Open Access

Will cloned animals suffer premature aging – The story at the end of clones' chromosomes

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology20031:105

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-1-105

Received: 23 July 2003

Accepted: 14 November 2003

Published: 14 November 2003

Introduction

Dolly the sheep, the 1st cloned mammal in the world [1], was put down on February 14th of this year. She was suffering from a virus that caused a tumor in the lung [2]. This has triggered a new round of debate on cloning, particularly on the aging problems of cloned animals. Scientists have long worried that cloned animals might inherit its age from its cell donor, thus being born old and die early. In this review we focus on – telomeres – the units which are at the end of all chromosomes and discuss how telomeres are related to the ageing problems of clones.

The telomeres

The ends of eukaryotic chromosomes are capped with copies of a hexamer repeat sequence (5'TTAGGG3' in human) and associated proteins [3]. These structures are known as telomeres. Telomeres stabilize the ends of chromosomes during replication [4]. Conventional DNA polymerases replicate DNA only in the 5' to 3' direction and cannot initiate de novo synthesis of a DNA chain [5]. The DNA polymerases that replicate eukaryotic chromosomes use an 8- to 12-base stretch of RNA to prime DNA synthesis. As a consequence, after DNA replication, one end of a linear chromosome will be replicated to the very end, whereas the other end will have a short 8- to 12-base gap generated by removal of the RNA primer. Because a conventional DNA polymerase can not fill in this 5' gap, in every subsequent cell division a given DNA end will be incompletely replicated. In yeast, the end of a linear chromosome will shorten by an average of 4 to 6 bases per cell division unless telomeres act as substrates for an alternative replication mechanism (for example, telomerase is able to add telomeric repeats onto the ends of chromosomes) [3]. In human fibroblast cell culture, telomere length decreases at a rate of 48 ± 21 base pairs per population doubling [6, 7]. In vivo, Hastie et al [8] studied human lymphocytes and found that the rate of telomere loss is about 33 base pairs per year. Many scientists propose the telomere as a "mitotic clock" [810], whose length correlates with the number of cell divisions and indicates the molecular age of the cell (Fig. 1).
Figure 1

Telomeres shorten in somatic cells with each cell division.

The telomere length of the clones' chromosomes

In the nuclear transfer process, a somatic cell, with shortened telomere length, is transferred into an enucleated oocyte and activated to start embryo development (Fig. 1.). A question immediately comes to mind, are the shortened telomeres of donor cells restored to full length in animals produced by nuclear transfer? It was a concern that if indeed shortened telomeres were inherited by cloned animals, that these animals may inherit the shortened life span of the adult donor rather than that of their age-matched controls produced through traditional reproduction. Dolly's death, if natural and premature, might be the first indication that these concerns were valid.

As early as 1999, Shiels et al. published their report on the telomere lengths of Dolly and two other clones [11]. At two years of age, the clones were phenotypically healthy and similar to control animals [11]. But inside the cells, researchers found Dolly's telomeres shorter than those of control animals of her age (19 kb vs. 23 kb). They discovered the length of her telomeres was actually comparable to that found in the mammary tissues of the 6-year-old donor animal. Another clone that was produced using a donor cell from a 9 day old embryo showed shortened telomere length (20 kb vs. 23 kb) as well. Only the third clone, which was produced by using fetal tissue to produce a donor cell, appeared to have telomeres non-distinguishable in length from those of controls. The authors attributed this exception to the minimal culture duration of these cells [11], rather than the cell type difference. They believed that full restoration of telomere length did not occur in these clones largely because they were produced without germ line involvement. Only in germ line cells, or gametes, but not in most somatic cells, is telomerase activity high and telomere length maintained [3]. In this way telomere length is fully transmitted from generation to generation (for example, a child is born with telomeres the similar length as those his father or grand father were born with, although a father's would be considerably shorter than his son's) while most somatic cells, body cells not involved in reproduction, erode the ends of their chromosomes with each cell division. The results corresponded to the reasoning quite well: the somatic donor cell does not have telomerase activity – telomere length can not be restored – clones should be born with telomere length similar to that of their donor cells.

Although results equivalent to Dolly's were found by Kato et. al. [12], when they observed many characteristics of ageing in male clones derived from a 10 year old bull (numerous wrinkles in the skin, thick bone structure and rough hairs) as well as shortened telomeres, many other research teams soon discovered that telomere restoration can take place in cloned animals. In other words, the gametes – oocyte/sperm are sufficient, but not necessary, for telomeres of normal length in newborns because germ line cells are not the only cells that possess telomerase activity or other factors with the ability to restore telomeres

Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology, in Massachusetts, cultured the cells to extreme: donor cells were in vitro cultured for prolonged periods of time, until 95% of their life span was completed [13]. Six healthy cloned calves were produced from these senescent donor somatic cells, and amazingly, these clones had longer telomeres (20.1 kb) than control animals (18.3 kb); the senescent cells that were used as DNA donors had an average of 15.2 kb [13]. The fact that cloning could extend telomere length drew media attention and swung the pendulum of popular, and scientific, opinion from pessimism to optimism: if indeed, telomere length is the indicator of an individual's life span, and our understanding of the elongation mechanism is or will be good enough to make the process controllable, the nuclear transfer technique is offering us the possibility to rejuvenate cells thus making the dream of immortality closer to a reality. It is noteworthy to mention here that telomere length does not necessarily correlate with an animal's lifespan, nor do we know whether the actual physiological age of cloned animals is accurately reflected by their telomere length. The telomere model is very popular among the many mechanisms scientists have proposed for ageing at the cellular level. Other explanations include oxidative damage, accumulation of genomic changes, Mitochondrial DNA mutations, etc. (for review, see [14]).

In a further deviation from the above mentioned results, Tian et. al. [15] and Betts et. al. [16] found that telomere lengths of their clones' were not different from those of control animals; they were neither longer, nor shorter. In the smaller-sized mice, which have longer-telomere-length, Wakayama et al. [17] found the telomeres remained about the same size (48 kb) in peripheral blood lymphocytes throughout six generations of clones/reclones they tested. In fact, the trend was for the telomeres to lengthen with each generation, but this could not be shown statistically significant [17]. Successive generations of clones G1-G6 showed no signs of premature aging as judged by gross behavior parameters. These results, together with that from Lanza et al. [13], Tian et al. [15] and Betts et al. [16] verified that telomere shortening is not a necessary outcome of the cloning process. It appears that the embryo has inherited ability to determine the extent to which the telomeres should go. Although the mechanisms remain unclear, telomerase is no doubt an indispensable key element in telomere reprogramming events and many cattle cloning groups have reported telomerase activity in early stage reconstructed embryos [13, 15, 16].

The dynamics of telomerase activity during early embryo development was extensively studied in cattle. Telomerase activity is found up-regulated at the blastocyst stage, in in vitro fertilization (IVF) systems [18], parthnogenetic activation (PA) systems [19], and nuclear transfer systems [19]. This is consistent with the findings, in human and mice early IVF embryos [20], suggesting a conserved telomerase reprogramming pattern during early mammalian embryo development. Cloned bovine embryos displayed telomerase dynamics, similar to those of IVF and PA embryos [18, 19]. The up regulating of telomerase activity at the blastocyst stage may contribute to telomere length restoration in embryo development after nuclear transfer and could explain the normal telomere length found in some cloned animals, including cattle and mice [13, 1517]. No reports of telomerase activity in cloned embryos of other species (including sheep) are available to date.

The discrepancy of reported telomere restoration (shorter, similar, longer) after nuclear transfer in different reports (Table 1.) may come from various factors, which include: species, donor cell type, donor cell culture time, nuclear transfer procedures, sampling and measuring protocols.
Table 1

Telomere lengths in cloned animals

Donor Cell

TRF (kb)

Clone vs. Control

Tissue Assayed

Telomerase

Ref

Species

Origin

Cell type

Note

Donor

Control

Clone

    

Sheep

Adult Female

Mammary gland

  

23.9

19.14

Shorter

Blood

 

[11]

Sheep

Fetal Female

Embryonic

Very short culture

 

23.9

21.19

Similar

Blood

 

[11]

Cattle

Fetal Female

fibroblast

Extreme Long culture

15.2

18.3

20.1

Longer

Blood cells

High in Blastocyst

[13]

Cattle

Adult Female

Fibroblast cumulus

 

12.4

14.7

15.4

Similar

Fibroblast

High in blastocyst

[15]

Cattle

Adult Female

fibroblast

 

13.68

20.9 (fetal) 20.5 (calf)

17.95 (fetal) 15.3 (calf)

Similar Similar

Fibroblast

High in blastocyst

[16]

 

Adult Male

  

17.85

20.9 (fetal) 20.5 (calf)

22.74 (fetal) 21.33 (calf)

Similar

Fibroblast

High in blastocyst

[16]

Cattle

Adult Male

Ear

    

Longer

Ear

 

[12]

 

Adult Male

Ear

    

Similar

White blood cells

 

[12]

Cattle

Adult Female

Epithelial

 

15–16

20.43

12.5–14.3

Shorter

White blood cells

 

[21]

 

Adult Female

Oviduct

 

16.9

20.43

14.9–16.0

Shorter

White blood cells

 

[21]

 

Adult Male

Muscle

 

20.1

20.43

19.6–19.9

Similar

White blood cells

 

[21]

 

Adult Male

Skin fibroblast

 

18.2

20.43

20.0–20.4

Similar

White blood cells

 

[21]

 

Fetal

Embryonic cells

  

20.43

21.7–26.2

Longer

White blood cells

 

[21]

Mouse

Adult

Cumulus

 

48

48

48

Similar

  

[17]

Donor cell effect on telomere length is well studied in the recent Miyashita [21] paper. In this study, they produced 14 cloned cattle using nuclei of donor cells derived from muscle, oviduct, mammary and ear skin. All three types (normal, shorter, longer) of telomeres were found when different donor cell types were compared. Clones from muscle or ear skin cell origin, had longer telomeres than the donor animal, but were within the normal range of same age controls. Clones from oviduct and mammary epithelia cell origin had telomeres that were shorter than those of controls. While clones derived from embryonic cell origins have telomeres longer than those of their age-matched controls. This concurs with the work by Lanza et. al [13], in which elongated telomeres were found when fetal fibroblast cells were used as donor cells. In Dolly's study, the animal produced from fetal tissue appeared to have telomere lengths non-distinguishable from normal controls, while the other two, including Dolly, which originated from adult cells, were found to have shorter telomeres. It will be an interesting study to compare the extent of telomere restoration using cells with different degrees of pluro-potency and different levels of telomerase activity. The availability of telomere reprogramming machinery in donor cells will at least not inhibit the process from happening, or it may trigger the restoration.

The time cells spend in culture is a complicated factor. Shorter culture time resulted in similar telomere length to controls in Shields et al.'s paper [11]. Extremely long culture resulted in extended telomere length in Lanza et al.'s paper [13]. One explanation might be: short time culture allowed the donor cell nucleus to be transferred with relatively long telomeres that is, they would start out long and remain long. On the other hand, extremely long culture time erodes the telomeres so short that the repair mechanisms are triggered and result in the over-elongation of telomeres. While the authors are writing this review, Clark et. al. published their results on telomere lengths in cloned sheep [22], which supports this hypothesis. They have shown in their study that NT does extend the telomeres from donor nuclei derived from late-passage cells that are near-senescent, however, telomeres of cultures established from fetuses generated by NT from early passage donor cells are not significantly different in length to those in the donor cell [22].

After many groups have demonstrated the various possibilities of cloning, it is at the point of investigating the molecular basis of telomere/telomerase (and other epigenetic) programming/reprogramming events in embryo development (and through nuclear transfer) and only this can provide a conclusive answer to questions such as 'how old was Dolly'. Up to now, our understanding is limited to observations of the telomere lengths of the animals, the telomerase activity of the cells and embryos, and the correlation between many factors (culture time, donor cell type, etc.) with telomere lengths. We remain limited by insufficient numbers of animals for research. Keep in mind, although eight other species: cow [2325], mouse [26, 27], pig [2830], goat [31], rabbit [32], cat [33], mule [34] and horse [35] have been cloned since Dolly, nuclear transfer is still a very inefficient process (2%) [36] and very small numbers of clones are available for research [2]. However, telomere length appears to have been exonerated for the inefficiency: Tian et. al. [15] produced 4 live clones and 6 dead clones (died soon after birth). Both the live (15.38 kb) and dead (15.87 kb) clones had telomeres of the same lengths as controls (14.73 kb). The dead clones were found to have abnormal X chromosomes inactivation in a later study [37], indicating that the high fatality rate of clones is related to abnormal gene expression during embryo development.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Marina Juliana for her critical review and editing of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Evergen Biotechnologies,, University of Connecticut Incubator Program,
(2)
Department of Animal Sciences and the Center for Regenerative Biology,University of Connecticut,

References

  1. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH: Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997, 385: 810-813. 10.1038/385810a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Giles J, Knight J: Dolly's death leaves researchers woolly on clone ageing issue. Nature. 2003, 421: 776-10.1038/421776a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Zakian VA: Telomeres: beginning to understand the end. Science. 1995, 270: 1601-1607.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Preston RJ: Telomeres, telomerase and chromosome stability. Radiat Res. 1997, 147: 529-534.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Watson JD: Origin of concatemeric T7 DNA. Nat New Biol. 1972, 239: 197-201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Harley CB, Futcher AB, Greider CW: Telomeres shorten during ageing of human fibroblasts. Nature. 1990, 345: 458-460. 10.1038/345458a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Levy MZ, Allsopp RC, Futcher AB, Greider CW, Harley CB: Telomere end-replication problem and cell aging. J Mol Biol. 1992, 225: 951-960.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hastie ND, Dempster M, Dunlop MG, Thompson AM, Green DK, Allshire RC: Telomere reduction in human colorectal carcinoma and with ageing. Nature. 1990, 346: 866-868. 10.1038/346866a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Holt SE, Shay JW, Wright WE: Refining the telomere-telomerase hypothesis of aging and cancer. Nat Biotechnol. 1996, 14: 836-839.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Olovnikov AM: A theory of marginotomy. The incomplete copying of template margin in enzymic synthesis of polynucleotides and biological significance of the phenomenon. J Theor Biol. 1973, 41: 181-190.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shiels PG, Kind AJ, Campbell KH, Waddington D, Wilmut I, Colman A, Schnieke AE: Analysis of telomere lengths in cloned sheep. Nature. 1999, 399: 316-317. 10.1038/20580.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kato Y, Tani T, Tsunoda Y: Cloning of calves from various somatic cell types of male and female adult, newborn and fetal cows. J Reprod Fertil. 2000, 120: 231-237. 10.1530/reprod/120.2.231.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lanza RP, Cibelli JB, Blackwell C, Cristofalo VJ, Francis MK, Baerlocher GM, Mak J, Schertzer M, Chavez EA, Sawyer N, Lansdorp PM, West MD: Extension of cell life-span and telomere length in animals cloned from senescent somatic cells. Science. 2000, 288: 665-669. 10.1126/science.288.5466.665.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson FB, Sinclair DA, Guarente L: Molecular biology of aging. Cell. 1999, 96: 291-302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tian XC, Xu J, Yang X: Normal telomere lengths found in cloned cattle. Nat Genet. 2000, 26: 272-273. 10.1038/81559.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Betts D, Bordignon V, Hill J, Winger Q, Westhusin M, Smith L, King W: Reprogramming of telomerase activity and rebuilding of telomere length in cloned cattle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001, 98: 1077-1082. 10.1073/pnas.031559298.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wakayama T, Shinkai Y, Tamashiro KL, Niida H, Blanchard DC, Blanchard RJ, Ogura A, Tanemura K, Tachibana M, Perry AC, Colgan DF, Mombaerts P, Yanagimachi R: Cloning of mice to six generations. Nature. 2000, 407: 318-319. 10.1038/35030301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Xu J, Yang X: Telomerase activity in bovine embryos during early development. Biol Reprod. 2000, 63: 1124-1128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Xu J, Yang X: Telomerase activity in early bovine embryos derived from parthenogenetic activation and nuclear transfer. Biol Reprod. 2001, 64: 770-774.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wright DL, Jones EL, Mayer JF, Oehninger S, Gibbons WE, Lanzendorf SE: Characterization of telomerase activity in the human oocyte and preimplantation embryo. Mol Hum Reprod. 2001, 7: 947-955. 10.1093/molehr/7.10.947.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyashita N, Shiga K, Yonai M, Kaneyama K, Kobayashi S, Kojima T, Goto Y, Kishi M, Aso H, Suzuki T, Sakaguchi M, Nagai T: Remarkable differences in telomere lengths among cloned cattle derived from different cell types. Biol Reprod. 2002, 66: 1649-1655.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark AJ, Ferrier P, Aslam S, Burl S, Denning C, Wylie D, Ross A, de Sousa P, Wilmut I, Cui W: Proliferative lifespan is conserved after nuclear transfer. Nat Cell Biol. 2003, 5: 535-538. 10.1038/ncb992.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cibelli JB, Stice SL, Golueke PJ, Kane JJ, Jerry J, Blackwell C, Ponce de Leon FA, Robl JM: Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science. 1998, 280: 1256-1258. 10.1126/science.280.5367.1256.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kato Y, Tani T, Sotomaru Y, Kurokawa K, Kato J, Doguchi H, Yasue H, Tsunoda Y: Eight calves cloned from somatic cells of a single adult. Science. 1998, 282: 2095-2098. 10.1126/science.282.5396.2095.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kubota C, Yamakuchi H, Todoroki J, Mizoshita K, Tabara N, Barber M, Yang X: Six cloned calves produced from adult fibroblast cells after long-term culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000, 97: 990-995. 10.1073/pnas.97.3.990.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wakayama T, Perry AC, Zuccotti M, Johnson KR, Yanagimachi R: Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature. 1998, 394: 369-374. 10.1038/28615.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wakayama T, Yanagimachi R: Cloning of male mice from adult tail-tip cells. Nat Genet. 1999, 22: 127-128. 10.1038/9632.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Onishi A, Iwamoto M, Akita T, Mikawa S, Takeda K, Awata T, Hanada H, Perry AC: Pig cloning by microinjection of fetal fibroblast nuclei. Science. 2000, 289: 1188-1190. 10.1126/science.289.5482.1188.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Polejaeva IA, Chen SH, Vaught TD, Page RL, Mullins J, Ball S, Dai Y, Boone J, Walker S, Ayares DL, Colman A, Campbell KH: Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature. 2000, 407: 86-90. 10.1038/35024082.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Betthauser J, Forsberg E, Augenstein M, Childs L, Eilertsen K, Enos J, Forsythe T, Golueke P, Jurgella G, Koppang R, Lesmeister T, Mallon K, Mell G, Misica P, Pace M, Pfister-Genskow M, Strelchenko N, Voelker G, Watt S, Thompson S, Bishop M: Production of cloned pigs from in vitro systems. Nat Biotechnol. 2000, 18: 1055-1059. 10.1038/80242.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Baguisi A, Behboodi E, Melican DT, Pollock JS, Destrempes MM, Cammuso C, Williams JL, Nims SD, Porter CA, Midura P, Palacios MJ, Ayres SL, Denniston RS, Hayes ML, Ziomek CA, Meade HM, Godke RA, Gavin WG, Overstrom EW, Echelard Y: Production of goats by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nat Biotechnol. 1999, 17: 456-461. 10.1038/8632.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Chesne P, Adenot PG, Viglietta C, Baratte M, Boulanger L, Renard JP: Cloned rabbits produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2002, 20: 366-369. 10.1038/nbt0402-366.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Shin T, Kraemer D, Pryor J, Liu L, Rugila J, Howe L, Buck S, Murphy K, Lyons L, Westhusin M: A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation. Nature. 2002, 415: 859-10.1038/nature723.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods GL, White KL, Vanderwall DK, Li GP, Aston KI, Bunch TD, Meerdo LN, Pate BJ: A mule cloned from fetal cells by nuclear transfer. Science. 2003, 301: 1063-10.1126/science.1086743.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Galli C, Lagutina I, Crotti G, Colleoni S, Turini P, Ponderato N, Duchi R, Lazzari G: Pregnancy: a cloned horse born to its dam twin. Nature. 2003, 424: 635-10.1038/424635a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu L: Cloning efficiency and differentiation. Nat Biotechnol. 2001, 19: 406-10.1038/88052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Xue F, Tian XC, Du F, Kubota C, Taneja M, Dinnyes A, Dai Y, Levine H, Pereira LV, Yang X: Aberrant patterns of X chromosome inactivation in bovine clones. Nat Genet. 2002, 31: 216-220. 10.1038/ng900.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu and Yang; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2003

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.