In vitro conservation and preliminary molecular identification of some Turkish domestic animal genetic resources

Part of the EAAP – European Federation of Animal Science book series (EAAP, volume 129)

Abstract

Changing environmental conditions (rapid increase in population, global warming, disordered structuring, and environmental pollution) change the flora and fauna of the world irreversibly and negatively. Studies carried out have showed that 27,000 animal and plant species per year disappear from nature forever. Today production of farm animals verges on an uniform pattern in the world. These lineages known as culture lineages are just animals with improved efficiency properties. However, no one has emphasized the resistance of them to environmental conditions or their disease resistances so far. Besides changes in environmental conditions, bioterrorism targets not only the life of people but also animals’ life. These unfavourable factors have threatened the future of many species and lineages seriously. However, endemic domestic animals that preserve genetic variation are recognized as insurance of the future with these properties. The subject of this project has been discussed on various platforms in Turkey for a long time and declared as a priority area. Various action plans have been prepared and put into development plans but this issue has not been solved so far. This national issue that should be solved immediately would be resolved to some extent with a big project by the contribution of Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, TUBITAK and 10 universities from all regions of Turkey. This project aims to establish banks (Gene banks) which preserve animal genetic resources, to start characterization of endemic domestic animal species to use gained knowledge in registration studies, to build national researcher capacity in animal genetics and biotechnology areas and to combine and disseminate knowledge. These banks would guarantee not just five years, a hundred years of our country. Samples from 1,500 individuals belong to total 5 species would be preserved.

Keywords

domestic animals genetic characterisation molecular identification conservation 

References

  1. Aller JF, Rebuffi GE, Cancino AK, Alberio RH (2002) Successful transfer of vitrified Ilama (Lama glama) embryos. Anim Reprod Sci 73(1–2):121–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arat S (2001) Bovine cloning using adult donor cells treated with roscovitine. Biol Reprod Supplement 1:173Google Scholar
  3. Arat, S., 2004. Cold storage of tissue as source for donor cells does not reduce the in vitro development of bovine embryos following nuclear transfer. Reprod Fertility Dev 16(1, 2):135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arat S (2003) Gene expression and in-vitro development of interspecies nuclear transfer embryos. Mol Reprod Dev 66:334–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arat S, Rzucidlo SJ, Gibbons J, Miyoshi K, Stice SL (2001) Production of transgenic bovine embryos by transfer of transfected granulosa cells into enucleated oocytes. Mol Reprod Dev 60:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bağiş H, Sagirkaya H, Odaman H, Andras D (2004) Vitrification of pronuclear stage mouse embryos on SSV versus in cryotube comparision of the effect of ecuilibration time and different sugers in the vitrification solution. Mol Reprod Dev 67:186–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruford, M.W. and S.J. Townsend,, 2004. Case studies in the genetics of animal domestication: sheep. In: Zeder, M., Decker-Walters, D., Bradley, D., Smith, B.D. (eds.): D ocumenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, California University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G (2003) DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nature Genetics 4:2–12Google Scholar
  9. Chen D-Y (2002) Interspecies implantation and mitochondria fate of panda-rabbit cloned embryos. Biol Reprod 67:637–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conservation on Biological Diversity (www.biodiv.org/chm/conv/default.htm).
  11. Dobrinsky, J.R., 2002. Advancements in cryopreservation of domestic animal embryos. Theriogenology Jan 1; 57 (1): 285-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobrinsky, J.R., 2001. Cryopreservation of swine embryos: a chilly past with a vitrifying future. Theriogenology Nov 1; 56 (8): 1333-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ertuğrul, M., G. Dellal, C. Elmacı, A.O. Akın, O. Karaca, T. Altın and İ. Cemal, 2005. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası, Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği VI. Teknik Kongresi, I. Cilt 275-290.Google Scholar
  14. Geijsen, N., M. Horoschak, K. Kim, J. Gribnau, K. Eggan and G.Q. Daley, 2004. Derivation of embryonic germ cells and male gametes from embryonic stem cells. Nature 427:148-154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, S.S.G., 2004. Livestock biodiversity: genetic resources for the farming of the future. Blackwell Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiemstra, S.J., 2003. Guidelines for the constitution of national cryopreservation programmes for farm animals (FAO).Google Scholar
  17. Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (http://bank.dna.affrc.go.jp).
  18. Kitiyanant Y (2001) Somatic cell cloning in buffalo: effect of interspecies cytoplasmic recipients and activation procedures. Cloning Stem Cell 3:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koban, E., 2004. Genetic Diversity of native and crossbreed sheep breeds in Anatolia. PhD Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  20. Lacham-Kaplan O (2004) In vivo and in vitro differentiation of male germ cells in the mouse Reproduction. Aug 128(2):147–52Google Scholar
  21. Leibo S.P. and N. Songsasen, 2002. Cryopreservation of gametes and embryos of non-domestic species. Theriogenology Jan 1; 57 (1):303-26.Google Scholar
  22. Lenstra, J.A., 2005. Evolutionary and demographic history of sheep and goats suggested by nuclear, mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers. Symposium: The role of biotechnology in Turin, Italy 5-7 March.Google Scholar
  23. Loftus RT, Ertuğrul O, Harba AH, El-Barody MAA, MacHugh DE, Park SDE, Bradley DG (1999) A microsatellite survey of cattle from a centre of origin the Near East. Molecular Ecology 8:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loi P (2002) Nuclei of nonviable ovine somatic cells develop into lamps after nuclear transplantation. Biol Reprod 67:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loi P (2001) 2001. Genetic rescue of an endangered mammal by cross-species nuclear transfer using post-mortem somatic cells Nature Biotech 19:962–964Google Scholar
  26. Mariante Ada, S. and A.A. Egito, 2002 Animal genetic resources in Brazil: result of five centuries of natural selection. Theriogenology. 2002 Jan 1; 57 (1): 223-35.Google Scholar
  27. Matsas, D, V. Huntress, H. Levine, S. Ayres, J. Amini, R. Duby, P. Borden, G. Saperstein, E., Overstrom, 2004. Preservation of heritage livestock breeds:integrated program to cryopreserve germplasm from Tennessee myotonic goats. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2004; 17 (1,2).195.Google Scholar
  28. Maudet, A., E. Beja-Pereira, H. Zeyh, A. Nagash, D. Kence, M.-P. Özüt, S. Biju-Duval, D.W. Boolormaa, P. Coltman, G. Taberlett and A. Luikart, 2004. A standard set of polymorphic microsatellites for threatened mountain ungulates (Caprini, Artiodactyla). Molecular Ecology Notes 2004; 4, 49-55.Google Scholar
  29. Millennium Seed Bank (www.rbgkew.org.uk/seedbank/msb.html).
  30. Oskam, A., A. Burrell, T. Temel, S. van Berkum, N. Longworth and I.M. Vilchez, 2004. Turkey in the European Union, Consequences for Agriculture, Food, Rural Areas and Structural Policy. Rural Areas and Structural Policy. Final Report. Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  31. Piltti, K., H. Lindeberg, J. Aalto and H. Korhonen, 2004. Live cubs born after transfer of OPS vitrified-warmed embryos in the farmed European polecat ( Mustela putorius ). Theriogenology. 2004 Apr 1; 61 (5): 811-20.Google Scholar
  32. Reist-Marti S.B., H. Simianer, J. Gibson, O. Hanotte and J.E.O. Rege, 2003. Weitzman’s approach and conservartion of breed diversity: an application to African cattle breeds. Conservation Biology 17(5):1299–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryder O.A., 2001. DNA banks for endangered animal. Science; 288 (5464):275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shivaji, S., S.D. Kholkute, S.K. Verma, A. Gaur, G. Umapathy, A. Singh, S. Sontakke, K. Shailaja, A. Reddy, S. Monika, V. Sivaram, B. Jyotsna, S. Bala, M.S. Ahmed, A. Bala, B.V. Chandrashekar, S. Gupta, S. Prakash and L. Singh, 2003. Conservation of wild animals by assisted reproduction and molecular marker technology. Indian J Exp Biol; 41(7):710-723.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Soysal I., 2004. Türkiye Yerli Hayvan Genetik Kaynaklarımız. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi.Google Scholar
  36. Stachecki, J.J. and J. Cohen, 2004. An overview of oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. Aug; 9 (2): 152-63.Google Scholar
  37. Toyooka, Y, N.Tsunekawa, R. Akasu and T. Noce, 2003. Embryonic stem cells can form germ cells in vitro. PNAS; 100:11457-11462.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Troy C.S., D.E. MacHugh, J.F. Bailey, D.A. Magee, R.T. Loftus, P. Cunningham, A.T. Chamberlain, B.C. Sykes and D.G. Bradley, 2001. Genetic evidence for near-eastern origins of domestic cattle. Nature 2001; 410: 1088-1091.Google Scholar
  39. Wakayama, S., S. Kishigami, N. van Thuan, H. Ohta, T. Hikichi, E. Mizutani, R. Yanagimachi and T. Wakayama, 2005. From The Cover: Propagation of an infertile hermaphrodite mouse lacking germ cells by using nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell technology. PNAS, January 4; 102 (1): 29 - 33.Google Scholar
  40. Wildlife Conservation and Monitoring Centre (www.wcmc.org.uk).
  41. Zwaka T.P. and J.A.A. Thomson, 2005. Germ cell origin of embryonic stem cells? Development January 15, 2005; 132(2): 227-233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department.of Animal ScienceNamik Kemal University, Faculty of AgricultureTekirdağTurkey

Personalised recommendations