Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T00:11:14.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Review: Recent advances in bovine in vitro embryo production: reproductive biotechnology history and methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2019

L. B. Ferré*
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Ruta Nacional 3, Km 488, Tres Arroyos, Buenos Aires 7500, Argentina
M. E. Kjelland
Affiliation:
Conservation, Genetics and Biotech, LLC, Valley City, ND 58072, USA Department of Biology, Mayville State University, Mayville, ND 58257, USA
L. B. Strøbech
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark EmbryoTrans Biotech A/S, 4690 Haslev, Denmark
P. Hyttel
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
P. Mermillod
Affiliation:
Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, University of Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
P. J. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, CA 95616, USA

Abstract

In vitro production (IVP) of embryos and associated technologies in cattle have shown significant progress in recent years, in part driven by a better understanding of the full potential of these tools by end users. The combination of IVP with sexed semen (SS) and genomic selection (GS) is being successfully and widely used in North America, South America and Europe. The main advantages offered by these technologies include a higher number of embryos and pregnancies per unit of time, and a wider range of potential female donors from which to retrieve oocytes (including open cyclic females and ones up to 3 months pregnant), including high index genomic calves, a reduced number of sperm required to produce embryos and increased chances of obtaining the desired sex of offspring. However, there are still unresolved aspects of IVP of embryos that limit a wider implementation of the technology, including potentially reduced fertility from the use of SS, reduced oocyte quality after in vitro oocyte maturation and lower embryo cryotolerance, resulting in reduced pregnancy rates compared to in vivo–produced embryos. Nevertheless, promising research results have been reported, and work is in progress to address current deficiencies. The combination of GS, IVP and SS has proven successful in the commercial field in several countries assisting practitioners and cattle producers to improve reproductive performance, efficiency and genetic gain.

Information

Type
Review Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1 Evolution of Bos indicus and Bos taurus in vivo–produced embryos (MOET) and in vitro–produced (IVP) embryos worldwide (a) and embryo yield per collection/ovum pick-up (OPU) (b) as registered by the International Embryo Transfer Society (IETS, http://www.iets.org/comm_data.asp).

Figure 1

Figure 2 Percentage of fresh Bos indicus and Bos taurus in vivo–produced embryos (MOET) and in vitro–produced (IVP) embryos transferred worldwide registered by the IETS (http://www.iets.org/comm_data.asp).

Figure 2

Figure 3 Flow of the process for Bos indicus and Bos taurus ovum pickup (OPU), in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes, in vitro fertilization (IVF), in vitro culture (IVC) of embryos, collection of biopsies, genomic selection using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers and cryopreservation.

Figure 3

Table 1 Differences and similarities between Bos indicus and Bos taurus reverse sorted semen and conventional SS

Figure 4

Figure 4 Bos indicus and Bos taurus in vitro–produced (IVP) embryo success in each successive step.

Figure 5

Figure 5 Schematic representation of three approaches to culturing Bos indicus and Bos taurus embryos from the zygote to blastocyst stage.

Figure 6

Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of three approaches to culturing mammalian embryos from the zygote to blastocyst stage (Biggers and Summers, 2008)