BMB Reports 2024; 57(1): 50-59  https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2023-0208
Current status and future of gene engineering in livestock
Dong-Hyeok Kwon1,# , Gyeong-Min Gim2,# , Soo-Young Yum2 & Goo Jang1,2,*
1Laboratory of Theriogenology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Research Institute for Veterinary Science, BK21 FOUR Future Veterinary Medicine Leading Education & Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, 2LARTBio Inc., Gwangmyeong 14322, Korea
Correspondence to: Tel: +82-2-880-1280; Fax: +82-2-880-8662; E-mail: snujang@snu.ac.kr
#These authors contributed equally to this work.
Received: September 25, 2023; Revised: November 23, 2023; Accepted: December 4, 2023; Published online: January 3, 2024.
© Korean Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. All rights reserved.

cc This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
The application of gene engineering in livestock is necessary for various reasons, such as increasing productivity and producing disease resistance and biomedicine models. Overall, gene engineering provides benefits to the agricultural and research aspects, and humans. In particular, productivity can be increased by producing livestock with enhanced growth and improved feed conversion efficiency. In addition, the application of the disease resistance models prevents the spread of infectious diseases, which reduces the need for treatment, such as the use of antibiotics; consequently, it promotes the overall health of the herd and reduces unexpected economic losses. The application of biomedicine could be a valuable tool for understanding specific livestock diseases and improving human welfare through the development and testing of new vaccines, research on human physiology, such as human metabolism or immune response, and research and development of xenotransplantation models. Gene engineering technology has been evolving, from random, time-consuming, and laborious methods to specific, time-saving, convenient, and stable methods. This paper reviews the overall trend of genetic engineering technologies development and their application for efficient production of genetically engineered livestock, and provides examples of technologies approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for application in humans.
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9, Engineered nuclease, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genetically modified organism (GMO), Livestock
INTRODUCTION

Genetic engineering techniques have been used in research to increase the understanding of genetic function, diseases, and productivity. Early attempts of genetic engineering were mainly in laboratory animals such as mice, where genetic engineering was carried out by using exogenous recombinant vector form or packing vector that would be introduced into viruses to infect cells or in vitro fertilized embryos (1). However, at that time, the exogenous genes were randomly inserted into the genome, an approach that had several limitations including low efficiency, unwanted genome insertion, and sometimes, germline transmission did not occur or was silenced over the generations. In addition, the early technology required a lot of time and resources, and sophisticated gene engineering could not be carried out. Consequently, it was difficult to apply gene engineering technology to livestock. The discovery of gene scissors revolutionized gene engineering technology and overcame limitations of the traditional technology. Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), the first gene editing tool, was applied to rodents in 2009 (Rat) and 2010 (Mouse) (2, 3), and showed great potential. ZFNs have several shortcomings, such as low efficiency and cytotoxicity; however, almost all of ZFNs’ limitations were solved with the emergence of Transcription Activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9. Impressively, CRISPR/Cas9, which was discovered in 2012, can be applied in eukaryotic cells (4, 5). Overall, gene editing technology made gene editing and production of genetically engineered livestock easy and quick (6).

Genetically engineered livestock were produced using gene editing technology, mainly somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or microinjection (MI). SCNT has the advantage of being able to select somatic cells with a desired gene mutation at the somatic cell level in advance; however, it is limited by frequent absorption, death before and after delivery, and the production of abnormal offspring. On the other hand, with MI, it was possible to produce a healthy individual, but it takes a relatively long time to obtain a complete mutation because of mosaicism. Therefore, the choice of method for experimental research may vary depending on the purpose of the experiment.

Gene engineering technologies have rapidly evolved and gained momentum in livestock improvement. These advancements have led to the creation of genetically engineered livestock animals with enhanced traits, disease resistance, and improved productivity (7-10). This review article aims to provide an overall understanding of the past and present genetic engineering technologies in livestock and up-to-date research findings. Furthermore, we aim to convey the content of the regulatory framework for livestock applied in these technologies, in particular the recent FDA approval.

INTRODUCTION OF GENE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES

Viruses and homologous recombination

Gene engineering technology is a method of overexpressing or inhibiting a specific gene and has been used for research to increase understanding of gene functions. In 1972, cloning of recombinant genes was established (Fig. 1A), and in studies conducted two years later, transgenic mice induced by overexpressing the exogenous gene (simian virus [SV] 40 DNA) (Fig. 1A). In this study, SV40 DNA was identified in mouse tissues, but the germline transmission of the mouse was not identified (11). In 1976, the same research group injected the Moloney Leukemia virus into a fertilized embryo, which resulted in the successful introduction of mice with the virus vector. Furthermore, the study reported the presence of the introduced genes in the offspring of these mice. This groundbreaking study demonstrated, for the first time, the possibility of exogenous gene insertion and germline transmission (12).

However, gene modification using viruses had drawbacks such as experimental safety concerns, unwanted integration into the host genome, and potential for oncogenic effects (13, 14). To improve gene engineering technologies, homologous recombination, where nucleotide sequences are exchanged between two similar or identical DNA molecules, has been applied for more precise gene insertion or deletion in rodents and livestock (Fig. 1A). Despite these ongoing improvements, continuous enhancement is required to achieve efficient and precise insertion of the desired genes into a specific host genome. To produce genetically engineered livestock through SCNT or microinjection (MI) in a homologous recombination method, exogenous genes must be introduced into somatic cells or IVF embryos. Homologous recombination occurs as cells divide, and a series of screening processes are needed over an extended period for gene engineered cell or embryo selection due to the probability of low efficiency (15). However, long-term selection easily causes cell aging and death in somatic cell and embryos (16, 17). Consequently, it was difficult to produce genetically engineered livestock animals with high efficiency in 1990s (18-20).

The advent of engineered nucleases

A study published in 2009, showcased the application of ZFNs as the first-generation gene editing tool to suppress specific genes in experiment animals (Fig. 1A) (2, 3). ZFNs showed promising results as a tool for targeted gene manipulation, opening new possibilities for precise genetic engineering in animals. Representative examples are studies on the production of new varieties or methods of treating mutations by producing animals with mutations (21). While the existing gene engineering methods carry the risk of unexpected random insertion by introducing exogenous recombinant plasmid (Fig. 1B) (22), when gene scissors were introduced, it was possible to produce gene knockout livestock without unwanted introduction of exogenous genes (Fig. 1C). Furthermore, gene editing efficiency is higher than conventional homologous recombination and speeds up the process of long-term somatic cell culture for screening gene engineered cells (23). Therefore, the group that studied animal production with the desired trait through SCNT focused on animal production by continuously applying gene editing tools to SCNT because it can reduce the aging of somatic cells compared to before. On the other hand, a research group that used in vitro fertilization (IVF) to manipulate genes conducted a study that efficiently applied ZFNs in IVF embryos (24).

After the advent of ZFNs, the next generation of engineered nucleases like TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 emerged (25). Like in TALENs, a second-generation gene editing tool, gene editing is performed in a manner similar to ZFNs, but experimental design is relatively simple, which means it takes less amounts of time and is laborsaving. CRISPR/Cas9 is a third-generation gene editing tool, unlike ZNFs or TALENs, which require designing new engineered nuclease components every time depending on the target site, it is easy to change the target site through a simple design of a guide RNA (Fig. 1A) (25, 26). Therefore, among the three genetic scissors, it offers the greatest time-saving and laborsaving advantages. In addition, it has high specificity and efficiency by showing fewer off-target advent than ZFNs and TALENs (25-28).

IN VITRO ANIMAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Cell-mediated animal production: SCNT

The representative method for producing genetically engineered livestock is SCNT, which involves exchanging the nucleus of a somatic cell with the nucleus of an oocyte (Fig. 2A). In 1997, the first cloned sheep, Dolly, was successfully cloned using SCNT in a mammalian sheep (29). SCNT can be used not only for producing cloned livestock but also for creating genetically engineered animals using genetically engineered somatic cells. Furthermore, the efficiency of gene engineering was higher in somatic cells than when applied directly to IVF embryos. In the early 2000s, laboratory results of studies on genetically engineered somatic cells suggested that livestock could be created. In 2002, Alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase (GGTA1) gene KO pigs were successfully produced through SCNT (30, 31), and many kinds of genetically engineered livestock animals were produced by SCNT after the advent of gene editing tools (ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9) (32-37).

While manipulating the desired gene in somatic cells is easier than in embryos, SCNT has associated side effects. These include abnormal reprogramming during embryogenesis, resulting in a low pregnancy rate and instances of sudden death after delivery (38, 39). To enhance the efficiency of SCNT, numerous attempts have been made, including addressing epigenetic factors to overcome reprogramming challenges. Among them, two studies focused on the injection of epigenetic factors during embryo development (40, 41). Nevertheless, the aforementioned issues have not been fully resolved to date, and SCNT still has a lower implantation rate than IVF (42).

Embryo-mediated animal production: MI or electroporation

Before the introduction of SCNT in livestock in 1997, genetically engineered animals were primarily produced through the MI of DNA into in vitro fertilized embryos (Fig. 2B). Several studies have demonstrated random insertion through MI in rabbits, pigs, and sheep (43), but achieving germline transmission to the next generation has not been successful (44, 45). Furthermore, the efficiency of MI was notably low in terms of high-throughput techniques by consuming more time. However, in some cases, MI is more efficient than electroporation in terms of mutation efficiency (46). To enhance efficiency of MI, lentivirus or retrovirus was injected into a zygote, demonstrating higher effectiveness compared to DNA injection.

Since the emergence of gene editing tools such as ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9, gene engineering has become significantly more efficient and accurate. Moreover, the efficiency of producing genetically engineered livestock animals using MI has been greatly enhanced (47-49). With the advent of the ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex within the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the application of one of the most common techniques for RNP delivery, electroporation, has become feasible (Fig. 2B) (9, 50, 51). The electroporation has enabled the production of gene-engineered livestock animals through a simpler method as opposed to the previously laborious MI (9, 52). Therefore, various types of gene-engineered livestock animals have been created using gene editing tools, resulting in enhanced productivity, disease resistance, and advancements in biomedicine. The next paragraphs provide illustrative examples from each respective field.

APPLICATION OF GENOME-ENGINEERED LIVESTOCK (FIG. 3)

Productiveness

According to the World Agricultural Organization, the demand for animal proteins (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) is expected to increase to 1,800 million tons as the population increases. To meet these protein requirements, research and development efforts are needed to improve livestock productivity using genome editing tools (9, 53).

Traditional breeding methods have achieved significant improvements in livestock over time. However, recent active research has led to the discovery of genes related to productivity, and the engineering of such specific genes presents a novel direction to enhance productivity in livestock. The following are some of the studies that have been conducted to increase productivity according to species in livestock.

Cattle: In a study aimed at producing high-quality meat, the myostatin (MSTN) gene, which inhibits muscle growth, was edited in cattle using TALENs and SCNT, resulting in the successful birth of cattle with increased muscle mass in 2015 (54). Additionally, in 2022, CRISPR/Cas9 was used to induce MSTN mutations in in vitro fertilized embryos, leading to the successful production of beef cattle with increased muscle mass (55). From these gene editing results in cattle, it has been demonstrated that the MSTN mutation is transmitted to the next generation through the germline, laying the foundation for the mass production of MSTN mutation cattle (52). On the other hand, for only males to be born, an in vitro fertilized bovine embryo, in which the SRY gene was inserted into chromosome 17 using CRISPR/Cas9, was produced, and a report was published in 2021 that a calf was successfully born (56).

Holstein, a dairy breed of cow, absorbs a lot of light and is prone to high-heat stress. Heat stress has a significant negative impact on animal reproduction and growth, and as a result, numerous studies on solutions for such challenges are being conducted (57, 58). Accordingly, a mutation was induced in the PMEL gene, which determines black color in hair, using CRISPR-Cas9 and resulting in gray hair. In 2022, New Zealand researchers announced that calves with the PMEL mutation were successfully born, showing the actual color changes in their hair. In another method to mitigate heat stress, the SLICK gene, which is related to the length of hair, was edited in cattle (7, 59). Recently, the US FDA announced that it will soon approve cows produced after inducing SLICK gene mutations using gene editing, as they believe that the risk of any adverse effects from gene modification is very low (60, 61).

In 2011, ZFNs and SCNT were used to produce a cow that lacked beta-lactoglobulin (BLG), which is known as a major allergen in milk. Subsequently, the research was extended to produce actual milk from BLG knockout cows. In 2018, it was confirmed that the milk produced by these cows contained no beta-lactoglobulin (62, 63). Recently, as part of efforts to maximize productivity, our group successfully produced dairy claves with simultaneous mutations in both MSTN and BLG genes (9).

Pigs: Cloned pigs with MSTN gene mutation were successfully produced using ZFNs in 2015 (64), TALENs in 2016 (65), and CRISPR/Cas9 in 2017 (66). In addition to having relatively high muscle mass, all pigs with MSTN mutation also showed improved productivity. So far, there are many studies on the MSTN mutated pigs to increase muscle mass, especially in China (67-69).

Mutation of the Nanos2 gene, which is known to promote male cell differentiation and inhibit feminization, results in the birth of an animal that does not produce sperms in males. Based on this, Nanos2 was knocked out in mice, pigs, goats, and cattle, and it was confirmed that sperms were not produced in these animals (70). Furthermore, in 2020, a study was published in the US where spermatogonia stem cells derived from wild-type pigs were transplanted into pigs with a Nanos2 mutation that prevented sperms production. The study showed that the transplanted spermatogonia stem cells could differentiate and successfully produce sperms. Based on this study, the researchers can predict that a system will be prepared to mass-produce semi-permanently excellent sperms by separating spermatogonia stem cells derived from excellent breeds of males.

Sheep and goat: Goats are famous for providing meat and fur. In 2016, a goat with a MSTN mutation was produced using SCNT and TALENs and was reported to have increased production (34). Additionally, in 2015, in Uruguay, a study reported successful use of MI to produce a sheep with increased muscle mass (48). Moreover, in China, in 2016, a study reported successful multiple gene editing using MI in sheep (71). In another study, in a cashmere goat, double knockout for the MSTN gene that controls the amount of meat and the FGF5 gene that affects the length of hair was performed in the somatic cell stage and a transgenic goat was produced using SCNT (72).

Disease resistance

Recently, there have been numerous new pandemic diseases affecting humans. Similarly, animals have been affected by infectious diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease. Consequently, there are active studies on improving disease resistance for diseases such as African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV), Pig Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Viruses (PRRS), Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), and tuberculosis. If a disease resistance model is established through gene engineering in livestock that are reared in a limited space and are vulnerable to the spread of disease, it can reduce time and economic loss by reducing dependence on antibiotics. It can also minimize the pain caused by disease and therefore improve animal welfare.

Cattle: In 2005, SCNT was used to produce a cow that was resistant to mastitis (breast inflammation), allowing the secretion of anti-inflammatory substances from the mammary glands. When these cows were exposed to mastitis, they were confirmed to be resistant (35). Based on the results of these studies, in China, in 2014, after gene-engineered somatic cells were used to secrete human lysozyme at the location of the casein gene that secretes milk using ZFNs, SCNT was processed using these cells and used to produce cows resistant to breast inflammation (73). In addition, a study related to the production of cows with prion resistance using bovine somatic cells that had mutated prion genes was published in 2007 (37).

Tuberculosis, also known as consumption, is one of the diseases that affect cattle and is causing a lot of damage to the livestock industry. To make cattle resistant to the disease, the resistant gene SP110 was inserted into a specific location on chromosome 28 using TALENs in bovine somatic cells. SCNT embryos were transplanted into 147 surrogate mothers, and 23 calves were produced. In 2015, a Chinese research group reported that the calves were resistant to tuberculosis because of actual infection tests on this newborn calf (74).

Isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase syndrome (IARS), a recessive genetic disease that affects Japanese black cattle, was corrected using CRISPR/Cas9 in bovine somatic cells, and cloned embryos using corrected somatic cells as donors were transferred (75). In 2017, After genetic testing in the fetus done by inducing miscarriage 34 days after transplantation, the IARS mutation was detected. Recently, the first gene-edited calf with resistance to a major viral pathogen, Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV), was successfully produced. BVDV is one of the significant viruses affecting the health and growth of cattle worldwide, ultimately leading to substantial economic losses (76).

Pigs: There are respiratory infectious diseases caused by various viruses, such as PRRS, pig circovirus, and pig influenza virus. Among these, PRRS causes significant economic losses to the pig industry. The CD163 is known to be a cellular receptor capable of mediating infection of the PRRS virus. In 2015, in the US, a pig with CD163 mutation was produced using SCNT and was confirmed to be resistant to PRRS (77). Later, similar results were announced in the UK in 2018 (78), and in China in 2019 (79), where pigs resistant to PRRS were successfully produced.

Biomedicine

Xenotransplantation: The most popular part of the biomedicine field is the production of xenotransplantation animals through gene engineering. Since pig production through SCNT is now possible, organ transplant research using pigs is an active research topic. In 2002, research on pig production using xenotransplantation by knockout the GGTA1 gene, which is known to cause acute immune rejection and act as an allergen in meat, was conducted. The GGTA1 knockout pig was produced using SCNT and homologous recombination. In addition, the US FDA’s announcement in December 2020 that GGTA1-suppressed pork produced from gene engineering pigs can be allowed as food in people with the allergens. This could be a starting point for using pigs produced through gene engineering as meat in the future. With the advent of gene editing tools, it has become relatively easy to produce specific gene-edited animals. In 2015, a research group in the US used CRISPR/Cas9 to completely remove porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) and successfully produced cloned pigs. In January 2022, a pig heart with various controlled genes became the world’s first organ xenotransplantation in a human (80). However, two months after the transplant, the patient died, warranting further research.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) disease: Gene editing in livestock can be used as a human genetic disease model. For example, the DMD disease pig models can be used as a means of research for the cause of DMD, which mainly occurs in young people or to develop treatments. In 2021, a research group in China edited DMD exon 51 to create human-like DMD genetic diseases using CRISPR/Cas9. They successfully produced mutated piglets and disease phenotype in these pigs were very similar to that of human diseases (81).

Cardiovascular disease: Among the studies that have been conducted along with heterogeneous organ studies is the study of cardiovascular diseases using pigs. The PCSK9 gene, known to control LDL cholesterol levels, was overexpressed by SCNT in pigs, to produce and study a human cardiovascular disease model (82). In addition, in 2018, Chinese researchers announced that the APOE gene was suppressed using CRISPR/Cas9 and that it produced a miniature pig of an arteriosclerosis model (83). Similarly, in 2017, in China, SCNT-derived genetically engineered pigs with somatic cells that knocked out both APOE and LDLR genes were produced. Notably, serum patterns similar to human metabolic diseases were observed in these pigs (84).

Neurological disease: Recently, there have been several studies for neurological diseases through gene editing using pigs. This is because pigs are larger than rodents’ brains and have a similar structure and size to humans, making them suitable for research on neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases (85, 86). There was a case of gene overexpressing of hAPP, hTAU, and hPS1 genes in pig somatic cells in 2017 (87), and a study that produced PARK2 gene editing pigs using TALENs in 2014 (88), or simultaneously dropped Parkin, DJ-1, and PINK1 genes in 2016 for neurological diseases research (89).

TRENDS IN FDA APPROVAL FOR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED LIVESTOCK

The US FDA uses the term “intentional gene alternations (IGAs)” to describe genetic modifications in animals. IGAs in animal encompasses a modification of genomic DNA using modern molecular technologies which random or targeted DNA sequencing changes (90). Most of the IGAs in livestock are applied to human health, improved animal health and well-being, and enhanced production and food quality.

To date, the US FDA has approved five cases of IGAs in animals (Table 1), with two approved for use as food and three approved as pharmaceuticals (91). To receive the FDA approval, rigorous regulation must be followed. The approval process for the products took more than a decade to complete and was costly (92). However, currently, IGAs animal products approvals are granted frequently in each county, while the FDA still closely monitors the process (93). The FDA seeks to find a risk-based approach and focuses on the balance between regulatory responsibilities and the need to get innovative products to the market efficiently. Recently, the FDA officially announced the low-risk determination for marketing of genome-edited beef cattle products. The cattle with edited PRLR gene have short hair to resist heat stress (61, 94). In addition, the FDA has given Washington State University (WSU) researchers the first-of-its-kind approval to feed five gene-edited pigs to people (95). There is a clear distinction between the previous FDA approvals for IGAs in animals and the current cases. In the previous approvals, exogenous genes were inserted into the animals, while in recent cases, genetic editing is performed on the animals’ existing genes. The ongoing approvals of IGAs in animals are expected to contribute to building public trust and serve as innovative steps in the development of new foods.

DISCUSSION

In early genetically engineered livestock production research, various genetic engineering technologies such as vector random insertion, virus infection, SCNT, and MI were applied, but there were frequent cases of low efficiency and production of abnormal individuals. The development of molecular biology saw the emergence of gene editing tools which have improved the low efficiency of the previously applied gene engineering technologies and significantly reduced the time and labor burden. Consequently, the production of genetically engineered livestock that were difficult to try in the past has been achieved without health concerns.

However, in livestock, developed molecular biology and more efficient gene engineering technologies are still required to enable stable establishment of embryonic stem cells, improved SCNT efficiency, and more efficient and safer gene editing tools. In addition, for such a theoretical and technical leap forward, in-depth consideration of global regulations and approval for the precise stability of genetically engineered livestock and its application in human society will be needed to accelerate the production and market of genetically engineered livestock.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was financially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1F1A1051953) and the Materials/Parts Technology Development Program (20023353, Development of composite formulation with a sustained release [gene] for the treatment of companion animal sarcopenia) funded By the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea). All of the figures in this paper were created with BioRender.com.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflicting interests.

FIGURES
Fig. 1. (A) Types of biological technology for gene engineering research and gene engineering tendency according to the type. Evolution of molecular biological technologies for gene engineering with the flow of times (A), gene engineering tendency depending on methods; genome random integration using recombination vector (B) or site-specific integration using engineered nucleases (C).
Fig. 2. Access at the cell or embryo stage for genetically engineered livestock production. (A) SCNT requires the fusion of an enucleated egg cell obtained from the egg cell donor and a somatic cell derived from the nucleus donor. Before this step, an external gene is introduced in the somatic cell stage using methods such as virus or electroporation to produce a gene engineered cell, fusion of gene engineered cell with an enucleated cell is performed, and the embryos developed are transferred to the foster mother to produce gene-engineered livestock. (B) Using gene engineering methods such as virus, microinjection, and electroporation, in vitro fertilized embryos at the zygote stage are used to introduce exogenous genes into the cytoplasm or nucleus to create a gene engineered embryo, which is then transferred to a foster mother to produce gene engineered livestock.
Fig. 3. Application of genome engineered livestock. (A) Genome engineered livestock has become possible by engineering genes related to productivity, addressing aspects that cannot be improved through conventional breeding techniques. (B) Moreover, it is feasible to produce livestock with resistance to specific diseases through gene engineering. (C) Additionally, by producing animal models for basic research purposes, it is possible to aid in the study of human diseases. Furthermore, this technology allows to produce livestock capable of xenotransplantation and the production of recombinant proteins.
TABLE

The list of USA FDA approvals* in livestock

Species Recombinant DNA Use Objective
1 Salmon opAFP-GHc2 Food To improve growth
2 Pig pPL657

Food

Therapeutic

To eliminate alpha-gal sugar
3 Rabbit Bc2371 Therapeutic To produce hemophilia A or B with inhibitors
4 Chicken hLAL Therapeutic To produce hemophilia A or B with inhibitors
5 Goat Bc6 Therapeutic To produce antithrombin

*https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/biotechnology-products-cvm-animals-and-animal-food/intentional-genomic-alterations-igas-animals.


REFERENCES
  1. Martin MA and Axelrod D (1969) SV40 gene activity during lytic infection and in a series of SV40 transformed mouse cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 64, 1203-1210.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Geurts AM, Cost GJ and Freyvert Y et al (2009) Knockout rats via embryo microinjection of zinc-finger nucleases. Science 325, 433.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Meyer M, de Angelis MH, Wurst W and Kuhn R (2010) Gene targeting by homologous recombination in mouse zygotes mediated by zinc-finger nucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 15022-15026.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Cong L, Ran FA and Cox D et al (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819-823.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Mali P, Yang L and Esvelt KM et al (2013) RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823-826.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA and Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816-821.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Laible G, Cole SA and Brophy B et al (2021) Holstein Friesian dairy cattle edited for diluted coat color as a potential adaptation to climate change. BMC Genomics 22, 856.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Kalds P, Crispo M and Li C et al (2022) Generation of double-muscled sheep and goats by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the myostatin gene. Methods Mol Biol 2495, 295-323.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Gim GM, Eom KH and Kwon DH et al (2023) Generation of double knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) electroporation. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 14, 103.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Whitworth KM, Rowland RR and Ewen CL et al (2016) Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nat Biotechnol 34, 20-22.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Jaenisch R and Mintz B (1974) Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice derived from preimplantation blastocysts injected with viral DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 71, 1250-1254.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Jaenisch R (1976) Germ line integration and Mendelian transmission of the exogenous Moloney leukemia virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 73, 1260-1264.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Segura MM, Alba R, Bosch A and Chillon M (2008) Advances in helper-dependent adenoviral vector research. Curr Gene Ther 8, 222-235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Poiesz BJ, Ruscetti FW, Gazdar AF, Bunn PA, Minna JD and Gallo RC (1980) Detection and isolation of type C retrovirus particles from fresh and cultured lymphocytes of a patient with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 77, 7415-7419.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Yao X, Zhang M and Wang X et al (2018) Tild-CRISPR allows for efficient and precise gene knockin in mouse and human cells. Dev Cell 45, 526-536.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Chen H, Li Y and Tollefsbol TO (2013) Cell senescence culturing methods. Methods Mol Biol 1048, 1-10.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Sharpey-Schafer EP (1961) Venous tone. Br Med J 2, 1589-1595.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Krimpenfort P, Rademakers A and Eyestone W et al (1991) Generation of transgenic dairy cattle using 'in vitro' embryo production. Biotechnology (N Y) 9, 844-847.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Hyttinen JM, Peura T and Tolvanen M et al (1994) Generation of transgenic dairy cattle from transgene-analyzed and sexed embryos produced in vitro. Biotechnology (N Y) 12, 606-608.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Eyestone WH (1999) Production and breeding of transgenic cattle using in vitro embryo production technology. Theriogenology 51, 509-517.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Lin Y, Li J and Li C et al (2022) Application of CRISPR/Cas9 system in establishing large animal models. Front Cell Dev Biol 10, 919155.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. Yan BW, Zhao YF, Cao WG, Li N and Gou KM (2013) Mechanism of random integration of foreign DNA in transgenic mice. Transgenic Res 22, 983-992.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Wang Z (2015) Genome engineering in cattle: recent technological advancements. Chromosome Res 23, 17-29.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Lillico SG, Proudfoot C and Carlson DF et al (2013) Live pigs produced from genome edited zygotes. Sci Rep 3, 2847.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  25. Shamshirgaran Y, Liu J, Sumer H, Verma PJ and Taheri-Ghahfarokhi A (2022) Tools for efficient genome editing; ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR. Methods Mol Biol 2495, 29-46.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Eid A and Mahfouz MM (2016) Genome editing: the road of CRISPR/Cas9 from bench to clinic. Exp Mol Med 48, e265.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  27. Cui Z, Liu H and Zhang H et al (2021) The comparison of ZFNs, TALENs, and SpCas9 by GUIDE-seq in HPV-targeted gene therapy. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 26, 1466-1478.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  28. Zhang J, Liu J and Yang W et al (2019) Comparison of gene editing efficiencies of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN for generation of MSTN knock-out cashmere goats. Theriogenology 132, 1-11.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ and Campbell KH (1997) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385, 810-813.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Dai Y, Vaught TD and Boone J et al (2002) Targeted disruption of the alpha1,3-galactosyltransferase gene in cloned pigs. Nat Biotechnol 20, 251-255.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Lai L, Kolber-Simonds D and Park KW et al (2002) Production of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout pigs by nuclear transfer cloning. Science 295, 1089-1092.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Xing B, Xu Y, Cheng Y, Liu H and Du M (2007) Overexpression of IGF2R and IGF1R mRNA in SCNT-produced goats survived to adulthood. J Genet Genomics 34, 709-719.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Luo Y, Wang Y and Liu J et al (2015) Production of transgenic cattle highly expressing human serum albumin in milk by phiC31 integrase-mediated gene delivery. Transgenic Res 24, 875-883.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Li H, Wang G and Hao Z et al (2016) Generation of biallelic knock-out sheep via gene-editing and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Sci Rep 6, 33675.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. Wall RJ, Powell AM and Paape MJ et al (2005) Genetically enhanced cows resist intramammary Staphylococcus aureus infection. Nat Biotechnol 23, 445-451.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Salamone D, Baranao L and Santos C et al (2006) High level expression of bioactive recombinant human growth hormone in the milk of a cloned transgenic cow. J Biotechnol 124, 469-472.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Richt JA, Kasinathan P and Hamir AN et al (2007) Production of cattle lacking prion protein. Nat Biotechnol 25, 132-138.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Gao G, Wang S and Zhang J et al (2019) Transcriptome-wide analysis of the SCNT bovine abnormal placenta during mid- to late gestation. Sci Rep 9, 20035.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  39. Biase FH, Rabel C and Guillomot M et al (2016) Massive dysregulation of genes involved in cell signaling and placental development in cloned cattle conceptus and maternal endometrium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 14492-14501.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Zhou C, Wang Y and Zhang J et al (2019) H3K27me3 is an epigenetic barrier while KDM6A overexpression improves nuclear reprogramming efficiency. FASEB J 33, 4638-4652.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Liu Z, Cai Y and Wang Y et al (2018) Cloning of macaque monkeys by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 172, 881-887.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Bauersachs S, Ulbrich SE and Zakhartchenko V et al (2009) The endometrium responds differently to cloned versus fertilized embryos. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106, 5681-5686.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  43. Hammer RE, Pursel VG and Rexroad CE Jr et al (1985) Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature 315, 680-683.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Bosselman RA, Hsu RY and Boggs T et al (1989) Germline transmission of exogenous genes in the chicken. Science 243, 533-535.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Wieghart M, Hoover JL and McGrane MM et al (1990) Production of transgenic pigs harbouring a rat phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase-bovine growth hormone fusion gene. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 41, 89-96.
  46. Le QA, Tanihara F and Wittayarat M et al (2021) Comparison of the effects of introducing the CRISPR/Cas9 system by microinjection and electroporation into porcine embryos at different stages. BMC Res Notes 14, 7.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  47. Xin J, Yang H and Fan N et al (2013) Highly efficient generation of GGTA1 biallelic knockout inbred mini-pigs with TALENs. PLoS One 8, e84250.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  48. Crispo M, Mulet AP and Tesson L et al (2015) Efficient generation of myostatin knock-out sheep using CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microinjection into zygotes. PLoS One 10, e0136690.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  49. Petersen B, Frenzel A and Lucas-Hahn A et al (2016) Efficient production of biallelic GGTA1 knockout pigs by cytoplasmic microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 into zygotes. Xenotransplantation 23, 338-346.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  50. Chen S, Sun S and Moonen D et al (2019) CRISPR-READI: efficient generation of knockin mice by CRISPR RNP electroporation and AAV donor infection. Cell Rep 27, 3780-3789.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  51. Kim S, Kim D, Cho SW, Kim J and Kim JS (2014) Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res 24, 1012-1019.
    KoreaMed CrossRef
  52. Gim GM, Uhm KH and Kwon DH et al (2022) Germline transmission of MSTN knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9. Theriogenology 192, 22-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  53. Yang H, Zhang J and Zhang X et al (2018) CD163 knockout pigs are fully resistant to highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Antiviral Res 151, 63-70.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Proudfoot C, Carlson DF and Huddart R et al (2015) Genome edited sheep and cattle. Transgenic Res 24, 147-153.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  55. Gim GM, Kwon DH and Eom KH et al (2022) Production of MSTN-mutated cattle without exogenous gene integration using CRISPR-Cas9. Biotechnol J 17, e2100198.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  56. Owen JR, Hennig SL and McNabb BR et al (2021) One-step generation of a targeted knock-in calf using the CRISPR-Cas9 system in bovine zygotes. BMC Genomics 22, 118.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  57. Kasimanickam R and Kasimanickam V (2021) Impact of heat stress on embryonic development during first 16 days of gestation in dairy cows. Sci Rep 11, 14839.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  58. Wankar AK, Rindhe SN and Doijad NS (2021) Heat stress in dairy animals and current milk production trends, economics, and future perspectives: the global scenario. Trop Anim Health Prod 53, 70.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  59. Sosa F, Santos JEP and Rae DO et al (2022) Effects of the SLICK1 mutation in PRLR on regulation of core body temperature and global gene expression in liver in cattle. Animal 16, 100523.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  60. Gallegos J (2022) Gene-edited cows just secured recordfast FDA approval - here's why. Alliance For Science MARCH 29, 2022, https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/03/gene-edited-cows-just-secured-record-fast-fda-approval-heres-why/
  61. DiFonzo K (2022) FDA makes low-risk determination for marketing of products from genome-edited beef cattle after safety review. US FDA MARCH 07, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-makes-low-risk-determination-marketing-products-genome-edited-beef-cattle-after-safety-review#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Food%20and,(low%2Drisk%20determination)
  62. Yu S, Luo J, Song Z, Ding F, Dai Y and Li N (2011) Highly efficient modification of beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) gene via zinc-finger nucleases in cattle. Cell Res 21, 1638-1640.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  63. Sun Z, Wang M and Han S et al (2018) Production of hypoallergenic milk from DNA-free beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) gene knockout cow using zinc-finger nucleases mRNA. Sci Rep 8, 15430.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  64. Qian L, Tang M and Yang J et al (2015) Targeted mutations in myostatin by zinc-finger nucleases result in double-muscled phenotype in Meishan pigs. Sci Rep 5, 14435.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  65. Rao S, Fujimura T and Matsunari H et al (2016) Efficient modification of the myostatin gene in porcine somatic cells and generation of knockout piglets. Mol Reprod Dev 83, 61-70.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  66. Wang K, Tang X and Xie Z et al (2017) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of myostatin in Chinese indigenous Erhualian pigs. Transgenic Res 26, 799-805.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  67. Wang K, Ouyang H and Xie Z et al (2015) Efficient generation of myostatin mutations in pigs using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5, 16623.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  68. Bi Y, Hua Z and Liu X et al (2016) Isozygous and selectable marker-free MSTN knockout cloned pigs generated by the combined use of CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre/LoxP. Sci Rep 6, 31729.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  69. Hirata M, Wittayarat M and Namula Z et al (2021) Generation of mutant pigs by lipofection-mediated genome editing in embryos. Sci Rep 11, 23806.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  70. Ciccarelli M, Giassetti MI and Miao D et al (2020) Donor-derived spermatogenesis following stem cell transplantation in sterile NANOS2 knockout males. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117, 24195-24204.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  71. Wang X, Niu Y and Zhou J et al (2016) Multiplex gene editing via CRISPR/Cas9 exhibits desirable muscle hypertrophy without detectable off-target effects in sheep. Sci Rep 6, 32271.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  72. Wang X, Cai B and Zhou J et al (2016) Disruption of FGF5 in cashmere goats using CRISPR/Cas9 results in more secondary hair follicles and longer fibers. PLoS One 11, e0164640.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  73. Liu X, Wang Y and Tian Y et al (2014) Generation of mastitis resistance in cows by targeting human lysozyme gene to beta-casein locus using zinc-finger nucleases. Proc Biol Sci 281, 20133368.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  74. Wu H, Wang Y and Zhang Y et al (2015) TALE nickase-mediated SP110 knockin endows cattle with increased resistance to tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112, E1530-1539.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  75. Ikeda M, Matsuyama S and Akagi S et al (2017) Correction of a disease mutation using CRISPR/Cas9-assisted genome editing in Japanese black cattle. Sci Rep 7, 17827.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  76. Workman AM, Heaton MP and Vander Ley BL et al (2023) First gene-edited calf with reduced susceptibility to a major viral pathogen. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad125.
    KoreaMed CrossRef
  77. Whitworth KM, Lee K and Benne JA et al (2014) Use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to produce genetically engineered pigs from in vitro-derived oocytes and embryos. Biol Reprod 91, 78.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  78. Burkard C, Opriessnig T and Mileham AJ et al (2018) Pigs lacking the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich domain 5 of CD163 are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus 1 infection. J Virol 92, e00415-e00418.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  79. Wang H, Shen L and Chen J et al (2019) Deletion of CD163 Exon 7 confers resistance to highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory viruses on pigs. Int J Biol Sci 15, 1993-2005.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  80. Sade RM and Mukherjee R (2022) Ethical issues in xenotransplantation: the first pig-to-human heart transplant. Ann Thorac Surg 113, 712-714.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  81. Zou X, Ouyang H, Pang D, Han R and Tang X (2021) Pathological alterations in the gastrointestinal tract of a porcine model of DMD. Cell Biosci 11, 131.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  82. Al-Mashhadi RH, Sorensen CB and Kragh PM et al (2013) Familial hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis in cloned minipigs created by DNA transposition of a human PCSK9 gain-of-function mutant. Sci Transl Med 5, 166ra161.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  83. Fang B, Ren X and Wang Y et al (2018) Apolipoprotein E deficiency accelerates atherosclerosis development in miniature pigs. Dis Model Mech 11, dmm036632.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  84. Huang L, Hua Z and Xiao H et al (2017) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated ApoE-/-and LDLR-/-double gene knockout in pigs elevates serum LDL-C and TC levels. Oncotarget 8, 37751-37760.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  85. Holm IE, Alstrup AK and Luo Y (2016) Genetically modified pig models for neurodegenerative disorders. J Pathol 238, 267-287.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  86. Yan S, Zheng X and Lin Y et al (2023) Cas9-mediated replacement of expanded CAG repeats in a pig model of Huntington's disease. Nat Biomed Eng 7, 629-646.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  87. Lee SE, Hyun H and Park MR et al (2017) Production of transgenic pig as an Alzheimer's disease model using a multi-cistronic vector system. PLoS One 12, e0177933.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  88. Yao J, Huang J and Hai T et al (2014) Efficient bi-allelic gene knockout and site-specific knock-in mediated by TALENs in pigs. Sci Rep 4, 6926.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  89. Wang X, Cao C and Huang J et al (2016) One-step generation of triple gene-targeted pigs using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 6, 20620.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  90. AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov (2023) Intentional genomic alterations (IGAs) in animals.
  91. Van Eenennaam AL and Muir WM (2011) Transgenic salmon: a final leap to the grocery shelf?. Nat Biotechnol 29, 706-710.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  92. Epstein LR, Lee SS, Miller MF and Lombardi HA (2021) CRISPR, animals, and FDA oversight: building a path to success. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118, e2004831117.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  93. Hansen PJ (2020) Prospects for gene introgression or gene editing as a strategy for reduction of the impact of heat stress on production and reproduction in cattle. Theriogenology 154, 190-202.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  94. Houser K (2023) CRISPR sausage gets FDA green light for consumption. INTERESTING ENGINEERING MAY 28, 2023, https://interestingengineering.com/science/fda-approved-crispr-sausages


This Article


Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)

Author ORCID Information

Funding Information

Collections

Services
Social Network Service

e-submission

Archives