Next Article in Journal
FAK-Activated Mucosal Healing Promotes Resistance to Reinjury
Previous Article in Journal
Engineering Liver-Specific Promoters: A Comprehensive Review of Design, Mechanisms, and Clinical Applications in Gene Therapy
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

From Zygote to Blastocyst—Molecular Aspects of Porcine Early Embryonic Development

by
Beenu Moza Jalali
1,* and
Marta Wasielak-Politowska
2
1
Team of Reproductive Pathology and Translational Medicine, Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Trylinskiego 18, 10-683 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Center of Gynecology, Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Artemida, Jagiellońska 78A, 10-357 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2026, 15(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells15010015
Submission received: 3 November 2025 / Revised: 9 December 2025 / Accepted: 15 December 2025 / Published: 22 December 2025

Abstract

Early mammalian embryo development is a temporally regulated process initially governed by maternal factors during the first few cleavage divisions. In porcine embryos, the transition from oocyte to embryonic control occurs around the 4-cell stage. This developmental progression depends on embryonic genome activation (EGA), epigenetic reprogramming, metabolic cues, and extracellular signaling pathways. While fundamental aspects of early development are conserved across mammals, porcine embryos exhibit distinct molecular features, including unique EGA timing, altered regulatory gene expression, and a pronounced reliance on lipid metabolism. This review provides a comprehensive overview of recent advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying early porcine embryo development, from fertilization to blastocyst formation. It summarizes molecular changes associated with the maternal regulation of initial embryonic divisions, genome activation, chromatin remodeling, and the role of transcription factors and metabolic pathways. Additionally, the review examines the impact of in vitro culture conditions on these molecular processes. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms is critical for optimizing embryo culture systems, improving developmental outcomes, and advancing agricultural biotechnology.

1. Introduction

Early embryonic development is regulated in a time-dependent manner, beginning with the transition from the fertilized egg to the implantation-competent blastocyst stage. This process involves critical events, including morphological and transcriptional changes driven by the interplay between cell positions and a series of molecular and epigenetic events that transform a single-celled totipotent zygote into a multicellular blastocyst. Embryonic cells follow divergent developmental pathways by expressing distinct gene sets, with a majority of differential gene expression regulated at the level of transcription initiation. Though morphological changes and general molecular mechanisms associated with early embryo development are highly conserved across mammals, a few interspecies differences exist, such as differences in the time spent at each stage and the timing of cell lineage commitment [1]. After fertilization, development depends on maternal gene products stored in the oocytes until the transcription machinery is activated in the embryo. The time period of embryonic development under maternal control, during which there is almost no transcriptional activity of its own, varies across species [2]. The products of maternal genes, called maternal-effect genes (MEGs), controls the morphogenesis of the fertilized egg. In some cases, such as in mice, their presence persists even after MEGs are expected to have degraded [3,4]. Further embryo development includes essential stages, such as zygotic or embryonic genome activation (EGA), progression to the morula stage, lineage specification, and blastocyst formation [5,6]. Understanding these developmental transitions at the molecular level is essential for improving reproductive efficiency and for determining the factors that affect developmental competence. The pig is a valuable model for studying early mammalian development, and its physiological and genomic similarities to humans make it significant in developmental research and genetic engineering [7,8]. Despite improvements in assisted reproductive technologies and in vitro culture systems, porcine in vitro-produced (IVP) embryos still develop less efficiently than their in vivo counterparts and those of rodent or cattle embryos [9]. This low efficiency arises from factors such as polyspermy, suboptimal culture conditions, and higher lipid content in porcine embryos that can increase oxidative stress through lipid peroxidation [10,11]. Recent high-throughput transcriptomic studies have broadened our understanding of early porcine embryo development. These studies using in vivo and IVP embryos have reported the expression of many genes that coordinate the degradation of maternal RNAs, initiate EGA, control cell divisions and chromatin remodeling, regulate energy metabolism, and influence cell fate decisions [12,13]. Additionally, comparative studies between in vivo-derived, IVP, parthenogenetically activated (PA), and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) embryos have provided important insights into the molecular changes associated with maternal-to-zygotic transition and EGA, changes in epigenetic reprogramming, including differences in DNA methylation, histone modifications, and gene expression that drive proper embryo development [14,15,16]. This review combines current knowledge about the molecular control of early embryogenesis in pigs, from fertilization to blastocyst formation. It emphasizes transcriptional and epigenetic control mechanisms and metabolic regulations of embryo development. Moreover, we address recent insights into the dysregulation of genes involved in metabolism, oxidative stress, and epigenetic remodeling under in vitro conditions. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for refining porcine IVP systems and improving embryo quality.

2. Maternal-Effect Genes Controlling Early Developmental Events

2.1. Maternal Regulation

Oocyte quality is crucial for successful embryo development. During the period of transcriptional silence in the zygote, oocyte-derived factors guide early embryo development. The significance of these maternal contributions was demonstrated by SCNT experiments, which showed that an oocyte can reprogram a differentiated cell into a totipotent zygote [17]. This occurs because the oocyte is loaded with maternal factors such as macromolecules, ribosomes, and cytoplasmic organelles needed for post-fertilization development during transcriptional silence. Many genes, known as MEGs, are transcribed in oocytes but are not immediately translated, as they are responsible for early embryo development. Maternal transcripts are essential for oocyte nuclear maturation, proper processing of the sperm nucleus, organization of the two pronuclei, initial embryo divisions, embryonic genome activation, and the first cellular differentiation events [18,19]. Embryonic genome activation is a key stage during which the embryo begins to rely on mRNAs and proteins produced through new transcription from its own genome [20]. During oocyte cytoplasmic maturation, maternal transcripts are stored and regulated by polyA tail length, which protects them from translation. After meiosis resumption, these transcripts are polyadenylated and translated [21,22]. From a transcriptomic perspective, the onset of EGA is marked by increased use of transcripts required for genome activation, along with the simultaneous degradation of transcripts that could otherwise cause premature activation [23]. In mammals, knocking out maternal-effect genes prevents embryonic development after 2–3 cleavages [24,25,26]. These proteins are involved in various aspects of early development, including maternal mRNA degradation, epigenetic reprogramming, signal transduction, protein translation, and initiation of embryonic genome activation [2].

2.2. Maternal-Effect Genes and Their Degradation

A few maternal-effect genes have been identified and characterized in pig oocytes and early embryos. Their expression is important for embryonic development, as dysregulation of their expression leads to defects in embryogenesis. Calcium signaling plays an important role in oocyte maturation and early embryo development by controlling the dynamic expression of maternal genes [27]. The MEGs identified in porcine embryo include cyclin B1 (CCNB1), NLRP5, ZAR-1, DDB1, DDB3, SEBOX, YAP-1, SIN3A, and NPM2 [19,28]. NLRP5, also known as MATER, and ZAR-1 are two of the earliest known MEGs identified in mouse oocytes required for early embryo development [25,26]. MATER and ZAR-1 are exclusively expressed in porcine ovaries [28,29] and not in the other reproductive parts. In pigs, MEGs are abundantly expressed in mature oocytes and early cleavage-stage embryos. Still, their expression declines dramatically after the 4-cell stage, and remains low with the exception of DDB1, which is also expressed at the morula and blastocyst stage [28,29,30]. Inhibition of any of the genes among SEBOX, DDB1, and YAP in oocytes or NLRP5 in zygotes by RNA interference inhibits developmental progression. Whereas NLRP5 maintains early cleavage divisions, DDB1 is important for the expression of lineage and pluripotency-related genes TEAD4, CDX2, OCT4, NANOG, and SOX2 [29,30]. SEBOX is essential for blastocyst formation and facilitates the selective degradation of maternal RNAs [31], while YAP supports trophectoderm formation and epithelial barrier function through the transcriptional regulation of genes responsible for the formation of the epithelial junction and lineage specification [32].
Components of cell-cycle regulation, such as CCNB1 and SIN3A, are maternally provided [33,34]. The expression pattern of SIN3A, a scaffold protein, is species-specific with a minimum at EGA in pigs, mice, and humans, indicating its maternal origin [34]. Its silencing causes developmental arrest at the 2-cell stage of porcine embryos, and its role in development is suggested to be through the regulation of CCNB1 expression. The transcriptional control from oocyte to embryo occurs in a tightly regulated and time-dependent manner. This process, maternal-to-zygote transition, is associated with the timely degradation of MEGs and reprogramming of chromatin for the EGA [35,36]. The degradation of maternal factors is largely species-specific. A recent study compared the expression of six different maternal origin genes and proteins in mice, bovine, and porcine oocytes and embryos during the EGA window. Among six proteins, protein inhibitor of activated STAT4 (PIASY) was detected in oocytes and early embryos and displayed a decrease in abundance that coincided with the major wave of EGA in each species, suggesting its conserved role despite differences in the timing of EGA between mice (early 2-cell), pigs (4-cell), and cattle (8-cell) [37]. The stability of MEGs is regulated by processes, such as mRNA adenylation/deadenylation, and the expression of transcription factors, such as YAP1-TEAD4 in pigs and humans [38,39]. The exact mechanisms by which maternal transcripts are degraded in porcine embryos are not known; however, the expression of the hippo-signaling family, such as YAP1 and LATS2, is found to be at its peak in matured oocytes and 1-cell stage embryos [40]. The silencing of these genes impaired embryo development and expression of genes involved in trophectoderm and inner cell mass lineage specification. Future research should investigate whether these transcription factors play a role in maternal transcript clearance in pigs. Although maternal protein degradation in porcine embryos, as in other species, was suggested to rely on the ubiquitin–proteasome system [41], autophagy might be another mechanism supporting the process [42]. One-cell cleavage stage embryos have the highest autophagic activity and expression of autophagy-related genes, ATG5, Beclin1, and LC3 [42,43]. The silencing of LC3 in porcine parthenotes, a central player in autophagy, upregulates the maternal transcripts, such as CCNB1, c-mos, DPPA3, and GDF9, suggesting its role in maternal transcript degradation [43]. These findings establish that the degradation of maternal mRNAs and proteins in pigs is not a passive process but a precisely orchestrated molecular transition directed by maternal-effect genes that prepares the embryo to take control of development.

3. Early Embryo Development and Genome Activation

Fertilization triggers Ca2+ release in the egg, leading to the degradation of CCNB1 and the subsequent release from meiotic arrest, allowing anaphase initiation. Post-fertilization development starts with mitotic cleavage divisions of the zygote, which requires the inactivation of maturation/M-phase promoting factor (MPF), allowing for the separation of the sister chromatids [44]. In addition, MAPK inactivation is also essential for pronuclear formation after fertilization or parthenogenetic activation [45]. The initial cell division in the embryo lacks gap phases as the S-phase is directly followed by mitosis (M-phase) [46]. However, in in vitro-derived embryos, the long gap phase is observed only after the second cell division, which might be a reason for the long duration of the 4-cell (~50 h) stage in an in vitro-developing porcine embryo [47]. Cell divisions after fertilization lead to increased cell numbers with no significant growth, resulting in the formation of a blastocyst. Initially, the cell divisions are controlled by maternally derived CCNB1, CDC25C, and p34cdc2 (cyclin-dependent kinase, CDK1) among others [48]. A decline in the expression of CCNB1 and CDC25C occurs till the 4-cell stage, which coincides with the EGA [49,50]. Cyclin B1 is essential for early development in pigs; its inhibition results in developmental arrest at the 2-cell stage [34].
Timely and precise cell division and DNA replication are important for embryonic fate and maintaining genome integrity [51,52,53]. The cell cycle is controlled by oscillating expression and the activity of the cyclin superfamily and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDKs). CCNB1 mRNA is present in a polyadenylated form at significantly higher levels in MII oocytes and the 2-cell embryos, followed by a significant decrease till the 4-cell stage [48]. On the other hand, CDC2 is deadenylated in metaphase II oocytes and early embryos [54]. Whereas CCNB1 decreases over the 4-cell stage, there are no significant changes in protein levels [49]. It was suggested that CCNB1 can be post-transcriptionally regulated during the initial stages of embryo development [50]. Though CCNB1 levels positively correlate with the developmental competence of porcine early embryos, similar to humans [55], it is likely not the only protein regulating the cleavage of porcine embryos to the 8-cell stage. Other cell cycle-related genes, such as CCND3, CDKN2, and TFDP1, can play a role in the cell cycle during cleavage in the early embryo [53]. Their dysregulation results in a slower cleavage rate. Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2), a G1/S cell-cycle checkpoint kinase, is important for cell-cycle regulation and early cleavage of porcine embryos. Though CDK2 is dispensable for cell-cycle progression, disruption of its activity results in delayed cleavage and induces developmental arrest in porcine parthenogenetic (PA) or in vitro-derived embryos before they can reach the blastocyst stage [56]. Cell-cycle arrest in early embryos can be caused by chromosomal aberrations or the accumulation of DNA damage. CDK2 may participate in early embryo cleavage by acting as a DNA damage sensor.

Embryonic Genome Activation

Embryonic genome activation represents a critical developmental milestone [57] and is associated with many molecular changes summarized in Figure 1. Both, in the case of domestic animal and human embryos, the developmental block observed during in vitro culture is the result of perturbation in EGA and is the main cause of the embryo’s failure to reach the blastocyst stage [20,58].
In the porcine embryo, nucleoli are absent at the pronuclear and 2-cell stage [47,59,60]. Embryonic transcription appears to initiate at the 4-cell stage, evidenced by changes in nucleolar structure, such as the transformation of nuclear precursor bodies (NPBs) into a functional reticulated nucleolus, alterations in the nuclear matrix, beginning of rRNA synthesis [61,62], along with the activation of RNA polymerase transcription [63]. NPBs transport nucleolar components from the oocyte to the embryo and are also suggested to participate in genome remodeling [64]. Nucleolus formation marks the transcription of ribosomal RNA genes [62,65]. The maternally inherited rRNA partially initiates nucleolar assembly, but for complete nucleolar formation, de novo protein synthesis by the embryo is essential [62,63]. RNA polymerase I is expressed after embryonic gene transcription commences. This corresponds to the appearance of many nucleolar proteins associated with the rRNA transcription, processing, and ribosome assembly, such as upstream binding factor, topoisomerase I, fibrillarin, nucleolin, and nucleophosmin [59]. Among these proteins, nucleophosmin and nucleolin are possibly of maternal origin [63]. Embryos where RNA polymerase activity is inhibited do not develop to the blastocyst stage [66]. Across multiple independent transcriptomic studies, the consensus pattern in pig embryos is that a major EGA occurs around the 4-cell stage. Single-cell RNA-seq profiling of individual blastomeres [67] and several bulk comparative studies document the sharpest transcriptomic remodeling between the 2-cell and 4-cell stages, while the 2-cell stage shows a minor wave of EGA, and the 4-cell embryo shows the largest number of upregulated zygotic transcripts and concurrent maternal RNA clearance [14,67]. The EGA in pigs at the 4-cell stage is observed in in vitro-produced (IVP), parthenogenetically activated (PA), and many in vivo comparisons [12,13,68,69]. However, SCNT embryos show delayed EGA [70]. Transcriptomic studies have suggested several genes as possible regulators of EGA in pigs, including ELF1A, DPPA2, ZSCNA4, SIRT1, DNMT1, KLF17, USP26, and YTHDC2 [16,67,70,71].
Transcription factors (TFs) play a pivotal role in activating the transcriptional machinery and, along with chromatin remodeling, initiate the EGA programs. Some of these TFs, called pioneer TFs, such as DUX and LEUTX, can bind compact nucleosomal DNA, enabling chromatin remodeling and gene expression. Members of the DUX family are transiently expressed prior to EGA in mice (Dux) and humans (DUX4) and induce the expression of EGA genes [72,73]. A recent study has highlighted the role of DUXA, a member of the DUX family, in the EGA of porcine SCNT embryos. Its knockdown affects the expression of EGA-related genes, TDG, SNAI1, RSRP1, TFAP2C, ZSCAN4, LEUTX, and KLF17, and early development in porcine embryos [74]. A significant advance to the role of TFs in EGA comes from Zhou et al. [36], who identified LEUTX, a PRD-like homeobox transcription factor, as a key activator of human and porcine embryonic genome activation. In pig embryos, LEUTX is transiently expressed in 4-cell in vivo-derived embryos during the EGA window. Interestingly, its overexpression in SCNT embryos restores EGA failure and their cloning efficiency. Transcriptomic profiling of porcine in vivo and SCNT embryos identified many TFs during the EGA. The activated TFs included c-MYC, KLF4, EED, RBMX, CRABP2, ATF3, and TGIF1, and their reduced expression in SCNT embryos correlated with their impaired EGA [70]. Among TFs, the perturbation of c-MYC function using the small molecule inhibitor, 10,058-F4, inhibited EGA gene expression and increased apoptosis in blastocysts, demonstrating that c-MYC is associated with robust EGA and early embryo viability. Transcription factor, P-TEFb, and RNA polymerase II (Pol II), drive gene expression by facilitating transcriptional elongation. In pigs, p-TEFb, through its catalytic subunit CK9, is suggested to play a role in Pol I and Pol II-dependent transcription and in EGA [75]. A study by Du and coworkers suggests SALL4, NANOG, KLF4, and KLF17 as TFs associated with EGA in porcine IVP and PA embryos [67]. Complementary evidence suggests ELF4 and TBX3 are other essential regulators of EGA and early embryo development. These TFs maintain genome integrity by reducing DNA damage and regulating dynamic changes in histone and DNA methylation and histone acetylation [76,77].
Metabolic regulation is increasingly recognized as a key driver of EGA, and the role of mitochondrial metabolic enzymes is conserved in mammalian EGA. The major wave of EGA in porcine embryos coincides with a marked increase in mitochondrial activity and oxidative phosphorylation, which provide the energy required for chromatin remodeling and the transcriptional activation of early embryonic genes [67,70]. Consistent with this observation, inhibition of mitochondrial function via stress conditions leads to reduced expression of EGA markers and developmental arrest in 4-cell stage porcine embryos, indicating a direct requirement for energy metabolism in this process [78]. Pyruvate metabolism plays a complementary role in EGA in porcine PA embryos by generating nuclear acetyl-CoA, which maintains histone acetylation at H3K9 and H3K27 [79], thereby promoting transcriptional activation during EGA. Amino acid-dependent pathways are also crucial for EGA. Arginine (Arg) metabolism-related genes are activated in in vivo-derived embryos during this period. Whereas the removal of Arg from the in vitro culture medium of embryos causes 4-cell arrest and a decrease in EGA genes, its supplementation reverses these effects [71]. One-carbon metabolism, through the synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), is essential for establishing appropriate DNA and histone methylation patterns. Interfering with methionine metabolism through the silencing of methionine adenosyltransferase 2A (MAT2A), an enzyme that generates SAM, impairs histone methylation and EGA in porcine PA embryos [80]. It has been well established that the genes involved in the TCA cycle, glycolysis, amino acid metabolism, and fatty acid oxidation are dynamically regulated at the 4-cell stage, and embryos derived from SCNT often display dysregulation of these pathways, correlating with impaired EGA [70]. Moreover, the expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism shows significant alterations during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. These changes correlate with the expression of EGA-related genes, suggesting lipid metabolism as an indicator of EGA in pigs [81]. A high content of fatty acids in porcine embryos sustains energy needs by providing acetyl-CoA for ATP generation. Fatty acid oxidation is linked to histone acetylation through nuclear localization of acetyl co-enzyme A synthetases ACSS1 and ACSS2, affecting EGA in pigs [82].

4. Epigenetic Modifications During EGA

In addition to transcriptional activation, the embryonic genome undergoes extensive epigenetic remodeling [83], including DNA methylation, histone modifications, chromatin accessibility, and 3D chromatin organization after fertilization to restore zygotic totipotency and enable embryonic development. The timing of epigenetic modifications, such as histone modifications that regulate chromatin structure and affect gene expression, coincides with EGA. Though it is not well understood whether EGA leads to epigenetic modifications or whether these modifications drive EGA, in zebrafish, epigenetic modifications related to the expression of developmental genes were observed before EGA [84]. The methylation of histone H3 lysine residues, such as lysines 4 and 27, is an epigenetic mark that can lead to transcriptional activation or repression, respectively. Transcriptional activity also depends upon the mon-di- or tri-methylation of lysine residues. During cleavage stages of development, global H3K27 methylation patterns undergo a dramatic change [85,86]. In pigs, whereas mono-methylated H3K27 is present in the nucleus of oocytes and throughout the early embryo development till the blastocyst stage, levels of tri-methylated H3K27 are highest in oocytes [85]. Previous reports on H3K27 trimethylation in cleavage stage embryos are inconsistent. While some studies detected H3K27me3 in only one pronucleus [85,87], Gao et al. report its presence in both pronuclei [88]. After cleavage, a decrease in H3K27me3 was observed in 2- and 4-cell embryos [85,88]; in contrast, Marinoho et al. report no measurable decline at these stages [87]. These observations in pigs are in contrast to murine embryos, where H3K27me3 is detected in maternally derived chromatin and in blastomeres from 4-cell embryos and blastocysts [89]. On the other hand, H3K27 acetylation is generally maintained throughout porcine development [87]. H3K27 methylation is shown to be catalyzed by the histone methyltransferase EZH2 in porcine PA embryos [90].
The work by Glanzner and co-workers elucidated the importance of histone modification in porcine EGA. Changes in H3K4 and H3K9 methylation, as well as in the expression of lysine demethylases during the EGA period, were associated with the developmental competence of early embryos [91,92]. Histone demethylases KDM5B and KDM5C are highly expressed around EGA, and blocking their expression impairs porcine embryo development. The attenuation of histone demethylase function delays EGA by impairing RNA transcription in embryos and correlates with the downregulation of EGA markers, such as EIF1AX and EIF2A. Histone demethylases have long-term consequences for cell differentiation and development by regulating EGA, DNA damage repair, and the expression of pluripotency genes [92,93]. The expression of epigenetic-modifying enzymes, such as KDM5B, is under the control of transcription factor AP-2 gamma, and its silencing in porcine oocytes interferes with embryonic development, highlighting the importance of histone methylation modifications in embryo growth [94].
The involvement of epigenetic mechanisms, especially histone methylation and demethylation, was further emphasized by oocyte-specific sharp H3K4me3 peaks at the promoters of EGA-related genes. These sharp peaks transitioned to broader domains after fertilization and became sharp again during EGA [95]. The transitions between broad histone H3K4me3 domains to sharp peaks regulate EGA during early embryo development in mice and humans [96,97]. The maintenance of a broad H3K4me3 pattern represses gene activity during cleavage-stage embryo development in pigs and was suggested to control the entry of embryos to the EGA stage [95]. This is in contrast to mice, where pre-EGA transcription silence is not dependent on broad H3K4me3 domains [98]. The removal of H3K4me3 demethylases, such as KDM5B and KDM5C, maintains the broad H3K4me3 and interferes with the expression of EGA genes in pigs, mice, and cattle [95,96,99]. In another study, the expression of MLL2, an H3K4 trimethyl transferase, was higher after fertilization and was significantly downregulated after the 4-cell stage of porcine embryo development [100]. Its role in initiating the transition from a broad domain to a sharp peak before EGA needs to be investigated. Interestingly, Bu and co-workers observed the establishment of H3K4me3/H3K27me3 bivalency at the promoters of EGA genes during the morula stage of embryo development, suggesting the possibility that bivalency may serve to repress EGA gene expression, leading to an exit from totipotency and EGA [95]. In addition to histone methylations, which are covalent modifications, non-covalent changes in chromatin structure and 3D chromatin organization also govern transcription activation or repression. These processes are well-established in cell differentiation and development [101]. Changes in chromatin structure are also brought about by the non-covalent modifications by ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes (CRCs), such as switch/sucrose non-fermentable (SWI/SNF), imitation switch, inositol-requiring 80, and chromodomain-helicase DNA-binding protein complexes. The CRCs, such as SWI/SNF, non-covalently move or alter the nucleosome position by interacting with DNA and histones via specific domains. SWI/SNF complexes are assembled from many components and sub-units that are shown to regulate EGA in murine embryos [102]. The role of AT-rich interactive domain-containing protein 1A (ARID1A), a subunit of the SWI/SNF complex, was established in porcine oocytes and embryos [103]. It is expressed highly in germinal vesicle-stage oocytes and in blastocysts, with a decreased expression at the 4-cell stage. It is suggested to be required for the proper cleavage of embryos up to the 4-cell stage, as its silencing leads to impaired cleavage, potentially interfering with the EGA, and decreased developmental competence [103].
Over the last 15–20 years, owing to techniques such as high-throughput chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C), studies have now reported the importance of changes in the 3D reorganization of chromatin during early embryonic development [104]. The hierarchical packaging of chromatin domains in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells is essential for gene transcription and repression [105]. Whereas topologically associated domain (TAD) establishment consistently coincides with EGA in pigs and many other species [106,107,108], in mice, TADs appear after zygotic genome activation [109]. On the other hand, chromatin superdomains are more prevalent in porcine embryos. As lipids, such as cholesterol, can cause chromatin compaction [110], it was suggested that the superdomains during porcine embryo development are possibly due to the high cytoplasmic and nuclear lipid content of porcine oocytes [111].
The rapid development of high-throughput sequencing technologies has shed light on the importance of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in mammalian embryonic development [112]. Recently, the role of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) in porcine EGA has been reported [113]. The expression of lncRNAs in porcine in vivo embryos coincides with the EGA, as their expression was noted at the 4-cell stage and in blastocysts. Additionally, lncRNA LOC102165808, termed lncT, supports in vitro embryo development by modulating histone and DNA methylation and the expression of SIN3A, a downstream target of lncT [113]. Another lncRNA, lncFKBPL, is expressed in 4-cell stage PA embryos and morulae. It is suggested to facilitate EGA indirectly through CDK9 stabilization and increasing Pol II phosphorylation levels [114].

5. Embryo Metabolism

5.1. Carbohydrate Metabolism and Early Embryo Development

The role of metabolism in generating energy for preimplantation embryo development has been known for a long time [115,116]. Metabolism has been studied mainly by identifying the conditions that allow for the in vitro development of the embryo. A recent review analyzed in depth the effect of culture conditions on metabolism and developmental competence of IVP embryos [117]. It is now well known that metabolism influences not only energy production but produces various metabolites that are utilized for gene expression, cell signaling, alterations in chromatin and DNA states, and cell fate decisions [118]. Energy requirements change during early development with marked differences between cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. During the initial cell divisions, embryo metabolism is slow, and development is supported primarily by the maternal transcripts and proteins stored during oocyte maturation [2]. Studies report that a very high or very low metabolism in mammalian species is associated with developmentally compromised embryos [119,120,121]. The metabolic pathways active during early development are species-specific [122], and early embryos use pyruvate, lactate, carbohydrates, and amino acid metabolism as an energy source. The transition from the 2-cell to 4-cell stage of early in vivo embryo development is associated with a significant increase in gene transcription, and a large number of these are related to metabolic pathways and are important for EGA [12,71]. Developing embryos exhibit significant metabolic plasticity, as their metabolism can adapt in response to various factors and developmental stages. This adaptability is crucial for supporting the diverse energy needs and cellular processes required for proper development [123]. Pyruvate and lactate are the main sources of energy during initial development, followed by an increase in glucose metabolism during blastocyst formation. In the absence of pyruvate, mouse embryos cannot grow beyond the 2-cell stage [124], and bovine embryos cannot grow beyond the morula stage [125]. However, it was observed that porcine embryos increase reliance on pyruvate at the blastocyst stage and utilize glucose as the primary source of energy [126]. In earlier studies, the use of glucose was shown to be beneficial to the in vitro development of porcine embryos, and the addition of glutamine to media containing glucose yielded better results [126,127,128,129,130,131]. Metabolism measurements showed that, whereas in vivo-derived porcine embryos use glucose preferentially through glycolysis during the cleavage stage and pre-implantation development, in vitro-derived glycolysis is preferred after the 2-cell stage [126]. Pig embryos are known to metabolize glucose through the pentose phosphorylation pathway (PPP) to provide NADPH for biosynthesis. The pentose pathway activity is higher till the 8-cell stage of embryo development, followed by glucose metabolism by glycolysis [127]. In addition to glycolysis, the metabolism of glucose through the TCA cycle is also active in porcine embryos, albeit at lower levels during the cleavage stage, with a significant increase in TCA activity as the development reaches the morula and blastocyst stages.
However, there is evidence that glucose in in vitro embryo culture media during initial cleavage divisions can cause oxidation stress [127] and a difficulty in overcoming the 4-cell block [132]. Consistent with these observations, in vitro porcine embryo development, in terms of blastocyst formation and total number of cells in a blastocyst, is benefited by the presence of pyruvate and lactate in the culture media during the initial cleavage divisions up to day 2 of the culture post-in vitro fertilization, followed by the addition of glucose [133,134]. The benefit of glucose in in vitro culture media after the 4-cell stage coincides with the EGA [132]. It is possible that after EGA, an increase in the expression of oxidation stress response genes can alleviate the increase in ROS caused by glucose metabolism through NRF2-mediated response [13]. The demands for carbohydrates in in vivo-derived embryos are initially low, followed by an increase at the blastocyst stage [1,135].

5.2. Fatty Acid Metabolism and Early Embryo Development

Porcine embryos have large stores of endogenous lipids, mainly stored as triglycerides in the form of lipid droplets whose density changes during early embryo development. In addition to glucose, lipids serve as an important source of intracellular energy storage through mitochondrial β-oxidation of fatty acids, a process that produces more ATP than the oxidation of glucose [136]. Fatty acid metabolism is important for oocyte maturation and early embryo development [137]. The inhibition of fatty acid metabolism, when glucose is absent from the in vitro culture media, impairs embryo development [130]. Lipid droplets in a porcine zygote are composed of unsaturated and saturated lipids, with high levels of unsaturated hydrophobic lipids, in addition to esters, free fatty acids, and phospholipids [138]. The authors observed that total lipid content during the development of the zygote-to-morula stage remains unchanged, then decreases during the blastocyst stage [138], which is accompanied by a corresponding increase in oxygen consumption [136]. The decrease in lipid content in the blastocyst is suggested to result from increased β-oxidation, consistent with high oxygen consumption to support the energy demands during this stage [139,140]. However, the expression of genes associated with lipid metabolism show an increasing trend from the 1-cell stage to the blastocyst. The expression of enzymes responsible for lipid metabolism via mitochondrial beta-oxidation, is enriched in porcine blastocysts [81]. Recently, the crucial role of unsaturated lipid-mediated plasma membrane fluidity in the regulation of mouse and human embryo development was highlighted [141]. These results in mice and humans are also supported by observations in pigs, where during the maternal-to-zygotic transition, embryos express higher levels of genes associated with fatty acid metabolism and storage, such as stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 (SCD1) and PPARγ. Whereas SCD1 converts saturated fatty acids into monounsaturated fatty acids and regulates fatty acid composition, PPARγ regulates fatty acid storage. The inhibition of Stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 during the cleavage stage interferes with embryo development. These embryos have fewer and smaller lipid droplets and decreased morula compaction [142]. It is evident from many reports that saturated fatty acids, such as palmitic acid, inhibit oocyte maturation and subsequent embryo development [143,144], whereas unsaturated fatty acids, such as oleic acid, docosaexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid, have beneficial effects on these processes during in vitro maturation and in vitro culture of embryos [145,146].
Lipid droplets interact with the mitochondria to create energy-efficient metabolic units [147]. This interaction is facilitated by small molecules, such as L-carnitine, that regulate the transfer of fatty acids to mitochondria for β-oxidation [148]. L-carnitine has a positive effect on embryo development by facilitating the efficient utilization of lipids [149]. In fact, L-carnitine, at a concentration up to 12 mM, can sustain in vitro culture in the absence of pyruvate, lactate, and glucose, pointing towards the importance of lipid metabolism for energy needs during embryo development [149].
In early embryos, although oxidative phosphorylation is functional, they use fatty acids for energy. A study comparing genes associated with fatty acid biosynthesis and elongation in pigs and mice suggested that lipid use for energy storage is unique to pigs [150]. However, recent studies have shown the importance of lipid metabolism in embryo development across the species [147]. Porcine embryos utilize lipids as an energy source in the absence of pyruvate, and though porcine embryos develop with lipid alone as a substrate, they can also oxidize pyruvate as an energy source, reflecting the plasticity in the embryo metabolism [123,149].

5.3. Amino Acid Metabolism and Embryo Development

Amino acids, depending on their size and type (zwitterionic, acidic, or basic), are transported across membranes via specific transporters. In pigs, amino acids such as L-alanine and L-leucine are transported by a Na+ dependent B0,+ system [151] in oocytes and in embryos up to the 4-cell stage. It is possible that, before EGA, the early embryo might depend on oocyte-specific amino acid transporters. Amino-acid transporters are developmentally regulated. In porcine embryos, L-aspartate and L-glutamate transport through the Na+-dependent X-AG system (carrier of acidic amino acids) increases during the blastocyst stage, but unlike in mice, it is absent in the oocytes [152]. In contrast, the activity of Na+-dependent transport system B0,+ that carries zwitterionic amino acids, such as alanine and leucine, and cationic amino acids, is high only in porcine oocytes [151] and is lost during the development of the embryo. The B0,+ amino acid transport system is active in species with invasive placentation, where it induces trophoblast motility and penetration by specifically activating mTORC1 signaling [153,154]. The amino acids, leucine and alanine, are transported by the Na+-independent system L in early porcine blastocysts [151]. The primary role of system L is to regulate intracellular amino acid concentrations for protein synthesis [155]. Thus, the requirement for amino acids is stage-specific in early embryo development.
Amino acids are one of the important constituents of the oviduct and uterine fluid [156,157]. Their transporters, metabolism, and metabolites play essential roles in embryo development through processes, such as osmoregulation, nucleotide biosynthesis via one-carbon metabolism, and epigenetic regulation [153,157,158]. Similar to many other species, porcine oviduct and uterine fluid contain many amino acids, with glycine and alanine being present at the highest concentrations and taurine and hypotaurine at lower concentrations [159,160]. Both essential and nonessential amino acid metabolism is reported to support early embryo development.
The importance of amino acids in embryo growth was initially evaluated by adding individual or combinations of amino acids and monitoring their appearance or depletion in the culture media [161]. The amino acids reported to have a positive effect on embryonic growth include arginine, glutamine, and glycine, among others. Glycine is present at the highest concentrations in the oviduct and uterine fluid of sows [162]. Glycine metabolism, or the glycine cleavage system, catabolizes glycine to carbon dioxide, ammonia, and a one-carbon unit essential for the synthesis of DNA and nucleic acids. This system is active in porcine oviduct cells and in embryos, potentially contributing to embryo development [163]. Glycine supplementation in in vitro maturation and in vitro culture medium supports oocyte maturation and the developmental potential of PA and IVP embryos by modulating oxidation stress and apoptosis [164] and by increasing mitochondrial membrane potential, regulating oxidative stress, and blocking lipid peroxidation [165].
Arginine metabolism-related genes such as ODC1, GLUD1, OAT, and ASS1 are expressed at higher levels in 4-cell in vivo-derived embryos compared to earlier stages or morula. Their expression is highly correlated with the EGA genes, such as EIF1A. The absence of arginine in the in vitro culture media causes a 4-cell block, as the embryo cannot progress to a blastocyst [71]. On the other hand, the supplementation of in vitro culture medium with arginine aids embryo development by inducing glycolysis through the increased expression of HK1 and HK2 and by inhibiting pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 1, an enzyme that blocks the TCA cycle [166].
In pigs, patterns of amino-acid turnover in culture medium are stage-dependent and correlate with embryo viability and changes in amino acid transporter expression. Whereas methionine uptake by cleavage-stage embryos decreases drastically after the 2-cell stage, arginine and glutamine are taken up by expanded and early blastocysts, respectively [167,168]. The increased glutamine use by early blastocysts also coincides with increased glucose metabolism, and the intermediates produced by glycolysis and glutaminolysis can be used for biosynthesis. The significance of glutamine in porcine early embryo development is highlighted by the observation that only glutamine in the culture medium can support the growth of in vivo-produced cleavage-stage embryos to the blastocyst stage [128]. It acts as an energy source and can replace glucose for the TCA cycle, supporting early embryonic development [169]. Glutamine alleviates oxidative stress and DNA damage [170]. It was also reported that expanded blastocysts consume significantly less glutamine than arrested porcine blastocysts, as the latter may require higher glutamine levels to alleviate oxidative stress [168]. Consistent with this study, glutamine has recently been proposed as a non-invasive biomarker of human embryo quality, as poor-quality aneuploid embryos consumed significantly more glutamine than good-quality embryos [171]. In addition, glutamine acts as a metabolic regulator, promoting mitochondrial activity and mTOR signaling pathways, which are crucial for cell proliferation [172].
Recently, a porcine trophectoderm cell model identified potential nutrients that promote embryo development and implantation. A combination of lysine (1.87 mmol/L), methionine (0.82 mmol/L), tryptophan (0.23 mmol/L), and arginine (3 mmol/L), with the ratio of 1:0.43:0.12:1.60, increased the expression of key genes involved in early embryonic development [173]. The stage-specific use of metabolic substrates is summarized in Figure 2.

6. DNA Damage and Repair in Early Porcine Embryos

Early developing embryos face exposure to both internal stressors, such as reactive oxygen species, and external stressors, including ionizing radiation and genotoxic chemicals [174,175]. These exposures can induce DNA damage, particularly double-stranded breaks (DSBs), which pose a significant threat to genomic stability [176]. If unrepaired, DSBs can disrupt embryo development. To counteract DSBs, embryos activate a DNA damage response (DDR), employing mechanisms such as homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). These repair pathways are regulated by kinases, including ataxia telangiectasia-mutated (ATM), ATM-and-RAD3-related (ATR), and DNA-dependent protein kinase [177]. In in vitro- and SCNT-developed porcine embryos, DSBs are indicated by the phosphorylated form of histone 2X (H2AX) at the damaged site [178]. The phosphorylation of H2AX at Ser 139 serves as a signal to recruit DNA repair proteins. These proteins are involved in either the HR or NHEJ pathway, along with checkpoint proteins that mediate cell-cycle arrest to allow for DNA repair [179,180]. In response to DNA damage, CDK2 activates checkpoint pathways, such as ATM, ATR, or the ATM/ATR-P53-P21 pathway, to initiate DNA repair [181]. In porcine embryos, DNA damage repair through the ATM-P53-P21-dependent cell-cycle checkpoint pathway can be initiated by CDK2 or, in the case of its inhibition, by CDK1, which is reported to compensate for CDK2 activity [56]. However, CDK2 also regulates apoptosis and the expression of genes involved in DSB repair, such as RAD51, MRE11a, PRKDC, and 53BP1, which are part of the HR and NHEJ pathways [56]. In pigs, as in other species, late-cleaving embryos show higher DNA damage than their early-cleaving counterparts [52,182,183]. The delayed cleavage is accompanied by the increased expression of HR and NHEJ DNA repair pathway genes and cell-cycle checkpoint genes, CHEK1 and CHEK2 [182]. It was suggested that the delayed cleavage is a response to DNA damage encountered during early embryo development. Though both HR and NHEJ pathways are activated in response to DSBs, the ATM-regulated HR pathway is the main mechanism of DNA damage repair in IVP-, SCNT-, or PA-produced porcine embryos [184].

Post-Translational Modifications

Post-translational modifications (PTMs) play an important role in biological processes, including DDR. Their role is significant during transcriptional repression in mature oocytes and zygotes. During this period, PTMs are crucial in driving processes such as fertilization, initial cell division, and the transition from maternal to embryonic control. The importance of PTM in oocyte maturation, embryo development, DDR, and the clearance of maternal transcripts from the embryo has been reported in many species (reviewed in [185]). The most common PTMs include ubiquitination, SUMOylation, acetylation, methylation, Poly ADP-ribosylation (PARylation), and phosphorylation, among others. Ubiquitin proteasomal degradation is active during porcine oocyte meiosis and the initiation of mitosis in early embryos. The degradation of CCNB1 and phosphorylation of MAPK, which is required for the exit from M-II arrest, is reported to be driven by the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of these proteins in mice [186]. During early development of IVP embryos, selective autophagy is important for the recycling of degraded proteins of maternal origin to support the survival of mouse embryos [187]. In porcine embryos, expression of the enzyme, PARP1, involved in PARylation, is increased after fertilization and is related to the developmental competence of blastocysts. PARylation regulates pro-survival autophagy via the mTOR pathway by degrading ubiquitinated substrates and affects survival in porcine embryos [188,189]. As mentioned earlier, PTMs play an important role in the normal cell cycle and DNA damage response. Regarding this, the RNAseq analysis of 2-cell and 4-cell embryos revealed that, whereas ubiquitin conjugating (E2) enzymes involved in DNA repair or cell-cycle progression are expressed before zygotic genome activation, ubiquitin E3 ligases are expressed at higher levels in the 4-cell stage. These results point towards a stage-of-development-dependent role of ubiquitination in porcine embryos [12]. A stage-specific (oocyte 2- and 4-cell, as well as blastocyst) expression of Ubiquitins and SUMOs is involved in oocyte maturation and porcine embryo development, suggesting their role in early events of embryonic development [190]. This is evidence towards complex mechanisms that participate in safeguarding the integrity of the genome involving ubiquitination or SUMOylation PTMs. UV-induced DNA damage in blastocysts increases the expression of many genes, including RNF168 and RNF8, which are involved in the ubiquitin-mediated response to DSBs for DNA repair through HR [190]. Other ubiquitin ligases, such as DCAF13 and RNF114, participate in the normal regulation of early porcine embryo development [191]. The silencing of DCAF13 impairs EGA by decreasing the expression of KDM5B and KDM5C, consequently decreasing embryo development to the blastocyst stage. Moreover, both DCAF13 and RNF114 seem to be involved in DNA damage repair by regulating the expression of DNA recombinase RAD51 and phosphorylation of H2A.X.

7. Effect of In Vitro Culture Conditions on the Molecular Changes in Embryo

Although significant efforts have been made to improve in vitro embryo culture systems, resulting in overcoming the 4-cell developmental block in porcine embryos (reviewed in [192]), their efficiency remains unsatisfactory. The blastocyst yield in farm animals ranges at best to 40%. The porcine embryo represents an important agricultural and biomedical model for studying early mammalian development and improving reproductive biotechnologies. However, embryos produced in vitro have reduced developmental competence and pronounced transcriptional and epigenetic dysregulations as compared to their in vivo counterparts. Under natural conditions, early embryo development occurs within the oviduct and uterine lumen, which provides a tightly regulated biochemical and biophysical environment. In contrast, IVP embryos develop under artificial conditions that often compromise regular gene expression and epigenetic reprogramming [Figure 3]. Several chemical and physical factors, such as media formulation, gas atmosphere, temperature, pH, and osmolarity, impact embryo development during the culture (reviewed in [117,193,194,195,196,197]).

7.1. Effect of In Vitro Culture on Maternal Transcripts, Embryonic Genome Activation, and Early Development

The transition from maternal to embryonic control represents a critical developmental milestone, and any disturbance in transcript stability or utilization may lead to developmental arrest. Oocyte-specific mRNAs are selectively polyadenylated and translated to support cleavage divisions [198,199]. Perturbations in this balance, frequently observed under in vitro conditions, can result in premature or delayed transcript degradation and impaired EGA [52].
Maternal-effect genes, such as ZAR1, NPM2, and DPPA3 (Stella/PGC7), are particularly sensitive to in vitro perturbations. Studies revealed that in vitro conditions affect ZAR-1 expression as compared to in vivo development [200]. A decrease in ZAR-1 mRNA level begins from the 4-cell stage in vivo, coinciding with EGA, whereas in vitro, the decline occurs at the 2-cell stage. The significant decrease in ZAR-1 expression at the 2-cell stage of IVP embryos suggests premature utilization of this transcript, which may contribute to the reduced developmental competence of in vitro-cultured embryos. The supplementation of culture media with reproductive tract factors, such as EGF or IL-1β, modulates the expression of ZAR1, NPM2, and DPPA3, indicating that specific growth factors can partially restore physiological transcriptional profiles [201]. In addition to affecting maternal transcripts, in vitro-culture conditions alter the expression of nucleolar proteins, such as PAF53 and UBF, as well as cell-cycle regulator pRb. Disturbances in the expression of these genes can delay the EGA [202].
Numerous animal studies using high-fidelity RNA amplification techniques and microarrays analyzed the global transcriptome profile and revealed that an artificial environment modifies the expression of groups of genes and gene networks in the embryo at the transcriptomic level [12,13,14,135,203,204,205,206,207]. The comparison of porcine embryos before and after EGA shows that in vitro culture conditions significantly alter RNA profiles before EGA, suggesting that the artificial environment primarily affects maternal transcript utilization rather than zygotic transcription [12]. Before EGA, the IVP embryos showed an increased expression of EIF related to chromosome instability and genes associated with apoptosis, such as PDCD5, APAF1, and DIABLO. Molecular changes before EGA are presumed to originate primarily from oocytes due to their in vitro maturation conditions [12,14]. These findings underscore the importance of oocyte quality and its molecular content for subsequent embryonic viability. During maternal-to-zygotic transition and EGA, the maternal mRNA degradation differs between the IVP and in vivo produced embryos. This was suggested to be due to incomplete degradation of transcripts of phosphoprotein phosphatases, thus interfering with the cell cycle. The expression of genes related to stabilizing mRNAs, such as ZFP36L1 and ZFP36L2, is also dysregulated in IVP embryos due to the incomplete EGA at the 4-cell stage [14].
The morula stage of porcine IVP embryos showed reduced expression of the genes associated with response to oxidation stress and mitochondrial function [208], which was also observed in IVP bovine morulae [209]. At the blastocyst stage, some transcripts, such as BMP4, KIT, GATA4/6, SMAD4, EZH2, ROCK1, FN1, and BDNF, were among those altered in IVP embryos, potentially affecting their differentiation, lineage specification, and developmental competence [210]. The in vitro culture also resulted in an increase in many transcripts linked to antioxidant defense, such as GSS, GPX4, SOD1, TXN, GSTA, and apoptosis genes TP53INP1, FAS, AIFM1, and BAX, indicating that in vitro embryos experienced elevated oxidative stress and cell death [210].
Recently, the stress due to in vitro culture conditions was found to upregulate the p53 signaling pathway in IVP embryos as compared to their in vivo counterparts. Interestingly, the inhibition of the p53 pathway improved the development to the blastocyst stage with no effect on p53 target genes [207]. The study by Du et al. found that IVP and PA embryos showed a decreased expression of key TFs, such as OCT4, KLF7, SOX2, and SOX15, compared to in vivo-produced embryos [67]. Together, these data indicate that a transcriptional regulatory network composed of genes related to stress response, lineage specification, and key TFs could be fundamental to the in vitro development of porcine early embryos. The dysregulation of these processes can lead to reduced cell numbers and inner cell mass in IVP embryos.
Though IVP blastocysts with high developmental competence were similar to in vivo-produced embryos [211], multiple studies [13,135,166,211] highlighted perturbations in metabolic/stress pathways during the blastocyst stage. For example, the mitochondrial ATP synthase gene, ATP5A1, was more abundant in in vivo blastocysts than in IVP ones, suggesting that in vivo embryos had a higher mitochondrial activity. IVP embryos, on the other hand, showed upregulated amino acid transport and metabolic genes, including the arginine transporter SLC7A1, possibly reflecting compensatory stress or demand in less competent embryos [13,135]. The identification of SLC7A1 as a transcript affected by in vitro culture prompted studies to evaluate arginine supplementation in porcine in vitro culture medium. Arginine supplementation not only promoted EGA but also led to the normalization of some of the transcriptomic differences, improving embryo developmental outcomes [71,166].

7.2. Effect of In Vitro Culture Conditions on Epigenetic Changes

Epigenetic regulation is particularly sensitive to the culture environment during the in vitro maturation of oocytes and in vitro culture of embryos [212,213]. Fertilization is followed by the massive epigenetic remodeling of the parental genomes, except for imprinted genes [214]. In vivo-matured porcine oocytes showed higher monospermy rates and were more competent at remodeling sperm chromatin in the male pronucleus. Global demethylation patterns in male pronuclei were significantly higher in zygotes obtained from in vivo-matured oocytes as compared to in vitro-matured and in vitro-fertilized zygotes [215]. Moreover, histone acetylation was asymmetric between male and female pronuclei, with male pronuclei being hyperacetylated relative to female pronuclei. This asymmetry was disturbed under in vitro conditions [215,216]. The abnormal abundance of histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) was implicated in disturbing acetylation asymmetry in porcine zygotes obtained after in vitro maturation of oocytes [215]. In vitro-produced porcine embryos had higher levels of DNA methylation compared to in vivo-produced embryos [213]. Blastocysts derived from in vitro fertilization exhibited altered DNA methylation, with incomplete or abnormal demethylation/remethylation dynamics and higher overall DNA methylation than in vivo embryos. These changes in methylation were developmental stage-dependent and lineage-specific (trophectoderm vs. inner cell mass) [213,217,218]. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing of single porcine blastocysts showed locus-specific differences among in vivo and IVP embryos, including in regulatory regions of developmentally important genes. Genes involved in reprogramming, imprinting, and development were affected by culture conditions [212,213]. Aberrant methylation patterns in imprinted genes, such as ZAC1, PEG10, and NNAT, were observed under in vitro culture conditions [219]. The differences highlighted that the blastocyst environment (in vivo vs. in vitro) shaped early methylation patterns. The study by Canovas et al. [218] showed that adding reproductive fluids partly restored more physiologic methylation and transcriptomic patterns in IVP embryos. High-resolution Hi-C used to profile 3D chromatin architecture revealed that IVP porcine embryos exhibited an asynchronous establishment of higher-order chromatin structures (A/B compartment switches, TAD formation) as compared to uniparental embryos. The asynchrony correlates with altered transcriptional dynamics and suggests that in vitro fertilization perturbed the timing and the fidelity of 3D genome organization [111]. Though how three-dimensional architecture of chromatin differs between in vivo and IVP embryos is not known.
Studies investigating the effect of culture conditions on miRNA profiles in porcine early embryos are scarce. However, the expression of key miRNAs, such as miR-24, was expressed at significantly higher levels in IVP embryos as compared to their in vivo counterparts [220]. The increased expression of miR-24 in IVP embryos was predicted to target genes regulating inflammatory response, potassium ion transport, and responses to external stimuli, potentially leading to reduced embryo viability. While the exact roles of many miRNAs are still being investigated, the altered miRNA landscape in IVP embryos and other epigenetic changes suggest that epigenetic modifications induced by the in vitro environment negatively affected gene expression and developmental potential in pigs and other species [220,221].

8. Conclusions

These studies reviewed here highlight the importance of oocyte maturation and early embryonic environment to determine the timing and accuracy of epigenetic reprogramming and chromatin remodeling. During EGA, TFs operate within a metabolically sensitive and epigenetically remodeled chromatin landscape, potentially cooperating with other pioneer factors such as DUXA, LEUTX, and broader transcriptional machinery involving RNA polymerase, to effect the onset of the embryonic transcriptional program. Moreover, there are differences in the timing of maternal transcript degradation and the expression of key TFs and epigenetic modulators between in vivo and IVP embryos (IVF, PA, SCNT) that could be responsible for the poor outcomes in in vitro development. In vitro manipulations often introduce asynchronies and aberrations in methylation and 3D genome architecture; however, biomimetic approaches, such as inclusion of components of oviductal fluids and targeted modulation of chromatin regulators, hold promise in reducing in vitro culture-related epigenetic perturbations and improving developmental outcomes.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Płusa, B.; Piliszek, A. Common principles of early mammalian embryo self-organisation. Development 2020, 147, dev183079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, K.; Smith, G.W. Maternal control of early embryogenesis in mammals. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2015, 27, 880–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mitchell, L.E. Maternal effect genes: Update and review of evidence for a link with birth defects. HGG Adv. 2021, 3, 100067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, L.; Zheng, P.; Dean, J. Maternal control of early mouse development. Development 2010, 137, 859–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Latham, K.E. Preimplantation embryo gene expression: 56 years of discovery, and counting. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2023, 90, 169–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schulz, K.N.; Harrison, M.M. Mechanisms regulating zygotic genome activation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 20, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kobayashi, T.; Zhang, H.; Tang, W.W.C.; Irie, N.; Withey, S.; Klisch, D.; Sybirna, A.; Dietmann, S.; Contreras, D.A.; Webb, R.; et al. Principles of early human development and germ cell program from conserved model systems. Nature 2017, 546, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lunney, J.K.; Van Goor, A.; Walker, K.E.; Hailstock, T.; Franklin, J.; Dai, C. Importance of the pig as a human biomedical model. Sci. Transl. Med. 2021, 13, eabd5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dang-Nguyen, T.Q.; Somfai, T.; Haraguchi, S.; Kikuchi, K.; Tajima, A.; Kanai, Y.; Nagai, T. In vitro production of porcine embryos: Current status, future perspectives and alternative applications. Anim. Sci. J. 2011, 82, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hunter, R.H. Oviduct function in pigs, with particular reference to the pathological condition of polyspermy. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 1991, 29, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, C.-R.; Ji, H.-W.; He, S.-Y.; Liu, R.-P.; Wang, X.-Q.; Wang, J.; Huang, C.-M.; Xu, Y.-N.; Li, Y.-H.; Kim, N.-H. Chrysoeriol improves in vitro porcine embryo development by reducing oxidative stress and autophagy. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Østrup, O.; Olbricht, G.; Østrup, E.; Hyttel, P.; Collas, P.; Cabot, R. RNA profiles of porcine embryos during genome activation reveal complex metabolic switch sensitive to in vitro conditions. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Van der Weijden, V.A.; Schmidhauser, M.; Kurome, M.; Knubben, J.; Flöter, V.L.; Wolf, E.; Ulbrich, S.E. Transcriptome dynamics in early in vivo developing and in vitro produced porcine embryos. BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fan, J.; Liu, C.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, Q.; Yin, Z.; Liu, Z.; Mu, Y. Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Reveals Differences in Chromatin Remodeling and Energy Metabolism Among In vivo-Developed, In vitro-Fertilized, and Parthenogenetically Activated Embryos from the Oocyte to 8-Cell Stages in Pigs. Animals 2024, 14, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Li, X.; Zou, C.; Li, M.; Fang, C.; Li, K.; Liu, Z.; Li, C. Transcriptome Analysis of In vitro Fertilization and Parthenogenesis Activation During Early Embryonic Development in Pigs. Genes 2021, 12, 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. He, X.; Tan, C.; Li, Z.; Zhao, C.; Shi, J.; Zhou, R.; Wang, X.; Jiang, G.; Cai, G.; Liu, D.; et al. Characterization and Comparative Analyses of Transcriptomes of Cloned and In vivo Fertilized Porcine Pre-Implantation Embryos. Biol. Open 2019, 8, bio039917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gurdon, J.B. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. Development 1962, 10, 622–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heikinheimo, O.; Gibbons, W.E. The molecular mechanisms of oocyte maturation and early embryonic development are unveiling new insights into reproductive medicine. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 1998, 4, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pisani, L.F.; Ramelli, P.; Lazzari, B.; Braglia, S.; Ceciliani, F.; Mariani, P. Characterization of maternal antigen that embryos require (MATER/NLRP5) gene and protein in pig somatic tissues and germ cells. J. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 56, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  20. Memili, E.; First, N.L. Zygotic and embryonic gene expression in cow: A review of timing and mechanisms of early gene expression as compared with other species. Zygote 2000, 8, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thelie, A.; Papillier, P.; Perreau, C.; Uzbekova, S.; Hennequet-Antier, C.; Dalbies-Tran, R. Regulation of bovine oocyte-specific transcripts during in vitro oocyte maturation and after maternal embryonic transition analyzed using a transcriptome approach. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2009, 76, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, L.W.; Fan, H.Y. Revisiting poly(A)-binding proteins: Multifaceted regulators during gametogenesis and early embryogenesis. Bioessays 2021, 43, e2000335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tadros, W.; Lipshitz, H.D. The maternal-to-zygotic transition: A play in two acts. Development 2009, 136, 3033–3042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Esposito, G.; Vitale, A.M.; Leijten, F.P.; Strik, A.M.; Koonen-Reemst, A.M.; Yurttas, P.; Robben, T.J.; Coonrod, S.; Gossen, J.A. Peptidylarginine deiminase (PAD) 6 is essential for oocyte cytoskeletal sheet formation and female fertility. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2007, 273, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kim, K.H.; Lee, K.A. Maternal effect genes: Findings and effects on mouse embryo development. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 2014, 41, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tong, Z.B.; Gold, L.; Pfeifer, K.E.; Dorward, H.; Lee, E.; Bondy, C.A.; Dean, J.; Nelson, L.M. Mater, a maternal effect gene required for early embryonic development in mice. Nat. Genet. 2000, 26, 267–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhang, D.X.; Li, X.P.; Sun, S.C.; Shen, X.H.; Cui, X.S.; Kim, N.H. Involvement of ER-calreticulin-Ca2⁺ signaling in the regulation of porcine oocyte meiotic maturation and maternal gene expression. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 77, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Uzbekova, S.; Roy-Sabau, M.; Dalbiès-Tran, R.; Perreau, C.; Papillier, P.; Mompart, F.; Thelie, A.; Pennetier, S.; Cognie, J.; Cadoret, V.; et al. Zygote arrest 1 gene in pig, cattle and human: Evidence of different transcript variants in male and female germ cells. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2006, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peng, H.; Liu, F.; Li, W.; Zhang, W. Knockdown of NLRP5 arrests early embryogenesis in sows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2015, 163, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ding, B.; Gao, D.; Wang, X.; Liu, L.; Sun, J.; Liang, M.; Wu, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; et al. Maternal DDB1 regulates apoptosis and lineage differentiation in porcine preimplantation embryos. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2022, 34, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zheng, Z.; Zhao, M.H.; Jia, J.L.; Heo, Y.T.; Cui, X.S.; Oh, J.S.; Kim, N.H. Knockdown of maternal homeobox transcription factor SEBOX gene impaired early embryonic development in porcine parthenotes. J. Reprod. Dev. 2013, 59, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Cao, Z.; Xu, T.; Tong, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Gao, D.; Zhang, L.; Ning, W.; Qi, X.; Ma, Y.; et al. Maternal Yes-associated protein participates in porcine blastocyst development via modulation of trophectoderm epithelium barrier function. Cells 2019, 8, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jimenez, R.; Melo, E.O.; Davydenko, O.; Ma, J.; Mainigi, M.; Fränke, V.; Schultz, R.M. Maternal SIN3A regulates reprogramming of gene expression during mouse preimplantation development. Biol. Reprod. 2015, 93, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Luo, L.; Dang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, K. SIN3A Regulates Porcine Early Embryonic Development by Modulating CCNB1 Expression. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 604232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sha, Q.Q.; Zhu, Y.Z.; Li, S.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, L.; Sun, X.H.; Shen, L.; Ou, X.H.; Fan, H.Y. Characterization of zygotic genome activation-dependent maternal mRNA clearance in mouse. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, 879–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhou, K.; Wang, T.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Guan, J.; Su, P.; Wu, L.; Yang, X.; Hu, R.; et al. LEUTX Regulates Porcine Embryonic Genome Activation in Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Embryos. Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 114372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kinterova, V.; Rosenbaum Bartkova, A.; Afrin, S.; Kanka, J.; Susor, A.; Procházka, R.; Törösváry, T. The timing of maternal protein degradation during mammalian preimplantation development is species-specific. Reproduction 2025, 170, e250007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Dobbs, K.B.; Spollen, W.G.; Springer, G.; Prather, R.S. The role of cytoplasmic polyadenylation element sequence on mRNA abundance during porcine embryogenesis and parthenogenetic development. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 77, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sha, Q.Q.; Zheng, W.; Wu, Y.W. Dynamics and clinical relevance of maternal mRNA clearance during the oocyte-to-embryo transition in humans. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Emura, N.; Saito, Y.; Miura, R.; Sawai, K. Effect of downregulating the Hippo pathway members YAP1 and LATS2 transcripts on early development and gene expression involved in differentiation in porcine embryos. Cell. Reprogramming 2020, 22, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sutovsky, P.; Manandhar, G.; Laurincik, J.; Letko, J.; Caamaño, J.N.; Day, B.N.; Lai, L.; Prather, R.S.; Sharpe-Timms, K.L.; Zimmer, R.; et al. Expression and proteasomal degradation of the major vault protein (MVP) in mammalian oocytes and zygotes. Reproduction 2005, 129, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, Y.N.; Shen, X.H.; Lee, S.E.; Kwon, J.S.; Kim, D.J.; Heo, Y.T.; Cui, X.S.; Kim, N.H. Autophagy influences maternal mRNA degradation and apoptosis in porcine parthenotes developing in vitro. J. Reprod. Dev. 2012, 58, 576–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chi, D.; Zeng, Y.; Xu, M.; Si, L.; Qu, X.; Liu, H.; Li, J. LC3-dependent autophagy in pig 2-cell cloned embryos could influence the degradation of maternal mRNA and the regulation of epigenetic modification. Cell Reprogramming 2017, 19, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wakai, T.; Vanderheyden, V.; Fissore, R.A. Ca2⁺ signaling during mammalian fertilization: Requirements, players, and adaptations. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011, 3, a006767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tatemoto, H.; Muto, N. Mitogen-activated protein kinase regulates normal transition from metaphase to interphase following parthenogenetic activation in porcine oocytes. Zygote 2001, 9, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brantley, S.E.; Di Talia, S. Cell cycle control during early embryogenesis. Development 2021, 148, dev193128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Prather, R.S. Nuclear control of early embryonic development in domestic pigs. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1993, 48, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bonk, A.J.; Anderson, J.E.; Abeydeera, L.R.; Day, B.N.; Prather, R.S. Cyclin B1 levels in the porcine 4-cell stage embryo. Zygote 2002, 10, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Anderson, J.E.; Matteri, R.L.; Abeydeera, L.R.; Day, B.N.; Prather, R.S. Cyclin B1 transcript quantitation over the maternal to zygotic transition in both in vivo- and in vitro-derived 4-cell porcine embryos. Biol. Reprod. 1999, 61, 1460–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  50. Anderson, J.E.; Matteri, R.L.; Abeydeera, L.R.; Day, B.N.; Prather, R.S. Degradation of maternal Cdc25c during the maternal to zygotic transition is dependent upon embryonic transcription. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2001, 60, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Booth, P.J.; Watson, T.J.; Leese, H.J. Prediction of porcine blastocyst formation using morphological, kinetic, and amino acid depletion and appearance criteria determined during the early cleavage of in vitro-produced embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2007, 77, 765–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Isom, C.S.; Li, R.F.; Whitworth, K.M.; Prather, R.S. Timing of first embryonic cleavage is a positive indicator of the in vitro developmental potential of porcine embryos derived from in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, and parthenogenesis. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2012, 79, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Song, X.; Li, T.; Xiong, X.; Shan, H.; Feng, T.; Cui, K.; Shi, D.; Liu, Q.; Li, Z. RNA-Seq reveals the underlying molecular mechanism of first cleavage time affecting porcine embryo development. Genes 2022, 13, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhang, D.X.; Cui, X.S.; Kim, N.H. Molecular characterization and polyadenylation-regulated expression of cyclin B1 and Cdc2 in porcine oocytes and early parthenotes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 77, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Heikinheimo, O.; Lanzendorf, S.; Baka, S.; Gibbons, W.E. Cell cycle genes c-mos and cyclin B1 are expressed in a specific pattern in human oocytes and pre-implantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 1995, 10, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, H.; Kim, N.H. CDK2 is required for the DNA damage response during porcine early embryonic development. Biol. Reprod. 2016, 95, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Latham, K.E.; Schultz, R.M. Embryonic genome activation. Front. Biosci. 2001, 6, D748–D759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Garcia-Canovas, M.; Parrilla, I.; Cuello, C.; Gil, M.A.; Martinez, E.A. Swine in vitro embryo production: Potential, challenges, and advances. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2024, 270, 107600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hyttel, P.; Laurincik, J.; Rosenkranz, C.H.; Rath, D.; Niemann, H.; Ochs, R.L.; Schellander, K. Nucleolar proteins and ultrastructure in preimplantation porcine embryos developed in vivo. Biol. Reprod. 2000, 63, 1848–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maddox-Hyttel, P.; Svarcova, O.; Laurincik, J. Ribosomal RNA and nucleolar proteins from the oocyte are to some degree used for embryonic nucleolar formation in cattle and pig. Theriogenology 2007, 68, S63–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Viuff, D.; Greve, T.; Holm, P.; Callesen, H.; Hyttel, P.; Thomsen, P.D. Activation of the ribosomal RNA genes late in the third cell cycle of porcine embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2002, 66, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Morovic, M.; Østrup, O.; Strejcek, F.; Benc, M.; Murin, M.; Jedlickova, K.; Bartkova, A.; Lucas-Hahn, A.; Pendovski, L.; Laurincik, J. Maternally inherited rRNA triggers de novo nucleolus formation in porcine embryos. Zygote 2018, 26, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bjerregaard, B.; Pedersen, H.G.; Jakobsen, A.S.; Rickords, L.F.; Lai, L.; Cheong, H.T.; Samuel, M.; Prather, R.S.; Strejček, F.; Rasmussen, Z.R.; et al. Activation of ribosomal RNA genes in porcine embryos produced in vitro or by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2007, 74, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fulka, H.; Rychtářová, J.; Loi, P. The nucleolus-like and precursor bodies of mammalian oocytes and embryos and their possible role in post-fertilization centromere remodelling. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2020, 48, 581–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tománek, M.; Kopečný, V.; Kaňka, J. Genome reactivation in developing early pig embryos: An ultrastructural and autoradiographic analysis. Anat. Embryol. 1989, 180, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oqani, R.K.; Zhang, J.Y.; Lee, M.G.; Diao, Y.F.; Jin, D.I. Phosphorylation status of RNA Polymerase II carboxyl-terminal domain in porcine oocytes and early embryos. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 789–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Du, Z.Q.; Liang, H.; Liu, X.M.; Liu, Y.H.; Wang, C.; Yang, C.X. Single cell RNA-seq reveals genes vital to in vitro fertilized embryos and parthenotes in pigs. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Magnani, L.; Johnson, C.M.; Cabot, R.A. Expression of eukaryotic elongation initiation factor 1A differentially marks zygotic genome activation in biparental and parthenogenetic porcine embryos and correlates with in vitro developmental potential. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2008, 20, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Li, X.-H.; Sun, M.-H.; Jiang, W.-J.; Zhou, D.; Lee, S.-H.; Heo, G.; Chen, Z.; Cui, X.-S. ZSCAN4 regulates zygotic genome activation and telomere elongation in porcine parthenogenetic embryos. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 12121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhai, Y.; Yu, H.; An, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, S.; Li, Q.; Li, Z. Profiling the transcriptomic signatures and identifying the patterns of zygotic genome activation—A comparative analysis between early porcine embryos and their counterparts in other three mammalian species. BMC Genom. 2022, 23, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, T.; Zheng, Y.; Kuang, T.; Yang, L.; Jiang, H.; Wang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Han, R.; Che, D. Arginine regulates zygotic genome activation in porcine embryos under nutrition restriction. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 921406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Iaco, A.; Planet, E.; Coluccio, A.; Verp, S.; Duc, J.; Trono, D. DUX-family transcription factors regulate zygotic genome activation in placental mammals. Nat. Genet. 2017, 49, 941–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Vuoristo, S.; Bhagat, S.; Hydén-Granskog, C.; Yoshihara, M.; Gawriyski, L.; Jouhilahti, E.M.; Ranga, V.; Tamirat, M.; Huhtala, M.; Kirjanov, I.; et al. DUX4 is a multifunctional factor priming human embryonic genome activation. iScience 2022, 25, 104137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Shi, Z.; Yan, Y.; Zhu, R.; Zhu, X.; Hu, K.; Yue, Y.; Xu, W.; Xuan, M.; Gan, X.; Yang, Z.; et al. DUXA regulates the early development of porcine cloned embryos. Theriogenology 2025, 247, 117563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Oqani, R.K.; Lin, T.; Lee, J.E.; Choi, K.M.; Shin, H.Y.; Jin, D.I. P-TEFb kinase activity is essential for global transcription, resumption of meiosis, and embryonic genome activation in pig. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shi, L.; Zhai, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Kong, X.; Zhang, D.; Yu, H.; Li, Z. ELF4 is critical to zygotic gene activation and epigenetic reprogramming during early embryonic development in pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 954601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Li, X.H.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, J.D.; Lee, G.H.; Sim, J.M.; Cui, X.S. TBX3 is essential for zygotic genome activation and embryonic development in pigs. Microsc. Microanal. 2025, 31, ozae123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sun, M.H.; Zhan, C.L.; Li, X.H.; Lee, S.H.; Cui, X.S. Transcriptome analysis of the effects of high temperature on zygotic genome activation in porcine embryos. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 21849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, W.; Niu, Y.J.; Nie, Z.W.; Kim, J.Y.; Xu, Y.N.; Yan, C.G.; Cui, X.S. Nuclear accumulation of pyruvate dehydrogenase alpha 1 promotes histone acetylation and is essential for zygotic genome activation in porcine embryos. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 2020, 1867, 118648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, X.H.; Lee, S.H.; Lu, Q.Y.; Zhan, C.L.; Lee, G.H.; Kim, J.D.; Sim, J.M.; Song, H.J.; Cui, X.S. MAT2A is essential for zygotic genome activation by maintaining histone methylation in porcine embryos. Theriogenology 2024, 230, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xiang, J.; Xing, Y.; Long, C.; Hou, D.; Liu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Wang, J.; Zuo, Y.; Li, X. Fatty acid metabolism as an indicator for the maternal-to-zygotic transition in porcine IVF embryos revealed by RNA sequencing. Theriogenology 2020, 151, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhou, W.; Nie, Z.W.; Zhou, D.J.; Cui, X.S. Acetyl-CoA synthases are essential for maintaining histone acetylation under metabolic stress during zygotic genome activation in pigs. J. Cell Physiol. 2021, 236, 6948–6962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Eckersley-Maslin, M.A.; Alda-Catalinas, C.; Reik, W. Dynamics of the epigenetic landscape during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 436–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lindeman, L.C.; Andersen, I.S.; Reiner, A.H.; Li, N.; Aanes, H.; Østrup, O.; Winata, C.; Mathavan, S.; Müller, F.; Aleström, P.; et al. Prepatterning of developmental gene expression by modified histones before zygotic genome activation. Dev. Cell 2011, 21, 993–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Park, K.E.; Magnani, L.; Cabot, R.A. Differential remodeling of mono- and trimethylated H3K27 during porcine embryo development. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2009, 76, 1033–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bogliotti, Y.S.; Ross, P.J. Mechanisms of histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation remodeling during early mammalian development. Epigenetics 2012, 7, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Marinho, L.S.R.; Rissi, V.B.; Lindquist, A.G.; Seneda, M.M.; Bordignon, V. Acetylation and methylation profiles of H3K27 in porcine embryos cultured in vitro. Zygote 2017, 25, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gao, Y.; Hyttel, P.; Hall, V.J. Regulation of H3K27me3 and H3K4me3 during early porcine embryonic development. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 77, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Liu, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, W.; Li, J.; Li, C.; Kou, X.; Chen, J.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, H.; Wang, H.; et al. Distinct features of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 chromatin domains in pre-implantation embryos. Nature 2016, 537, 558–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cai, Q.; Niu, H.; Zhang, B.; Shi, X.; Liao, M.; Chen, Z.; Mo, D.; He, Z.; Chen, Y.; Cong, P. Effect of EZH2 knockdown on preimplantation development of porcine parthenogenetic embryos. Theriogenology 2019, 132, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Glanzner, W.G.; Wachter, A.; Coutinho, A.R.; Albornoz, M.S.; Duggavathi, R.; Gonçalves, P.B.; Bordignon, V. Altered expression of BRG1 and histone demethylases, and aberrant H3K4 methylation in less developmentally competent embryos at the time of embryonic genome activation. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2017, 84, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Glanzner, W.G.; Gutierrez, K.; Rissi, V.B.; de Macedo, M.P.; Lopez, R.; Currin, L.; Dicks, N.; Baldassarre, H.; Agellon, L.B.; Bordignon, V. Histone lysine demethylases KDM5B and KDM5C modulate genome activation and stability in porcine embryos. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Huang, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Dobbs, K.B.; Yao, J.; Qin, G.; Whitworth, K.; Walters, E.M.; Prather, R.S.; Zhao, J. Impairment of preimplantation porcine embryo development by histone demethylase KDM5B knockdown through disturbance of bivalent H3K4me3/H3K27me3 modifications. Biol. Reprod. 2015, 92, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhang, D.; Wu, D.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, Y.; An, X.; Li, Q.; Li, Z. Transcription factor AP-2 gamma affects porcine early embryo development by regulating epigenetic modification. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2024, 49, 103772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bu, G.; Zhu, W.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Yu, L.; Zhou, K.; Wang, S.; Li, Z.; Fan, Z.; Wang, T.; et al. Coordination of zygotic genome activation entry and exit by H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 in porcine early embryos. Genome Res. 2022, 32, 1487–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Dahl, J.A.; Jung, I.; Aanes, H.; Greggains, G.D.; Manaf, A.; Lerdrup, M.; Li, G.; Kuan, S.; Li, B.; Lee, A.Y.; et al. Broad histone H3K4me3 domains in mouse oocytes modulate maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nature 2016, 537, 548–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Xia, W.; Xu, J.; Yu, G.; Yao, G.; Xu, K.; Ma, X.; Zhang, N.; Liu, B.; Li, T.; Lin, Z.; et al. Resetting histone modifications during human parental-to-zygotic transition. Science 2019, 365, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Skuland, T.; Fosslie, M.; Khodeer, S.; Alemu, E.A.; Johansen, J.V.; Indahl, M.; Castroviejo, B.C.; Li, Y.; Lerdrup, M.; Dahl, J.A.; et al. Broad H3K4me3 domains support oocyte genome silencing and maturation but are dispensable for repression in early embryos. Development 2025, 152, dev204638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dang, Y.; Luo, L.; Shi, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, S.; Zhang, K. KDM5-mediated redistribution of H3K4me3 is required for oocyte-to-embryonic transition in cattle. Biol. Reprod. 2022, 106, 1059–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Zhao, M.H.; Liang, S.; Kim, N.H.; Cui, X.S. MLL2 is essential for porcine embryo development in vitro. In vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 2016, 52, 699–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Zheng, H.; Xie, W. The role of 3D genome organization in development and cell differentiation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bultman, S.J.; Gebuhr, T.C.; Pan, H.; Svoboda, P.; Schultz, R.M.; Magnuson, T. Maternal BRG1 regulates zygotic genome activation in the mouse. Genes Dev. 2006, 20, 1744–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Tseng, Y.C.; Cabot, B.; Cabot, R.A. ARID1A, a component of SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complexes, is required for porcine embryo development. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2017, 84, 1250–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Chen, Z.; Chen, X. A tremendous reorganization journey for the 3D chromatin structure from gametes to embryos. Genes 2022, 13, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Razin, S.V.; Ulianov, S.V. Gene functioning and storage within a folded genome. Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 2017, 22, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Flyamer, I.M.; Gassler, J.; Imakaev, M.; Brandão, H.B.; Ulianov, S.V.; Abdennur, N.; Razin, S.V.; Mirny, L.A.; Tachibana-Konwalski, K. Single-nucleus Hi-C reveals unique chromatin reorganization at oocyte-to-zygote transition. Nature 2017, 544, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chen, X.; Ke, Y.; Wu, K.; Zhao, H.; Sun, Y.; Gao, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tao, W.; Hou, Z.; et al. Key role for CTCF in establishing chromatin structure in human embryos. Nature 2019, 576, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ing-Simmons, E.; Rigau, M.; Vaquerizas, J.M. Emerging mechanisms and dynamics of three-dimensional genome organisation at zygotic genome activation. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2022, 74, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ke, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, X.; Feng, S.; Liu, Z.; Sun, Y.; Yao, X.; Li, F.; Zhu, W.; Gao, L.; et al. 3D Chromatin Structures of Mature Gametes and Structural Reprogramming during Mammalian Embryogenesis. Cell 2017, 170, 367–381.e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Silva, I.T.G.; Fernandes, V.; Souza, C.; Treptow, W.; Santos, G.M. Biophysical studies of cholesterol effects on chromatin. J. Lipid Res. 2017, 58, 934–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Li, F.; Wang, D.; Song, R.; Cao, C.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Huang, J.; Liu, Q.; Hou, N.; et al. The asynchronous establishment of chromatin 3D architecture between in vitro fertilized and uniparental preimplantation pig embryos. Genome Biol. 2020, 21, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, J.; Li, X.; Wang, L.; Li, J.; Zhao, Y.; Bou, G.; Li, Y.; Jiao, G.; Shen, X.; Wei, R.; et al. A novel long intergenic noncoding RNA indispensable for the cleavage of mouse two-cell embryos. EMBO Rep. 2016, 17, 1452–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhang, D.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, R.; Zhai, Y.; Wu, D.; An, X.; Zhang, S.; Shi, L.; Li, Q.; Kong, X.; et al. LncRNA affects epigenetic reprogramming of porcine embryo development by regulating global epigenetic modification and the downstream gene SIN3A. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 971965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wei, R.; Yue, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Jin, J.X.; Liu, Z.; Wang, J. A long noncoding RNA with enhancer-like function in pig zygotic genome activation. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 2025, 17, mjae061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Brinster, R.L. A method for in vitro cultivation of mouse ova from two-cell to blastocyst. Exp. Cell Res. 1963, 32, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Leese, H.J. Metabolism of the preimplantation embryo: 40 years on. Reproduction 2012, 143, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chen, P.R.; Redel, B.K.; Kerns, K.C.; Spate, L.D.; Prather, R.S. Challenges and considerations during in vitro production of porcine embryos. Cells 2021, 10, 2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhao, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Sturmey, R.; Zhang, J. Dynamic metabolism during early mammalian embryogenesis. Development 2023, 150, dev202148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Leese, H.J.; Baumann, C.G.; Brison, D.R.; McEvoy, T.G.; Sturmey, R.G. Metabolism of the viable mammalian embryo: Quietness revisited. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2008, 14, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gardner, D.K.; Wale, P.L.; Collins, R.; Lane, M. Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 1981–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Leese, H.J.; Brison, D.R.; Sturmey, R.G. The Quiet Embryo Hypothesis: 20 years on. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 899485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Milazzotto, M.P.; Noonan, M.J.; de Almeida Monteiro Melo Ferraz, M. Mining RNAseq data reveals dynamic metaboloepigenetic profiles in human, mouse and bovine pre-implantation embryos. iScience 2022, 25, 103904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sharpley, M.S.; Chi, F.; Hoeve, J.T.; Banerjee, U. Metabolic plasticity drives development during mammalian embryogenesis. Dev. Cell 2021, 56, 2329–2347.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Aoki, F.; Worrad, D.M.; Schultz, R.M. Regulation of transcriptional activity during the first and second cell cycles in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 1997, 181, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Takahashi, Y.; First, N.L. In vitro development of bovine one-cell embryos: Influence of glucose, lactate, pyruvate, amino acids, and vitamins. Theriogenology 1992, 37, 963–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Swain, J.E.; Bormann, C.L.; Clark, S.G.; Walters, E.M.; Wheeler, M.B.; Krisher, R.L. Use of energy substrates by various stage preimplantation pig embryos produced in vivo and in vitro. Reproduction 2002, 123, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Flood, M.R.; Wiebold, J.L. Glucose metabolism by preimplantation pig embryos. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1988, 84, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Petters, R.M.; Johnson, B.H.; Reed, M.L.; Archibong, A.E. Glucose, glutamine and inorganic phosphate in early development of the pig embryo in vitro. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1990, 89, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hagen, D.R.; Prather, R.S.; Sims, M.M.; First, N.L. Development of one-cell embryos to the blastocyst stage in simple media. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 1147–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Sturmey, R.; Leese, H. Role of glucose and fatty acid metabolism in porcine early embryo development. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2008, 20, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mito, T.; Yoshioka, K.; Yamashita, S.; Suzuki, C.; Noguchi, M.; Hoshi, H. Glucose and glycine synergistically enhance the in vitro development of porcine blastocysts in a chemically defined medium. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2012, 24, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Medvedev, S.; Onishi, A.; Fuchimoto, D.I.; Iwamoto, M.; Nagai, T. Advanced in vitro production of pig blastocysts obtained through determining the time for glucose supplementation. J. Reprod. Dev. 2004, 50, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  133. Kikuchi, K.; Onishi, A.; Kashiwazaki, N.; Iwamoto, M.; Noguchi, J.; Kaneko, H.; Akita, T.; Nagai, T. Successful piglet production after transfer of blastocysts produced by a modified in vitro system. Biol. Reprod. 2002, 66, 1033–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Karja, N.W.; Medvedev, S.; Onishi, A.; Fuchimoto, D.; Iwamoto, M.; Otoi, T.; Nagai, T. Effect of replacement of pyruvate/lactate in culture medium with glucose on preimplantation development of porcine embryos in vitro. J. Reprod. Dev. 2004, 50, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bauer, B.K.; Isom, S.C.; Spate, L.D.; Whitworth, K.M.; Spollen, W.G.; Blake, S.M.; Springer, G.K.; Murphy, C.N.; Prather, R.S. Transcriptional profiling by deep sequencing identifies differences in mRNA transcript abundance in in vivo-derived versus in vitro-cultured porcine blastocyst stage embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2010, 83, 791–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Sturmey, R.G.; Leese, H.J. Energy metabolism in pig oocytes and early embryos. Reproduction 2003, 126, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Dubeibe Marin, D.F.; da Costa, N.N.; di Paula Bessa Santana, P.; de Souza, E.B.; Ohashi, O.M. Importance of lipid metabolism on oocyte maturation and early embryo development: Can we apply what we know to buffalo? Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2019, 211, 106220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Romek, M.; Gajda, B.; Krzysztofowicz, E.; Smorag, Z. Changes of lipid composition in non-cultured and cultured porcine embryos. Theriogenology 2010, 74, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sudano, M.J.; Rascado, T.D.S.; Tata, A.; Belaz, K.R.A.; Santos, V.G.; Valente, R.S.; Mesquita, F.S.; Ferreira, C.R.; Araújo, J.P.; Eberlin, M.N. Lipidome signatures in early bovine embryo development. Theriogenology 2016, 86, 472–484.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Sturmey, R.G.; Reis, A.; Leese, H.J.; McEvoy, T.G. Role of fatty acids in energy provision during oocyte maturation and early embryo development. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2009, 44, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zhang, L.; Zhao, J.; Lam, S.M.; Chen, L.; Gao, Y.; Wang, W.; Xu, Y.; Tan, T.; Yu, H.; Zhang, M.; et al. Low-input lipidomics reveals lipid metabolism remodelling during early mammalian embryo development. Nat. Cell Biol. 2024, 26, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Lee, D.K.; Choi, K.H.; Hwang, J.Y.; Oh, J.N.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, C.K. Stearoyl-coenzyme A desaturase 1 is required for lipid droplet formation in pig embryo. Reproduction 2019, 157, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jungheim, E.S.; Louden, E.D.; Chi, M.M.-Y.; Frolova, A.I.; Riley, J.K.; Moley, K.H. Preimplantation exposure of mouse embryos to palmitic acid results in fetal growth restriction followed by catch-up growth in the offspring. Biol. Reprod. 2011, 85, 678–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Shibahara, H.; Ishiguro, A.; Inoue, Y.; Koumei, S.; Kuwayama, T.; Iwata, H. Mechanism of palmitic acid-induced deterioration of in vitro development of porcine oocytes and granulosa cells. Theriogenology 2020, 141, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Pawlak, P.; Malyszka, N.; Szczerbal, I.; Kolodziejski, P. Fatty acid induced lipolysis influences embryo development, gene expression and lipid droplet formation in the porcine cumulus cells. Biol. Reprod. 2020, 103, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hoyos-Marulanda, V.; Alves, B.; Rosa, P.; Vieira, A.; Gasperin, B.; Mondadori, R.; Lucia, T. Effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids on the development of pig oocytes in vitro following parthenogenetic activation and on the lipid content of oocytes and embryos. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2019, 205, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Zhang, C.; Zheng, M.; Bai, R.; Chen, J.; Yang, H.; Luo, G. Molecular mechanisms of lipid droplets-mitochondria coupling in obesity and metabolic syndrome: Insights and pharmacological implications. Front. Physiol. 2024, 15, 1491815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Belay, B.; Esteban-Cruciani, N.; Walsh, C.A.; Kaskel, F.J. The use of levo-carnitine in children with renal disease: A review and a call for future studies. Pediatr. Nephrol. 2006, 21, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Lowe, J.L.; Bartolac, L.K.; Bathgate, R.; Grupen, C.G. Supplementation of culture medium with L-carnitine improves the development and cryotolerance of in vitro-produced porcine embryos. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2017, 29, 2357–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cao, S.; Han, J.; Wu, J.; Li, Q.; Liu, S.; Zhang, W.; Pei, Y.; Ruan, X.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X.; et al. Specific gene-regulation networks during the pre-implantation development of the pig embryo as revealed by deep sequencing. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Prather, R.S.; Peters, M.S.; Van Winkle, L.J. Alanine and leucine transport in unfertilized pig oocytes and early blastocysts. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 1993, 34, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Prather, R.S.; Peters, M.S.; Van Winkle, L.J. Aspartate and glutamate transport in unfertilized pig oocytes and blastocysts. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 1993, 36, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Van Winkle, L.J.; Tesch, J.K.; Shah, A.; Campione, A.L. System B0,+ amino acid transport regulates the penetration stage of blastocyst implantation with possible long-term developmental consequences through adulthood. Hum. Reprod. Update 2006, 12, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Gonzalez, I.M.; Martin, P.M.; Burdsal, C.; Sloan, J.L.; Mager, S.; Harris, T.; Sutherland, A.E. Leucine and arginine regulate trophoblast motility through mTOR-dependent and independent pathways in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 2012, 361, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Meier, C.; Ristic, Z.; Klauser, S.; Verrey, F. Activation of system L heterodimeric amino acid exchangers by intracellular substrates. EMBO J. 2002, 21, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Aguilar, J.; Reyley, M. The uterine tubal fluid: Secretion, composition and biological effects. Anim. Reprod. 2018, 2, 91–105. [Google Scholar]
  157. Leese, H.J.; McKeegan, P.J.; Sturmey, R.G. Amino acids and the early mammalian embryo: Origin, fate, function and life-long legacy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Sturmey, R.G.; Brison, D.R.; Leese, H.J. Assessing embryo viability by measurement of amino acid turnover. Reprod. BioMed. Online 2008, 17, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Guérin, P.; Guillaud, J.; Ménézo, Y. Andrology: Hypotaurine in spermatozoa and genital secretions and its production by oviduct epithelial cells in vitro. Hum. Reprod. 1995, 10, 866–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Li, R.; Whitworth, K.; Liangxue, L.; Wax, D.; Spate, L.D.; Murphy, C.; Rieke, A.; Isom, C.; Hao, Y.; Zhong, Z.; et al. Concentration and composition of free amino acids and osmolalities of porcine oviductal and uterine fluid and their effects on development of porcine IVF embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2007, 74, 1228–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Booth, P.J.; Humpherson, P.G.; Watson, T.J.; Leese, H.J. Amino acid depletion and appearance during porcine preimplantation embryo development in vitro. Reproduction 2005, 130, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Iritani, A.; Sato, E.; Nishikawa, Y. Secretion rates and chemical composition of oviduct and uterine fluids in sows. J. Anim. Sci. 1974, 39, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Xia, P.; Rutledge, J. Expression of glycine cleavage system and effect of glycine on in vitro maturation, fertilization, and early embryonic development in pigs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 1995, 38, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Li, S.; Guo, Q.; Wang, Y.-M.; Li, Z.-Y.; Kang, J.-D.; Yin, X.-J.; Zheng, X. Glycine treatment enhances developmental potential of porcine oocytes and early embryos by inhibiting apoptosis. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 2427–2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Gao, L.; Zhang, C.; Zheng, Y.; Wu, D.; Chen, X.; Lan, H.; Zheng, X.; Wu, H.; Li, S. Glycine regulates lipid peroxidation promoting porcine oocyte maturation and early embryonic development. J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 101, skac425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Redel, B.K.; Tessammen, K.J.; Spate, L.D.; Murphy, C.N.; Prather, R.S. Arginine increases development of in vitro-produced porcine embryos and affects the protein arginine methyltransferase–dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase–nitric oxide axis. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2015, 27, 655–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Arrell, V.L.; Day, B.N.; Prather, R.S. The transition from maternal to embryonic control of development occurs during the 4-cell stage in the domestic pig, Sus scrofa: Quantitative and qualitative aspects of protein synthesis. Biol. Reprod. 1991, 44, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Humpherson, P.G.; Leese, H.J.; Sturmey, R.G. Amino acid metabolism of the porcine blastocyst. Theriogenology 2005, 64, 1852–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Chen, P.R.; Redel, B.K.; Spate, L.D.; Ji, T.; Salazar, S.R.; Prather, R.S. Glutamine supplementation enhances development of in vitro-produced porcine embryos and increases leucine consumption from the medium. Biol. Reprod. 2018, 99, 938–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Suzuki, C.; Yoshioka, K.; Sakatani, M.; Takahashi, M. Glutamine and hypotaurine improve intracellular oxidative status and in vitro development of porcine preimplantation embryos. Zygote 2007, 15, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Miao, S.-B.; Feng, Y.-R.; Wang, X.-D.; Lian, K.-Q.; Meng, F.-Y.; Song, G.; Yuan, J.-C.; Geng, C.-P.; Wu, X.-H. Glutamine as a potential noninvasive biomarker for human embryo selection. Reprod. Sci. 2022, 29, 1721–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Chen, P.R.; Lucas, C.G.; Spate, L.D.; Prather, R.S. Glutaminolysis is involved in the activation of mTORC1 in in vitro-produced gaporcine embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2021, 88, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Wang, X.; Huang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Xue, B.; Meng, Y.; Bao, J.; Ning, R.; Li, S.; Chen, F.; et al. Optimal amino acid system for early embryo development in sows based on response surface methodology and high-throughput screening cell models. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 16, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Hakem, R. DNA-damage repair; the good, the bad, and the ugly. EMBO J. 2008, 27, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Musson, R.; Gąsior, Ł.; Bisogno, S.; Ptak, G.E. DNA damage in preimplantation embryos and gametes: Specification, clinical relevance and repair strategies. Hum. Reprod. Update 2022, 28, 376–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Jackson, S.P. Sensing and repairing DNA double-strand breaks. Carcinogenesis 2002, 23, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Blackford, A.N.; Jackson, S.P. ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK: The Trinity at the Heart of the DNA Damage Response. Mol. Cell 2017, 66, 801–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Bohrer, R.C.; Che, L.; Gonçalves, P.B.; Duggavathi, R.; Bordignon, V. Phosphorylated histone H2A.x in porcine embryos produced by IVF and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reproduction 2013, 146, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Paull, T.T.; Rogakou, E.P.; Yamazaki, V.; Kirchgessner, C.U.; Gellert, M.; Bonner, W.M. A critical role for histone H2AX in recruitment of repair factors to nuclear foci after DNA damage. Curr. Biol. 2000, 10, 886–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Fernandez-Capetillo, O.; Chen, H.T.; Celeste, A.; Ward, I.; Romanienko, P.J.; Morales, J.C.; Naka, K.; Xia, Z.; Camerini-Otero, R.D.; Motoyama, N.; et al. DNA damage-induced G2-M checkpoint activation by histone H2AX and 53BP1. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002, 4, 993–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Satyanarayana, A.; Kaldis, P. A dual role of Cdk2 in DNA damage response. Cell Div. 2009, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Bohrer, R.C.; Coutinho, A.R.; Duggavathi, R.; Bordignon, V. The incidence of DNA double-strand breaks is higher in late-cleaving and less developmentally competent porcine embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2015, 93, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Baran, V.; Čikoš, Š.; Fabian, D. The consequences of DNA damage in the early embryo are important for practical procedures in assisted reproduction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 10031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Bohrer, R.C.; Dicks, N.; Gutierrez, K.; Duggavathi, R.; Bordignon, V. Double-strand DNA breaks are mainly repaired by the homologous recombination pathway in early developing swine embryos. FASEB J. 2018, 32, 1818–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wu, Y.; Li, M.; Yang, M. Post-Translational Modifications in Oocyte Maturation and Embryo Development. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 645318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Huo, L.J.; Fan, H.Y.; Zhong, Z.S.; Chen, D.Y.; Schatten, H.; Sun, Q.Y. Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway modulates mouse oocyte meiotic maturation and fertilization via regulation of MAPK cascade and cyclin B1 degradation. Mech. Dev. 2004, 121, 1275–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Tsukamoto, S.; Kuma, A.; Murakami, M.; Kishi, C.; Yamamoto, A.; Mizushima, N. Autophagy is essential for preimplantation development of mouse embryos. Science 2008, 321, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Lee, H.R.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, M.G.; Lee, J.S.; Hwang, J.H.; Lee, H.T. The regulation of autophagy in porcine blastocysts: Regulation of PARylation-mediated autophagy via mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2016, 473, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Lee, H.R.; Gupta, M.K.; Kim, D.H.; Hwang, J.H.; Kwon, B.; Lee, H.T. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation is involved in pro-survival autophagy in porcine blastocysts. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2016, 83, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. da Silva, Z.; Glanzner, W.G.; Currin, L.; de Macedo, M.P.; Gutierrez, K.; Guay, V.; Gonçalves, P.B.D.; Bordignon, V. DNA damage induction alters the expression of ubiquitin and SUMO regulators in preimplantation stage pig embryos. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. da Silva, Z.; Glanzner, W.G.; Gutierrez, K.; de Macedo, M.P.; Guay, V.; Currin, L.; Carrillo, M.E.H.; Gonçalves, P.B.D.; Bordignon, V. DCAF13 and RNF114 participate in the regulation of early porcine embryo development. Reproduction 2023, 166, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Chen, P.R.; Uh, K.; Redel, B.K.; Reese, E.D.; Prather, R.S.; Lee, K. Production of pigs from porcine embryos generated in vitro. Front. Anim. Sci. 2022, 3, 826324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Lane, M.; Gardner, D.K. Understanding cellular disruptions during early embryo development that perturb viability and fetal development. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2005, 17, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Wale, P.L.; Gardner, D.K. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum. Reprod. Update 2016, 22, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Lucas, C.G.; Chen, P.R.; Seixas, F.K.; Prather, R.S.; Collares, T. Applications of omics and nanotechnology to improve pig embryo production in vitro. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2019, 86, 1531–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Cooke, S.; Quinn, P.; Kime, L.; Ayres, C.; Tyler, J.P.; Driscoll, G.L. Improvement in early human embryo development using new formulation sequential stage-specific culture media. Fertil. Steril. 2002, 78, 1254–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Simopoulou, M.; Sfakianoudis, K.; Rapani, A.; Giannelou, P.; Anifandis, G.; Bolaris, S.; Pantou, A.; Lambropoulou, M.; Pappas, A.; Deligeoroglou, E.; et al. Considerations regarding embryo culture conditions: From media to epigenetics. In Vivo 2018, 32, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Yang, G.; Xin, Q.; Dean, J. Degradation and translation of maternal mRNA for embryogenesis. Trends Genet. 2024, 40, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Lee, K.; Cho, K.; Morey, R.; Cook-Andersen, H. An extended wave of global mRNA deadenylation sets up a switch in translation regulation across the mammalian oocyte-to-embryo transition. Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 113710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Wasielak, M.; Więsak, T.; Bogacka, I.; Jalali, B.M.; Bogacki, M. Zygote arrest 1, nucleoplasmin 2, and developmentally associated protein 3 mRNA profiles throughout porcine embryo development in vitro. Theriogenology 2016, 86, 2254–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Wasielak, M.; Więsak, T.; Bogacka, I.; Jalali, B.M.; Bogacki, M. Maternal effect gene expression in porcine metaphase II oocytes and embryos in vitro: Effect of epidermal growth factor, interleukin-1β and leukemia inhibitory factor. Zygote 2017, 25, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Laurincik, J.; Bjerregaard, B.; Strejcek, F.; Rath, D.; Niemann, H.; Rosenkranz, C.; Ochs, R.L.; Maddox-Hyttel, P. Nucleolar ultrastructure and protein allocation in in vitro produced porcine embryos. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2004, 68, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Salilew-Wondim, D.; Tesfaye, D.; Hoelker, M.; Schellander, K. Embryo transcriptome response to environmental factors: Implications for its survival under suboptimal conditions. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2014, 149, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Saadeldin, I.M.; Kim, B.; Lee, B.; Jang, G. Effect of different culture media on the temporal gene expression in bovine developing embryos. Theriogenology 2011, 75, 995–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Schwarzer, C.; Esteves, T.C.; Arauzo-Bravo, M.J.; Le Gac, S.; Nordhoff, V.; Schlatt, S.; Boiani, M. ART culture conditions change the probability of mouse embryo gestation through defined cellular and molecular responses. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 2627–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Kleijkers, S.H.; Eijssen, L.M.; Coonen, E.; Derhaag, J.G.; Mantikou, E.; Jonker, M.J.; Mastenbroek, S.; Repping, S.; Evers, J.L.; Dumoulin, J.C.; et al. Differences in gene expression profiles between human preimplantation embryos cultured in two different IVF culture media. Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 2303–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Noland, R.S.; Redel, B.K.; LaMartina, M.G.; Prather, R.S.; Chen, P.R. Transcriptional profiling reveals upregulation of p53 signaling in porcine embryos produced in vitro. Biol. Reprod. 2025, 113, 777–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Wang, L.; She, L.; Qiu, P.; Lv, M.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, Y.; Han, Q.; Shi, D.; Luo, C. Vitamin C enhances the in vitro development of early porcine embryos by improving mitochondrial function. Anim. Biotechnol. 2024, 35, 2404043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Noguchi, T.; Aizawa, T.; Munakata, Y.; Iwata, H. Comparison of gene expression and mitochondria number between bovine blastocysts obtained in vitro and in vivo. J. Reprod. Dev. 2020, 66, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Cambra, J.M.; Martinez, E.A.; Rodriguez-Martinez, H.; Gil, M.A.; Cuello, C. Transcriptional profiling of porcine blastocysts produced in vitro in a chemically defined culture medium. Animals 2021, 11, 1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Whitworth, K.M.; Agca, C.; Kim, J.G.; Patel, R.V.; Springer, G.K.; Bivens, N.J.; Forrester, L.J.; Mathialagan, N.; Green, J.A.; Prather, R.S. Transcriptional profiling of pig embryogenesis by using a 15-k member unigene set specific for pig reproductive tissues and embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2005, 72, 1437–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  212. Shi, W.; Haaf, T. Aberrant methylation patterns at the two-cell stage as an indicator of early developmental failure. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2002, 63, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Deshmukh, R.S.; Østrup, O.; Østrup, E.; Vejlsted, M.; Niemann, H.; Lucas-Hahn, A.; Petersen, B.; Li, J.; Callesen, H.; Hyttel, P. DNA methylation in porcine preimplantation embryos developed in vivo and produced by in vitro fertilization, parthenogenetic activation, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Epigenetics 2011, 6, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Anvar, Z.; Chakchouk, I.; Demond, H.; Sharif, M.; Kelsey, G.; Van den Veyver, I.B. DNA methylation dynamics in the female germline and maternal-effect mutations that disrupt genomic imprinting. Genes 2021, 12, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Gioia, L.; Barboni, B.; Turriani, M.; Capacchietti, G.; Pistilli, M.G.; Berardinelli, P.; Mattioli, M. The capability of reprogramming the male chromatin after fertilization is dependent on the quality of oocyte maturation. Reproduction 2005, 130, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Rollo, C.; Li, Y.; Jin, X.L.; O’Neill, C. Histone 3 lysine 9 acetylation is a biomarker of the effects of culture on zygotes. Reproduction 2017, 154, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Bonk, A.J.; Li, R.; Lai, L.; Hao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Samuel, M.; Fergason, E.A.; Whitworth, K.M.; Murphy, C.N.; Antoniou, E.; et al. Aberrant DNA methylation in porcine in vitro-, parthenogenetic-, and somatic cell nuclear transfer-produced blastocysts. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2008, 75, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Canovas, S.; Ivanova, E.; Romar, R.; García-Martínez, S.; Soriano-Úbeda, C.; García-Vázquez, F.A.; Saadeh, H.; Andrews, S.; Kelsey, G.; Coy, P. DNA methylation and gene expression changes derived from assisted reproductive technologies can be decreased by reproductive fluids. Elife 2017, 6, e23670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Park, C.-H.; Uh, K.-J.; Mulligan, B.P.; Jeung, E.-B.; Hyun, S.-H.; Shin, T.; Ka, H.; Lee, C.-K. Analysis of imprinted gene expression in normal fertilized and uniparental preimplantation porcine embryos. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Stowe, H.M.; Curry, E.; Calcatera, S.M.; Krisher, R.L.; Paczkowski, M.; Pratt, S.L. Cloning and expression of porcine Dicer and the impact of developmental stage and culture conditions on microRNA expression in porcine embryos. Gene 2012, 501, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Liang, J.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Z. Role of microRNAs in embryo implantation. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2017, 15, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Major players associated with porcine embryonic genome activation at the 4-cell stage.
Figure 1. Major players associated with porcine embryonic genome activation at the 4-cell stage.
Cells 15 00015 g001
Figure 2. Metabolic control of early porcine development. MZT—maternal-to-zygotic transition.
Figure 2. Metabolic control of early porcine development. MZT—maternal-to-zygotic transition.
Cells 15 00015 g002
Figure 3. In vitro culture conditions induce dysregulations at various stages of development.
Figure 3. In vitro culture conditions induce dysregulations at various stages of development.
Cells 15 00015 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moza Jalali, B.; Wasielak-Politowska, M. From Zygote to Blastocyst—Molecular Aspects of Porcine Early Embryonic Development. Cells 2026, 15, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells15010015

AMA Style

Moza Jalali B, Wasielak-Politowska M. From Zygote to Blastocyst—Molecular Aspects of Porcine Early Embryonic Development. Cells. 2026; 15(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells15010015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moza Jalali, Beenu, and Marta Wasielak-Politowska. 2026. "From Zygote to Blastocyst—Molecular Aspects of Porcine Early Embryonic Development" Cells 15, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells15010015

APA Style

Moza Jalali, B., & Wasielak-Politowska, M. (2026). From Zygote to Blastocyst—Molecular Aspects of Porcine Early Embryonic Development. Cells, 15(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells15010015

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop