Ritchie, W.A., Mycock, K., Scott, A.R., Ritchie, M., Wilmut, I., Colman, A., and Campbell, K.H., "Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts," Science 278, 2130–2133 (1997).
29. Brophy, B., Smolenski, G., Wheeler, T., Wells, D., L'Huillier, P., and Laible, G., "Cloned transgenic cattle produce milk with higher levels of beta-casein and kappa-casein," Nature Biotechnology 21, 157–162 (2003).
30. Lai, L., Kolber-Simonds, D., Park, K.W., Cheong, H.T., Greenstein, J.L., Im, G.S., Samuel, M., Bonk, A., Rieke, A., Day, B.N., Murphy, C.N., Carter, D.B., Hawley, R.J., and Prather, R.S., "Production of alpha -1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout pigs by nuclear transfer cloning," Science 295, 1089 (2002).
31. Lanza, R.P., Cibelli, J.B., Diaz, F., Moraes, C.T., Farin, P.W., Farin, C.E., Hammer, C.J., West, M.D., and Damiani, P., "Cloning of an endangered species (Bos gaurus) using interspecies nuclear transfer," Cloning 2, 79–90 (2000).
http://www.roslin.ac.uk/public/cloning.html — Cloning Web site from the Roslin Institute (the makers of Dolly).
http://www.agbiotechnet.com/Search.asp?Action=SearchandSearchType=andSearchString=animal%20cloning — Animal cloning news items from Agbiotech.net.

Philippines says close to cloning water buffalo; September 23, 2005; Reuters; Stuart Grudgings; MANILA - Researchers in the Philippines were cited as saying they are close to creating the world's first clone of a water buffalo that could eventually help raise productivity levels for millions of impoverished farmers. Dr Libertado Cruz, executive director of the government-run Philippine Carabao Center, was cited as saying the aim is to replicate a "super buffalo" that would boost the genetic make-up and milk production of the native water buffalo, adding, "We are now in the process of transferring the cloned embryos to a surrogate dam (mother). By the middle of next year we can expect some live animals." Cruz was further cited as explaining that researchers at the center had created the embryos by fusing genetic material from somatic cells taken from a Bulgarian water buffalo's ear with the eggs of local carabao.

OK expected for sale of beef from cloned cows, offspring; October 2, 2005; The Baltimore Sun; WASHINGTON —Officials from government, industry and consumer groups were cited as sathing that the U.S. federal government is nearing a decision to allow the sale of meat and milk from cloned cows and their offspring. The story says that the Food and Drug Administration is expected to take a major step toward approval soon, proposing to permit the sales, subject to 60 days of public comment and some additional review. That could lead to choice cuts of steak and cartons of milk produced from cloned cattle landing in kitchens in the coming years. Given the high cost of cloning, industry officials and consumer advocates say it's more likely that consumers would be sold the meat—if not the milk—of offspring of cloned cattle, not of the clones themselves. Scott K. Davis, president of Start Licensing, a joint venture of biotechnology companies that own the licenses for cloning livestock, was quoted as saying, "You're not producing them to eat—you're producing them to breed," adding that cloning a cow would cost $15,000. Even after the FDA reaches a final decision, livestock producers will need up to four years or more to raise offspring ready for slaughter, and most dairy farmers might ignore the technology until the cost falls, their trade groups said. Once approval comes, however, industry and consumer groups are concerned that a public backlash will follow. Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America was quoted as saying, "A train wreck is coming. It's not about the science. It's how people see their food."

Clone-generated milk, meat may be approved; October 6, 2005; Washington Post; Justin Gillis; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502074.html; The Food and Drug Administration is, according to this story, expected to rule soon that milk from cloned animals and meat from their offspring are safe to eat, raising the question of whether Americans are ready to welcome one of modern biology's most controversial achievements to the dinner table. The story explains that hundreds of cloned pigs, cows and other animals are already living on farms around the country, as companies and livestock producers experiment and await a decision from the FDA. The agricultural industry has observed a voluntary FDA moratorium on using the products of clones, but it has recently become clear that a few offspring of cloned pigs and cows are already trickling into the food supply. Many in agriculture believe such genetic copies are the next logical step in improving the nation's livestock. Consumer groups counter that many Americans are likely to be revolted by the idea of serving clone milk to their children or tossing meat from the progeny of clones onto the backyard grill. This "yuck factor," as it's often called, has come to light repeatedly in public opinion surveys. Asked earlier this year in a poll by the International Food Information Council whether they would willingly buy meat, milk and eggs that come from clones if the FDA declared them to be safe, 63 percent of consumers said no. Yet mounting scientific evidence suggests there is little cause for alarm, at least on food-safety grounds. The story adds that sudies have shown that meat and milk from clones can't be distinguished from that of normal animals, although work is not complete and researchers say that clones do suffer subtle genetic abnormalities. While milk from clones might reach grocery shelves, clones themselves are not likely to be eaten, since they cost thousands of dollars apiece to produce. They'd be used as breeding stock, so the real question is whether their sexually produced offspring would be safe. The FDA has been promising a policy for three years, but hasn't produced a final version, and some biotechnology companies involved in cloning have run out of cash while waiting. Weary livestock producers have dubbed the FDA the "Foot Dragging Administration." In response to written questions, Stephen F. Sundlof, chief of veterinary medicine at the agency, was quoted as saying the FDA "really can't provide a reliable estimate on the time frame" for releasing a policy. But there are signs the agency is preparing to move.

Care for a tasty cloneburger?; October 15, 2005; Globe and Mail; Anne McIlroy; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051015/CLONES15/Front/Idx; It is, according to this story, one thing to marvel at a cloned animal, like Dolly the sheep, and quite another to want to see her roasted leg on your dinner table. But meat and milk from cloned animals, or more likely their offspring, could be coming soon to a supermarket near you. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the issue, but appears poised to allow the sale of products derived from clones. Canada is also in the midst of a review. The federal government is to release a paper this fall that looks at the issues surrounding cloned farm animals. Carole Saindon at Health Canada, was quoted as saying, "We are pretty much in line with the U.S. We are still reviewing the issue, as is the FDA." The story says that many scientists argue that food from clones is indistinguishable from food from normal animals, and that cloning is another tool to help farmers, but polls suggest many people find the idea unappetizing, or even repulsive. Some consumer and environmental groups in Canada and the United States are gearing up for the battle of the clones. They say it is too early to know whether food from cloned animals is safe, and that North Americans are already guinea pigs in a giant experiment involving genetically modified foods. There are already hundreds of cloned pigs, cows and other animals on farms in the United States, but far fewer in Canada, according to experts. But it is the kind of thing that can take off very quickly. One cloned bull can father thousands of offspring. Take Starbuck II, the most famous cloned animal in Canada. The bull was born five years ago in St-Hyacinthe, Que. His famous daddy, the original Starbuck, sired more than 200,000 offspring in 50 countries. His semen, frozen and shipped to farms around the world, brought in $25-million over his 20-year lifespan. But the consortium that cloned Starbuck II knew it would have to wait to cash in on the semen from the cloned bull. Yves Brindle of the Quebec Centre for Artificial Insemination, based in St-Hyacinthe, was quoted as saying, "Right from the beginning, we were told not to sell semen. We've been freezing it for four years. We are still waiting from an answer from the federal government." Farmers are interested in the semen, he said, because the original Starbuck sired prized dairy cows that were high-volume producers of good-quality milk. In the years since Starbuck was born to a surrogate mother, researchers have used his sperm to inseminate dairy cows and track their offspring, comparing them with normal cows. They did blood work and looked at their chromosomes. The tests showed Starbuck II's daughters were completely normal, said Patrick Blondin, with the research arm of Semex Alliance, a company that sells frozen bull sperm for artificial insemination, adding, "There is no indication why we shouldn't be cloning animals tomorrow." Lawrence Smith, a researcher at the University of Montreal, who helped clone Dolly the sheep in Britain in 1997, was cited as saying more sophisticated genetic analysis still needs to be done to know for sure whether milk and meat from clones is the same as from other animals. He helped clone Starbuck II, and is now trying to solve a key problem in cloning. To create a clone, genetic material from an adult cell is transplanted into an empty egg cell. How do you make that adult cell—say, a skin or muscle cell—act exactly like a fertilized egg? How do you completely reprogram it? There are differences in ways developmental genes are expressed in clones and non-clones, Mr. Smith said, but those changes are unlikely to be passed on to their offspring, adding, "We may have to look into that deeper to be really 100 per cent sure." The story explains that most of the animals produced from Starbuck II's sperm were euthanized, but seven heifers are part of a long-term study under way at the University of Guelph in Ontario, where they are being compared with a control group of normal cows. Starbuck II's offspring are now about 18 months old, and entering their reproductive years. Allan King, a professor of animal reproductive biology, was cited as saying he will be monitoring them closely. Michael Hansen, a senior research associate with the Consumers Union in the United States, was cited as saying it may be that milk and meat from cloned animals or their offspring may be safe, but there is not yet enough data to reach that conclusion. The story notes there have been studies that show cloned animals may have weaker immune systems, and this could lead to animals more prone to bacterial infections that could contaminate their meat or milk, or require an increased use of antibiotics. The story adds that studies in the United States show that consumer opinion is negative about cloning and eating the products of cloning, and that according to the Consumers Union's Mr. Hansen, at the very least, the products should be labeled." Pat Mooney of environmental organization ETC Group in Canada was quoted as saying, "The tendency will be for the federal government to let it pass, and not to require labeling. They don't like the idea, because industry doesn't want it." There are no labels on products made from genetically modified plants in Canada. The story adds that those products slowly (it was very public -- dp) slipped onto the market in the mid-1990s. Canola, soybeans, corn and potatoes with genetic material from bacteria, viruses and insects are used in prepared foods such as breakfast cereals, cookies, chips and salad dressing.

Americans split over buying cloned meat: poll; November 4, 2005; Reuters; Christopher Doering; WASHINGTON - A public opinion poll released on Friday and funded by Viagen Inc., a Texas-based company that is working with cloned cattle, pigs and horses, was cited as finding that two-thirds of U.S. consumers would either buy or consider buying meat and milk made from cloned animals if the U.S. government declared cloning safe. The story notes that about one-third of Americans surveyed said they would definitely buy food products from cloned offspring if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared the process safe. Another third said they would consider buying such products. The remaining consumers surveyed said they did not want to eat food or consume other products from cloned animals. Jennifer Sosin, president of KRC Research, the firm hired by Viagen to conduct the survey of 1,000 people, was quoted as sayin, "The word cloning ... is science fiction. It seems very futuristic. If I had guessed before doing research on it, I would have expected that the word alone would be enough to be far more negative" to the results. The story goes on to say that the FDA in October 2003 issued a draft risk assessment saying food from cloned animals and their offspring was as safe as conventional food. But an FDA panel urged more research into new technology, delaying a final decision on selling food from cloned animals. The agency is widely expected to lift its ban sometime in the next few months.

6. TRANSGENIC ANIMALS (477273)

GM bug trial shelved; May 18, 2005; ABC Online; http://www.abc.net.au/ Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) has, according to this story, decided to shelve a 10-year project to develop a genetically modified organism to help cattle fight Gidyea and Heartleaf poisoning. The story explains that the GM rumen bug has been successfully trialled as a shield against the fluroacetate poison which occurs naturally in plants growing in inland Australia. MLA's Dr Ruben Rose was cited as saying consumer attitudes to GM food could create problems for beef producers, adding, "It's certainly one of those things where a lot of effort and time has been put to find a solution/ But I think putting on a larger-scale industry hat it would be really a much bigger concern to producers if in fact this sort of work would lead to an issue with consumers and then an issue in terms of some markets being denied access by Australian products. It's clearly something that we have to go cautiously on to make sure that we get a good outcome."

Chickens lay anti-cancer drugs in eggs; June 3, 2005; Reuters; LONDON - Investigators have, according to this story, developed genetically engineered hens that lay eggs containing high levels of anti-cancer antibodies. The British gene therapy company Oxford Biomedica was cited as announcing on Friday that the feat demonstrates how the birds can be used as "pharmaceutical bioreactors" to make many other drugs,. In a statement, it said the "breakthrough" was achieved in collaboration with the American avian specialist Viragen, Inc, and the Roslin Institute in Scotland, famous for cloning Dolly the sheep.

Humanized mice develop coronavirus respiratory disease; June 7, 2005; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; Vol. 102, No. 23; Ralph S. Baric *,and Amy C. Sims * Departments of *Epidemiology and Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435; Coronavirus infections historically were associated with mild upper respiratory tract diseases in infants, children, and adults. Human coronavirus (HCoV)-OC43 and HCoV-229E were associated with 15–30% of common colds in winter and occasionally linked with lower respiratory tract disease in populations with chronic underlying diseases. HCoV research was complicated by the lack of a reverse genetic system or animal model. These viruses propagated poorly, and the number of reagents was limited. However, coronaviruses are capable of rapid host switching and evolution in changing ecologies (1), suggesting that their diversity and role in human disease were underappreciated. The 21st century heralded the arrival of the more pathogenic coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV. Then, HCoV-NL63 was identified as an important cause of severe lower respiratory tract infections in children and adults, including a tentative linkage with Kawasaki disease (2), and HCoV-HKU1 was identified in adults with pneumonia (3–5), renewing interest in the replication mechanisms and pathogenesis of HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E. In this issue of PNAS, Lassnig et al. (6) describe a transgenic mouse model to study HCoV-229E replication and pathogenesis, laying the groundwork for developing transgenic mouse models for other HCoVs.

NZ to develop GE cows for protein; June 30, 2005; AAP; http://tvnz.co.nz/ New Zealand government scientists have, according to this story, signed a partnership with Dutch investors to develop genetically engineered cows producing human lactoferrin in their milk. The story explains that the government's biggest crown research institute, Agresearch, will work with Pharming (CRRCT) Group NV based in the Netherlands to produce the lactoferrin in New Zealand. Agresearch chief executive Andy West was cited as saying Pharming is one of the world's leading companies dealing in transgenic animals and plans to sell the lactoferrin around the world in a market estimated as worth $US100 million.

Genetically engineered alfalfa and lettuce provide healthy pigs; July 29, 2005; Checkbiotech; Katharina Schoebi; http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm; Scientists now have the know-how to genetically engineer plants to produce pharmacologically active proteins. Taking it one step further, the plants could theoretically be used as a vaccine against viruses or bacteria causing diseases. However, edible plants that act as an edible vaccine do not always effectively stimulate the immune system. Researchers from Poland have now found an orally delivered vaccine protecting mice against two pathogens. Plant derived vaccines have many advantages over antigens produced by bacteria and mammalian cells. First, plants can modify and assemble proteins in a similar fashion to how human cells carry out this process. Second, plants are able to produce a much higher protein-yield, when compared to pharmaceutical production in yeast, bacteria or human cells. However, probably the most significant advantage of using plant systems to produce an edible vaccine is that unlike mammalian cells, they do not contain human or animal pathogens. In animal farming, there are some pathogens, that cause contagious, and often, fatal diseases. The Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV), also termed Hog Cholera Virus, is one of them. It belongs to the Pestiviridae genus of the flaviviridae familiy. Among other proteins, the Swine Fever Virus contains protein E2, which reacts as an antigen and therefore stimulates the immune system in a very effective way. Another pathogen causing severe illnesses in farm animals as well as in humans is Fasciola hepatica, the liver fluke. It is the causative agent for fasciolosis, a chronic and worldwide distributed disease, that is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in domestic ruminants, such as cattle, sheep and goats – a severe economic drain. In developing countries, humans may also become infected by the liver fluke. For its metabolism, F. hepatica needs specific proteins called proteases, which could theoretically be used as a vaccine. Preliminary reports indicate that cystein protheases might be a good source of protective antigens. For animals, an ideal vaccine would be one that could be fed to animals as an edible vaccine. A Polish research team, lead by Andrezej Legocki from the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Poznan, has now been able to produce genetically modified plants, that produce antigens from the Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV) and the liver worm Fasciola hepatica. They published their work in the journal Vaccine. In their study, the researchers looked first at which gene from the Swine Fever Virus' genome is responsible for producing the E2 protein, and which part of the F. hepatica's genome is responsible for producing the cysteine proteases. Then, Legocki and his team introduced these genes in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants. To their satisfaction, the plantlets were able to produce the proteins of interest. Afterwards, the researchers selected those plants containing the highest amounts of proteins, collected their seeds and planted them. Subsequently, they grew the second generation of these plantlets on a large scale. The antigen levels in the plants were estimated, and then Dr. Legocki's laboratory fed the alfalfa and lettuce to laboratory mice to test their ability to perform as an edible vaccine and to test if the vaccine was safe. In addition, Legocki and his colleagues immunized the lab mice two times per month. With each immunization, they administered 0.5 microgram of the E2 protein and 2 microgram of the cystein proteases. Afterwards, the researchers collected the mice's serum and the fecal pellets and determined the levels of IgG and IgA-antibodies. They found, that after the second immunization, there was a significant increase in antibodies. To their satisfaction, orally administered vaccines in lettuce and alfalfa were capable of effectively inducing an immune response in mice. However, the researchers have not yet determined, if the immune response was sufficient to provide protection against the pathogens. First, Dr. Legocki wanted to make sure the vaccine was safe and capable of invoking an immune response. Checkbiotech has learned that Dr. Legocki has just recently received permission to carry out experiments with other animals, including pigs. "We hope to recognize, if it is possible to induce the immune response in these groups of animals," Dr. Legocki told Checkbiotech. Not only lettuce and alfalfa are able to produce vaccines against F. hepatica and/or CSFV. Dr. Legocki noted, "I can assure you that most plants susceptible for regeneration might be suited to this purpose." Dr. Legocki's laboratory has tried to do some experiments with tobacco, however, since the regulations concerning transgenic experiments in Poland are very strict, Dr. Legocki and his colleagues have not carried out any field experiments. Due to misunderstandings created by some NGOs and the media, people are often hesitant about transgenic developments, such as plant based vaccines. Some individuals could be concerned that genetically modified lettuce might cause human allergies, when incorrectly eaten by people. The Polish researchers are not conducting on any tests with humans, since the edible vaccines are only intended for animals. "In my opinion, plant-based immunoprotective products cannot be considered as ordinary vegetables," Dr. Legocki said. "Therefore, the use of the medicinal or veterinary products should be strictly controlled." The researchers have obtained patent rights for some of the elaborated methods and technologies. "We decided to apply for an international patent on F. hepatica in collaboration with the Institute of Biotechnology and Antibiotics in Warsaw," Dr. Legocki told Checkbiotech. This patent will be mainly used in Australia and New Zealand, where the protection against F. hepatica is of great importance. Katharina Schoebi is a biologist and a Science Writer for Checkbiotech. Contact her at katharina.schoebi@bluewin.ch. Andrzej Legocki et al. Immunoprotective properties of transgenic plants expressing E2 glycoprotein from CSFV and cysteine protesase from Fasciola hepatica. Vaccine, 23 (2003), p. 1844-1846

Live from WWFE: Biotechnology shakes up the industry; October 27, 2005; Meatingplace.com; Deborah Silver; CHICAGO — Wednesday's educational program at the Worldwide Food Expo tackled the controversial issue of animal biotechnology, looking specifically at transgenics and cloning. According to Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the University of California Systemwide Biotech Research and Education Program, transgenics is garnering major research attention these days. The procedure ultimately could lead to more efficient production of animal-derived foods, as well as transform animals into production farm factories for pharmaceutical proteins, such as collagen. "That's where the big money is," said McGloughlin. McGloughlin believes that cloning has significant potential, including the ability to develop high-merit farm animals, duplicate valuable "pharm" animals, and create a homogeneous population of cells, tissues and even organs that can be transferred to organ-failure patients. There is a downside, however. Cloning is very expensive, with only a 2 percent to 3 percent success rate at present. The risk of disease transfer exists, as does the inadvertent selection of undesirable characteristics. But according to McGloughlin, "most clones appear to be perfectly normal." She also considers the food-safety concerns voiced by opponents of cloning to be unjustified. "There is no evidence that clones pose a safety concern," she said. McGloughlin believes that by the end of 2006, the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates transgenic and cloned animals, will approve some meat from the offspring of cloned animals for sale in the marketplace. The cloned animals themselves, however, will not be sold as products. "The pricetag to develop a cloned animal is simply too high for it to become food," she said. One audience member expressed concern over both transgenics and cloning. Dr. Temple Grandin, associate professor of livestock handling and behavior at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, noted that, despite the fact that FDA considers transgenic and cloned animals new forms of animal drugs (hence, FDA's jurisdiction over them), they are indeed still animals. "The physical and biological stress on animals has to be addressed, no matter how the animals came to be," said Grandin.

7. XENOTRANSPLANTATION (479395)

Pig cells offer hope of miracle cure; May 21, 2005; New Zealand Herald; Chris Barton
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10126647; A pig that is a direct descendant of those left on the Auckland Islands 200 years ago does not, according to this story, secrete infectious porcine endogenous retroviruses (Pervs), making her ideal as a source of cells for medical use. Her owners, Living Cell Technologies (formerly Diatranz), are at the frontier of an extraordinary, some say miraculous, development in medical science: transplanting living animal cells into humans. The story says that from these pigs, Living Cell is taking hormone-producing brain choroid plexus cells for experimental treatment of animals with brain injury, such as strokes, and brain disease, such as Huntington's. Even more promising are the pigs' insulin-producing, pancreatic islet cells, which are now being used for treating humans with diabetes. For many of the 15,000 type 1 diabetics, including 1500 children, in New Zealand, it's an exciting prospect, but one that has stopped dead here because the NZ Government has banned all animal-to-human transplants (xenotransplantation) until the end of next year and looks likely to extend the ban further. Critics say the Government is being, as it were, pig-headed and pig-ignorant - not only denying hope for thousands of New Zealanders, but also turning its back on a share of a brand new multi-billion-dollar industry. The story goes on to say that the most recent two-year moratorium on xenotransplantation was due to expire on June 30. But the Government has quietly just passed the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill, extending the moratorium for another 18 months. The health select committee considering the bill decided not to call for public submissions because it considered the content "was straightforward and uncontroversial". Some on the committee were, however, concerned that the moratorium "suppresses innovation in the biotechnology sector" - a sector that, ironically, the Government also says it wants to promote. Others wanted to see the outcome of the "consultation" being undertaken by the Bioethics Council before considering detailed legislation in this area. But while the Bioethics Council is indeed conducting a "dialogue" on "the cultural, spiritual and ethical aspects of xenotransplantation", it is running late and will not deliver its findings until the end of August. It's worth noting that the council is not looking at the safety of xenotransplantation. That task falls to the Ministry of Health. In the long term the Government wants to cover xenotransplantation with new human tissue and therapeutic products legislation, which is yet to make it into bill form. In short, the possibility of pig islet cells transplants is bogged down in a political and legislative quagmire.

Korean researchers take first step in inter-species transplants: report; May 23, 2005; Agence France Presse English; SEOUL- The Korea Times was cited as reporting Monday that South Korean scientists have discovered ways to prevent monkeys rejecting organ transplants from pigs, paving the way for the use of animal organs and cells in humans. The story says that the study was led by Hwang Woo-Suk, a Seoul National University professor whose team of experts manufactured stem cells by cloning human embryos using human eggs from donors and skin cells from patients. The stem cell research announced last week marked a step forward in efforts to make it possible one day to transplant healthy cells into humans to replace cells ravaged by illnesses such as Parkinson's and diabetes. The Korea Times quoted one of Hwang's fellow researchers, identified only as Kim, as saying the researchers are hoping to transplant hearts and insulin-producing cells from cloned miniature pigs into monkeys by the end of the year, adding, "We have created dozens of pigs embedded with human immunity genes since late last year. We plan to start transplanting their organs or cells into monkeys as early as late this year." Kim added that the organs of pigs are almost the same in size as those of humans and their metabolic functions are also similar.

South Korean scientists produce cloned pigs for organ transplant; July 13, 2005; Agence France Presse; SEOUL - South Korean scientists were cited as saying Wednesday they had successfully cloned piglets whose organs were genetically modified to make them more suitable for human transplants. Lead scientist Park Kwang-Wook was cited as saying the cloned piglets were genetically modified to contain the "HLA-G" gene, which would give their organs a greater chance of being accepted if they were transplanted into humans. Park said he had injected the gene into the cell of a pig bred for organ transplants. The cell was then implanted into the womb of a surrogate pig which gave birth to five cloned piglets of which one survived.

Time for an urgent review of the restrictions on Xenotransplantation; August 5, 2005; NZORD - The New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders;News of significant success in pre-clinical studies on an animal model of Huntington's disease by New Zealand company Living Cell Technologies Ltd, adds strongly to other very good reasons for a review of the current restrictions on Xenotransplantation medical research. Click here for a NZ Herald article on this development.
LCT uses live cells from pigs in its experimental therapy for HD, specially encapsulated in material that prevents immune rejection by the patient. This process is very similar to the treatment it has successfully used in clinical trials to treat people affected by diabetes. However concern about possible transfer of animal diseases to humans led to tight restrictions on this type of research in many countries several years ago. LCT has conducted the present trials in the United States. The rationale for the restrictions on this technology was severely dented when the researchers who originally posed the concerns (C Patience and others), published further research in 2004 , and again in 2005 , which significantly reduces the original concerns and endorsed the continuation of controlled clinical trials. In January this year our Bioethics Council launched a discussion booklet on the cultural, spiritual and ethical aspects of Xenotransplantation and commenced a public dialogue on this type of biotechnology. Details of this can be found on the website of the Bioethics Council . In May 2005, NZORD submitted to The Bioethics Council that the debates were not identifying any issues of such magnitude that justified restriction of research or clinical trials of Xenotransplantation. Click here for NZORD's submission to the bioethics Council and for the detailed submission of Diabetes Youth New Zealand , whose submission we endorsed. The Bioethics Council is yet to produce its report, but it is most unlikely to recommend any restriction on xenotransplantation cell therapy. Also, the Council made it clear during the public dialogue that it was not considering the safety regulation - just cultural, spiritual and ethical matters. A review of the safety regulation should be commenced urgently so these two aspects can be considered in parallel, rather than have things considerably delayed by one review following the other. The reported success of LCT's pre-clinical studies, the disease-free status of the pigs used to source the cells, and the growing body of supportive scientific literature on the topic, are very good reasons for the safety restrictions on Xenotransplantation clinical trials to be reviewed. New Zealand ought to be bringing its regulations into line with the USA where controlled clinical trials are permitted. It is ironic indeed that a treatment method with huge promise in treating a number of very serious diseases, and some success in early trials, cannot readily be further trialled here in the country where it was originally developed.

Animal-human transplants soon to be reality -expert; September 9, 2005; Reuters Patricia Reaney; DUBLIN - Dr Anthony Warrens, of Imperial College London, was cited as saying that transplants of animal organs into people could take place within a few years because of the acute shortages of donated human organs, adding, "It is only in recent years that many of the potential immunological problems, such as transplant rejection, have been solved, meaning the process of transplanting organs from one species into another could soon be a reality." Warrens told the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in the Irish capital that for every donated human organ that became available there were five people who needed it.

Piggies might give aid to knees; September 23, 2005; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News; Jeff Sturgeon, The Roanoke Times, Va; A groundbreaking effort to advance human medicine through cloning of pigs has, according to this story, paid off for a private Blacksburg company. Announcing its first commercial deal, Revivicor Inc. was cited as saying it will supply parts of genetically altered pigs to a large surgical products company. The story says that Zimmer Holdings Inc. of Warsaw, Ind., intends to create human medical implants from pig cartilage, tendons, bone and ligaments for sale to hospitals and surgery centers in about three years. They'll go in patients with such ailments as injured knees and shoulders, assuming Zimmer receives approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed. The story adds that the U.S. market for pig-derived medical products stands at about $1 billion. Revivicor, formerly Regenecor, was spun off by PPL Therapeutics—the British company that produced the world's first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep—in 2003. Revivicor is a world leader in the emerging science of harvesting pig organs for transplant into humans and has invested nine years and millions of dollars in pursuit of commercialization. This first deal is both a licensing agreement and partnership with Zimmer, a worldwide leader in reconstructive and spinal implants, trauma and related orthopedic surgical products.

8. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE (474874)

First production of human monoclonal antibodies in chicken eggs published in Nature Biotechnology; August 29, 2005; Nature Cell Biology; BURLINGAME, CA -- Origen Therapeutics today announced the first published scientific report of fully functional, human sequence monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) produced in chickens. The antibodies were expressed solely in the chicken oviduct and deposited into egg white in concentrations of 1-3 milligrams per egg. Moreover, antibodies produced in this manner demonstrated 10-100 fold greater cell-killing ability (ADCC) compared to therapeutic antibodies produced by conventional cell culture methods. The new report was published in the September issue of Nature Biotechnology by researchers from Origen Therapeutics and their collaborators at Medarex, Texas A&M University and the University of California, Los Angeles. A research brief commenting on the potential impact of this development for the production of human therapeutic proteins was also published in the September issue of Nature Medicine. "This work demonstrates the potential for producing therapeutic proteins with enhanced properties in the eggs of chickens as an alternative to established mammalian cell culture systems," said Robert J. Etches, Ph.D., D. Sc., Origen Therapeutics vice president, research. "Antibodies produced by this method had very similar physical and biological characteristics to those produced in CHO cells, including nearly identical binding curves, similar affinities, and an equal ability to be internalized by antigen on prostate cancer cells. At the same time, chicken-produced antibodies lacked the sugar residue, fucose, which greatly increases their cell-killing activity compared to CHO-produced antibodies." To create the antibody-producing chickens, the researchers first inserted into chicken embryonic stem cells the genes encoding the antibody and the regulatory sequences restricting its deposition to egg white. The stem cells were then introduced into chick embryos. At this stage of development, the embryonic stem cells can make significant contributions to the developing chicken. Resulting chimeras with large contributions from the stem cells lay eggs containing milligram amounts of antibody, which is then separated from the egg white proteins generating the purified product. "This work represents a considerable advance over past efforts to develop avian transgenes, which were limited to the insertion of only small pieces of DNA," commented Dr. Etches. "The technology described here is a general method for inserting DNA encoding proteins of essentially any size and complexity while achieving high levels of protein expression. Moreover, it is the only technology to date that restricts deposition of the therapeutic protein to egg white." "Monoclonal antibodies have demonstrated great success as human therapeutics, with over 25 approved for human therapeutic use and an increasing number of these proteins in clinical development," continued Dr. Etches. "We expect the demand for more potent anti-cancer monoclonal antibodies and for lower production costs to increase at a rate that will tax existing cell culture production systems. The introduction of this new chicken-based production technology will be of considerable interest to an industry coping with the commercial supply of an ever increasing number of therapeutic antibodies." "We believe the chicken system is an attractive one for therapeutic protein production compared to either plant systems or to other transgenic animal systems," said Robert Kay, Ph.D., Origen Therapeutics president and chief executive officer. "The fact that the chicken-produced anti-cancer antibodies show dramatically enhanced cell killing activity elevates the chicken system considerably relative to other non-traditional production technologies and some traditional cell culture methods as well." "Furthermore," Dr. Kay continued, "unlike other transgenic animal systems, the time from antibody identification to production in eggs can be as short as 8 months versus 18 months to 3 years for goats or cattle. The egg is sterile and stable, providing a good starting material for isolation and purification of the protein of interest. Moreover, conditions for good manufacturing practices have been long-established for vaccine production in chicken eggs." "This work really exemplifies the spirit of our Small Business Innovation Research grant program," said Matthew E. Portnoy, Ph.D., program director at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. "This new technology has the potential to drive down drug manufacturing costs, which could make medicines and health insurance plans less expensive for all of us." The work conducted at Origen Therapeutics and Texas A&M University was supported by a National Institutes of Health Small Business Innovation Research Grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Research in the laboratory at UCLA was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Ending battle with FDA, Bayer withdraws poultry antibiotic; September 9, 2005; The Washington Post; A03; Marc Kaufman; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801918.html; For the first time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has, according to this story, succeeded in forcing off the market an antibiotic used to treat animals because of concerns that it will make similar antibiotics less effective in treating people. The story says that after a five-year battle, Bayer Corp. was cited as saying yesterday that it would immediately stop selling its poultry antibiotic, Baytril, a close relative to its widely used human antibiotic, Cipro. Bayer spokesman Robert Walker was quoted as saying, "We disagree with the FDA's conclusion about our drug. But we understand they made a scientific decision, and courts tend to defer back to the agency. . . . It seemed like the chances that we would be successful in court were small." The story notes that the resolution of the Baytril case opens the door to FDA action against other animal antibiotics, and that the agency has already told the makers of at least three types of penicillin used on farm animals that their products might raise similar concerns, and regulatory action might be needed. Karen Florini, senior lawyer at Environmental Defense and chairwoman of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition, was quoted as saying, "We applaud Commissioner [Lester M.] Crawford for defending the public's health and Bayer for finally recognizing the need to comply with the FDA's ruling. Cipro is a critical antibiotic for treating human illness. It simply makes no sense to allow its effectiveness to be squandered by continued use of near-identical drugs in poultry flocks." Ron Phillips, spokesman for the Animal Health Institute, was quoted as saying, "It's disappointing to us that the case played out this way. While we disagreed with the FDA's methodologies and conclusions, consumers should be comforted by the fact that the agency does have sufficient authority to act when it thinks there's a threat to public health." The story notes that the FDA and critics of widespread antibiotic use on farms have argued that the use of Baytril to treat chickens and turkeys was especially worrisome because the drug is a fluoroquinolone, in the same family of antibiotics as Cipro (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride). The agency also said during a long administrative hearing that poultry farmers have alternatives that are as effective as Baytril but pose less of a threat to the human antibiotic supply. In 2003, the World Health Organization urged that the use of antibiotics as animal growth promoters be stopped worldwide to preserve the effectiveness of important human drugs.

Frozen-thawed ovaries transplanted in sheep; September 15, 2005; Reuters/ Globe and Mail/Canadian Press; LONDON - Israeli scientists have, according to these stories, successfully retrieved eggs from ovaries that had been frozen, thawed and transplanted in sheep in a project that could provide new hope for infertile women. Researchers at the Institute of Animal Science, Agriculture Research Organisation in Bet Dagan, were cited as saying on Thursday that the research showed it was possible to restore ovarian function following a transplant in a large animal, and that they now hope to test the technique in humans. Dr Amir Arav, the head of the research team, was quoted as saying, "This approach could revolutionise the field of cryopreservation (freezing) for diverse human applications, such as organ transplants, as well as helping women who face the loss of their fertility."

Tomorrow's cow to tackle obesity; October 4, 2005; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=186cow&style=mediaRelease; New information from the genes of cows can help in the fight against human obesity, says Dr Steve Kappes, Deputy Administrator of Animal Production and Protection at the US Department of Agriculture. Speaking at CSIRO's Horizons in Livestock Sciences conference on the Gold Coast (4 October 2005), Dr Kappes will discuss the impact of the bovine genome project on livestock production and human health. The bovine genome project involved researchers from around the world, including CSIRO, who have analysed the complete set of DNA sequences for a cow – its genome. The full genome sequence for the cow was published on an international public database in June. This information provides a powerful new tool for researchers exploring the biology of cows and other mammals. "One of the areas where we see the bovine genome can have an impact on obesity and human health is in the area of feed efficiency," Dr Kappes says. "The bovine genome data is helping us to identify the genes responsible for high-nutrient uptake in cows. We think some of these genes may also influence high-nutrient uptake in humans." Recent reports claim up to two-thirds of Americans are overweight and a third are obese. "Obesity is a big concern in a lot of developed countries," Dr Kappes says. "Obviously we need to change our diets and lifestyles but if we can identify some of the genes that make a person more prone to obesity – or less prone – then you can begin to manage the risk of obesity in individuals." Certain groups, for example, might be more genetically susceptible to obesity from consuming processed sugars. "Once we have a better understanding of the biochemical intricacies of obesity, we can develop diets for people more susceptible to processed sugars and for other health conditions," Dr Kappes says. Genomic research in cattle and sheep will shed light on this process. "By looking at the phenotypes of these animals – the animal's genetic makeup coupled with environmental influences – we can identify different aspects of the biochemical process involved in nutrient uptake." This information is likely to be similar for humans, due to the genetic similarity of many mammals. Dr Kappes says the National Institute of Health in the US's decision to fund half the cost of sequencing the bovine genome clearly indicates the importance human health authorities place on the project.