Next Article in Journal
Current and Emerging Advanced Techniques for Breeding Donkeys and Mules
Previous Article in Journal
Runs of Homozygosity Preliminary Investigation in Pig Breeds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Endangered Przewalski’s Horse, Equus przewalskii, Cloned from Historically Cryopreserved Cells
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning

1
Revive & Restore, 1505 Bridgeway #203, Sausalito, CA 94965, USA
2
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
3
Beckman Center for Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, CA 92027, USA
4
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(7), 989; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15070989
Submission received: 31 January 2025 / Revised: 21 March 2025 / Accepted: 24 March 2025 / Published: 29 March 2025

Simple Summary

While cloning for laboratory and commercial applications has become routine, research relevant to wildlife conservation predominantly comprises “one-off” studies. Reviews of conservation cloning have led many authors to conclude that cloning is not yet a viable tool to aid the management and recovery of endangered species. Major milestones achieved recently for Przewalski’s horse and the black-footed ferret challenge this perception. To understand why the perception that cloning is not a viable conservation tool has become so pervasive, we evaluated previous reviews and attempted to fill major knowledge gaps. We provide for the first time a complete history of species successfully cloned via nuclear transfer methods with attention to fertility, reproduction, and longevity of clones. For conservation-related studies, we sent inquiries to scientists to obtain unreported information, including the reasons their studies were initiated and terminated. The major reasons cited for the short duration and small scales of conservation cloning research were not biological, but resource dependent, particularly funding limitations. As demonstrated for Przewalski’s horse and the black-footed ferret, conservation cloning is worth investment in the present and can be used to achieve genetic diversity management goals that no other method can currently provide.

Abstract

Over 40 years ago, scientists imagined ways cloning could aid conservation of threatened taxa. The cloning of Dolly the sheep from adult somatic cells in 1996 was the breakthrough that finally enabled the conservation potential of the technology. Until the 2020s, conservation cloning research efforts yielded no management applications, leading many to believe cloning is not yet an effective conservation tool. In strong contrast, domestic taxa are cloned routinely for scientific and commercial purposes. In this review, we sought to understand the reasons for these divergent trends. We scoured peer-reviewed and gray literature and sent direct inquiries to scientists to analyze a more comprehensive history of the field than was analyzed in previous reviews. While most previous reviewers concluded that a lack of reproductive knowledge of wildlife species has hindered advances for wider conservation applications, we found that resource limitations (e.g., numbers of surrogates, sustainable funding) and widely held misconceptions about cloning are significant contributors to the stagnation of the field. Recent successes in cloning programs for the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and Przewalski’s horse (Equus przewalskii), the world’s first true applied-conservation cloning efforts, are demonstrating that cloning can be used for significant conservation impact in the present. When viewed alongside the long history of cloning achievements, these programs emphasize the value of investing in the science and resources needed to meaningfully integrate cloning into conservation management, especially for species with limited genetic diversity that rely on the maintenance of small populations for many generations while conservationists work to restore habitat and mitigate threats in the wild.

1. Introduction

The notion of using cloning, via somatic cell nuclear transfer, to aid the conservation of wild taxa was first considered in the 1980s among conservationists preserving viable cell cultures of wild taxa in liquid nitrogen, sometimes called “frozen zoos”. Kurt Benirschke, the founder of the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance’s Frozen Zoo®, alluded to the use of cryopreserved cells and advanced reproductive technologies for conservation in 1984: “They [cell lines] are preserved for the future when it will be useful to reconstruct pedigrees or when animals of this nature will no longer be available” [1]. These are prescient words, given that at the time, advanced reproductive technologies could only reproduce individuals from germ cells, pluripotent embryonic cells, and fetal cells for most species, while the vast majority of cells and tissues collected and cryopreserved for wild taxa were adult somatic cells. To this day, the majority of biosamples collected from wild species are adult, often post-mortem somatic tissues. However in 1996, 22 years after Dr. Benirschke’s publication, the cloning of Dolly the sheep from adult somatic cells enabled a major expansion of cloning capabilities in both research and practical applications, opening the door for the use of cloning in conservation [2]. Since that time, a number of conservation-related cloning research efforts ensued; however, it has taken nearly 30 years for cloning to achieve an actual conservation application to aid the recovery of a species. The first successful applied conservation outcome from cloning was announced in 2024 with the birth of two kits from the clone of an endangered species, the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) [3]. The birth of the kits marks the first time that a clone of an endangered species has reproduced as part of a conservation breeding program. However, more significantly, the mother of the kits is a clone of an individual that died in 1988 with no descendants [4]. Until the birth of the clones and their subsequent offspring, all living black-footed ferrets descended from just seven founders; the successful breeding of the clone therefore introduces an eighth founder to the population and restores lost allelic diversity [5]. While artificial insemination has restored lost alleles from previous generations using cryopreserved semen within a breeding program [6], to our knowledge, this is the first time the alleles of an entirely unrepresented individual have been revived and integrated in any conservation breeding population. It demonstrates a clear precedent for the use of cloning in the genetic management of populations, especially for species with limited genetic diversity that rely on the maintenance of small populations for many generations while conservationists work to restore habitat and mitigate threats in the wild.
Since the cloning of Dolly the sheep, research into cloning domestic and model research organisms has also diversified, but, in sharp contrast to conservation, has produced a series of notable applied contributions to multiple industries across the globe. Cloning technology has become commercialized by several companies in multiple nations (including US, India, Brazil, Argentina, UAE, Korea, and China), which today perform cloning services for improved selective breeding and the reproduction of valuable domestic livestock (e.g., cattle for meat, water buffalo for milk), animal competition (e.g., rodeo bulls, polo horses, beauty camels), service animals (e.g., drug detecting, rescue, and guide dogs) and companion animals (e.g., dogs and cats) [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Cloning has even been used to help save rare cattle breeds from extinction, such as Enderby, Zhangmu, and Apeijiaza breeds [13,14,15].
Cloning advances and applications have been continually and extensively reviewed for both domestic and wild taxa, including an entire Special Issue published recently to commemorate advancements in the field in the 25 years after the birth of Dolly [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Reviews of the history of cloning domestic taxa reveal continual diversification of scientific and commercial applications [19,23,24,25,26,27,28]. On the other hand, reviews concerning conservation-relevant cloning efforts have consistently characterized cloning as a technology that is not yet an effective or justified tool for applied conservation. These conclusions are primarily based on the low efficiency rates of cloning and animal welfare concerns [29,30,31,32,33,34].
In this review, we analyze the history of cloning in an attempt to understand how the discordance between views of cloning for conservation and cloning for other industries have arisen and revisit the barriers that have so far prevented cloning from being a more widely applied conservation tool. From this perspective, we offer suggestions of how conservation cloning efforts may emulate the cloning research and applications of domestic taxa. Firstly, we found that all previous reviews of the history of cloning presented mismatched datasets and histories pertaining to which species have been cloned. Therefore, we first scoured peer-reviewed and gray literature to exhaustively identify the most comprehensive list of species and subspecies (hereon referred to collectively as taxa) that have been successfully cloned (defining success as achieving a live birth or hatching of a cloned individual). Understanding the history and perceptions of cloning also required as much information as could be gained on (1) the life-history milestones of clones (i.e., reaching adulthood, reproduction, lifespans) and (2) assessing the motivations for initiating and terminating cloning research. We gleaned this information from peer-reviewed and gray literature as much as possible, and where this information was absent, we sent inquiries directly to scientists that were involved in conservation-relevant cloning efforts.

2. The Complete History of Successfully Cloned Animals

In this paper, we use the term cloning to refer specifically to nuclear transfer, a process by which an organism is cloned by inserting the nucleus of a donor diploid cell (pluripotent or somatic) cell into an enucleated oocyte (egg cell, aka cytoplast) to create and stimulate the development of an embryo. We do not review alternate methods of cloning, such as embryo splitting [34,35,36].
While cloning became a well-known advanced reproductive technology in 1996 with the famous cloning breakthrough of Dolly the sheep, the technology has a much deeper and more complex history, with supporting research stemming back to the early 1900s [24]. The first successful cloning milestone was achieved in 1952, which produced embryos of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) by transferring donor nuclei into recipient oocytes [37]. This established the protocols that would yield the first cloned organisms, two taxa of frog, in 1957 [38,39] (Table 1). In the nearly 70 years that have followed, cloning research has been performed using donor cells and oocytes of dozens of taxa, ranging from fruit flies to whales [24,33,40]. The vast majority was conducted for cellular and developmental research with no attempts to produce live offspring [41]. While this research provides many insights about mito-nuclear and nuclear-epigenetic interactions between divergent species, cloning research needs to produce at least 1 live birth or hatching to be considered a potential reproductive technology for a given taxon. To our knowledge, the 56 species and subspecies listed in Table 1 represent the first exhaustively comprehensive list of taxa in which cloning research yielded live births to date, incorporating data from scientific and gray literature.
For some research purposes, producing a live birth is a sufficient milestone to validate the potential use of cloning for a given taxon, but for most commercial and all conservation applications clones must reach sexual maturity and reproduce. Clone longevity, fertility, and reproductive potential has not been widely reported. Still, we found reports or received updates through personal communication regarding reproductive capability for 42 taxa (Table 1). Of these 42 taxa, failure to produce fertile clones was reported for only 2, the common frog (Rana temporaria) and banteng (Bos javanicus) [48,77]. Adult clones of an additional two taxa have been produced too recently to yet reach sexual maturity (Rhesus macaque, Macaca mulatta, [63] and Przewalski’s horse, Equus przewalskii [102]), and therefore their fertility cannot yet be assessed. Of the remaining 12 taxa, one effort produced a single clone that reached weaning age but died before sexual maturity (European mouflon, Ovis aries musimon). Clones for five taxa died before weaning [47,69,70,76,84,97]. Healthy adult clones were reported for six taxa, but no reports of fertility could be found or obtained [46,48,51,71,86,87,103]. It is possible that clones of some or all of those taxa were fertile and possibly reproduced. When assessing success rates of fertility in clones, it is not appropriate to include taxa for which fertility assessments could not be obtained or could not be conducted due to premature deaths. At face value, the success rate of producing fertile clones is therefore 40 of 42 taxa to date (95%), rather than 40 of 56 (71%) (Table 1). A caveat to this assessment is that the two cases in which clones were infertile do not establish that fertile clones cannot be produced for those taxa. Only a single viable clone was produced for the Banteng and no further efforts were pursued. Almost all cloning efforts that reported fertile clones produced more than one live birth, and most produced multiple sexually mature adults. It is likely that further cloning efforts would produce fertile Banteng clones. More intriguing is the case of common frog (R. temporaria) clones, which were produced by cross-species cloning using the oocytes of R. japonica. Interestingly, the inverse of R. japonica clones produced using R. temporaria oocytes produced fertile adults [48]. Same-species cloning was never reported for R. temporaria. It is possible that fertile R. temporaria clones could be obtained using same-species oocytes or oocytes from a mito-nuclear or epigenetically compatible taxon.
Interestingly, when comparing outcomes for cloning efforts for wild versus domestic taxa, the majority of successfully cloned taxa have been wild—33 of 56 (58%) (see Table 1). Many of those taxa were cloned to study embryology, specifically the dynamics of cellular reprogramming. Only 14 wild and 1 domestic taxa have been successfully cloned for the purpose of conservation research or applications, all of which have been mammals (Table 2). To understand the history of conservation-motivated cloning efforts, we expanded our search for publications in which the intent to produce live births was clear independent of the outcome. We found an additional 14 taxa for which producing live offspring was attempted and failed, including 3 fish taxa and 1 amphibian taxon (Table 2).

2.1. Measuring Success, and Optimizing Efficiency of Cloning Efforts

The relative success or failure of the cloning process is measured over incremental milestones: (1) the production of viable blastocysts, (2) successful incubation or post-implantation pregnancy, (3) full term development and birth or hatching of cloned offspring, (4) survival of clones past weaning, (5) reaching sexual maturity (for which success is measured by fertility), and (6) longevity. The majority of publications report results only through the perinatal stages, which does not necessarily encompass weaning. Each successive stage is reported with decreasing frequency, total longevity being the least reported aspect of clone life histories in peer-reviewed literature. Cloning exhibits the lowest live birth efficiency rates for any advanced reproductive technology. However, published efficiencies should be scrutinized when comparing different cloning efforts. There is no standard method for calculating efficiency results in cloning publications. For example, the efficiency of cloning Dolly can be calculated at 0.36% or 3.4% depending on whether unused viable embryos are included in the calculation [122]. It is most common to report efficiency as the number of live births produced from the number of embryos transferred or incubated for eventual birth/hatching, not the total number of embryos created in vitro. In this review we have calculated efficiencies for conservation related efforts by this metric. Published efficiencies across taxa average <1–3%.
Several factors that impact efficiency have been identified [27,123,124]: (1) incomplete or corrupted reprogramming of the donor genome due to cytoplasmic and nuclear epigenetic factors, (2) compatibility between the donor nuclear genome and oocyte mitochondrial genome (mito-nuclear compatibility), (3) donor cell type (e.g., fibroblasts, cumulus cells, stem cells, etc.), and (4) donor cell quality (affected by organismal age, cell culture conditions, etc.). Continued research in domestic taxa has shown that cloning efficiency can be significantly elevated by improvements to these parameters. Recent experiments to upregulate or downregulate certain epigenetic factors of donor somatic cells and/or oocytes have greatly increased efficiency rates in mice, cattle, and pigs [27]. Cloning efficiency was increased from 1–3% to 23.5% for mice, 7% to 23.6% for cattle, and 0.3% to 2.07% for pig [125,126,127]. Such optimization and experimentation have been rare in wild taxa. In conservation related efforts efficiencies have been reported at <1–18% (Table 2), but the low numbers of embryos and live births in these programs diminish statistical confidence when compared to the much larger sample sizes for related domestic taxa.
While potential problems with mito-nuclear compatibility and epigenetic factors have received a great deal of attention in published reviews, individual donor cell line quality and genotype has been reported as a contributor to results [128]. For all taxa for which data was reported from different donor cell lines, oocyte donors, or experimental treatments, variation in cloning outcome is evident. For example, when cloning gaur (Bos gaurus) Srirattana et al. [70] reported an overall cloning efficiency of 2.4% from two cell lines, each of which received two different treatments. However, the efficiency varied from 0–11% between the two cell cultures and treatments. The reasons why particular donor cell lines perform better than others have not been examined. Low sample size in general is an issue for conservation-related cloning, which compromises the ability to draw statistically significant conclusions for any aspect of the cloning process.
Cell lines that yield viable, healthy clones have been reported to produce consistent results repeatedly. The same donor cells used to clone Dolly were used to produce additional clones in later studies [129]. Sinclair et al. [129] reported higher efficiency from the same technique used to clone Dolly, as well as from newer experimental treatments (13% and 20% live births, respectively, vs. the 3.4% success rate of Dolly).
Viable donor cell lines can also be recloned, meaning that donor cells can be obtained from adult clones and used to clone the original donor line again [130,131]. Most notably, a single mouse donor cell line was recloned for 25 generations; longevity and fertility did not vary significantly after each subsequent cloning [130].
Donor cell lines that do not support normal development of clones are not necessarily without useful application. Serial nuclear transfer, also known as donor cell “rejuvenation,” is a process by which adult donor cells are used to produce cloned embryos, which are terminated before reaching full term. Terminated cloned embryos or fetuses are then used as somatic cell donors for a second round of cloning, taking advantage of the higher rates of efficiency achievable with embryonic or fetal cells in order to replicate the original adult cell donor. At least, that is the hypothesis behind the process; mixed results have been obtained, with increased efficiency achieved in some experiments [132,133] but not others [66].
Serial nuclear transfer has been applied to amphibians in attempts to overcome developmental arrests of clones from adult donor cells [134]. To date, healthy adult cloned amphibians have not been produced from adult somatic donor cells. Amphibian embryos cloned from adult donor cells typically arrest at the gastrula stage or earlier. However, multiple studies, as reviewed by Gurdon [134], produced larvae that reached the “heart-beat” stage, some of which obtained these further developmental stages by applying serial nuclear transfer. Gurdon reported obtaining swimming-stage tadpoles from adult donor cells, with a single clone surviving just past metamorphosis [135]. Therefore, it should be possible to obtain a healthy adult amphibian clone from adult donor cells. However, since the 1980s, when mammal cloning was achieved, amphibian cloning research has declined dramatically, with only one current effort to advance cloning for a conservation purpose: to recover the Gastric Brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus) (personal communication, Dr. Michael Archer).

2.2. Health, Fertility, and Longevity of Clones

Of the 56 cloned taxa listed in Table 1, healthy adult clones were reported for 50 taxa (89%), while failure to produce healthy adult clones was reported for only five taxa (9%) [47,69,70,76,84,97]. The causes of death in these cases include developmental abnormalities, infection, and complications during care. In each of these five cases, researchers used a method known as interspecies, or cross-species cloning, a method which uses oocytes from different taxa from the somatic donor cell.
Developmental abnormalities resulting in perinatal deaths or poor health are reported at higher frequencies in cloned organisms than individuals born through other advanced reproductive technologies [136]. However, to date, there have been no developmental abnormalities uniquely observed in clones; all abnormalities observed in clones have been observed in natural-born animals of the same or related taxa. Further, it remains unknown what proportion of perinatal deaths stem from problems in the cloning process or non-cloning related factors, even among cloning studies of domestic taxa for which large numbers of clones have been generated.
Causes of early death after the perinatal period have yet to be linked to abnormalities resulting from cloning issues. Research in domestic taxa shows that clones that survive the perinatal period can be expected to attain normal life expectancies, have the same resilience/susceptibility to disease as natural-born individuals, and produce healthy offspring even if the cloned parent was born with abnormalities [10,129,136,137,138]. Long-term reporting on clone longevity in peer-reviewed literature is scarce, but reports of cloned cattle, cats, and mice exceeding normal life expectancy can be found in news articles [139,140,141]. As reported in the peer-reviewed literature, the four identical cloned sisters of Dolly the sheep all reached old age, exceeding Dolly’s lifespan. Only one of those clones exhibited the same osteoarthritis developed by Dolly [129], and it was reported to be less severe. These four clones were genetically identical to Dolly, but were raised in an outdoor pasture while Dolly lived indoors, indicating that the disease was most likely influenced by environmental factors (e.g., diet, air quality, or the ability to walk longer distances while grazing naturally). Reports of longevity, health, and causes of adult death for wild cloned taxa are virtually absent in peer-reviewed literature, but personal communication responses to our inquiries to cloning scientists and practitioners appear superficially to parallel trends for domestic taxa, with several clones of wild taxa reportedly reaching extreme old age (Table 3).
Of the 15 taxa successfully cloned for conservation research or application, 10 reportedly produced healthy adults. In total, evaluations of fertility and reports of reproduction were obtained for seven taxa, of which only two were published in peer-reviewed publications. Only one taxon, the banteng, was reported as infertile, while viable reproduction has been reported for five taxa. The two cloned Przewalksi’s horses born to date are not yet sexually mature to evaluate fertility. However, it should be noted that the effort that finally succeeded in producing a viable adult clone of an Argali (Ovis ammon) was not for conservation research nor application, but was for illegal trophy hunting, and has therefore designated in Figure 1 as a “commercial” cloning endeavor given the economic motivations of the illicit work [98,99]. Nonetheless, the work proves that Argali can be viably cloned should conservationists choose to continue cloning efforts. Given that the Argali was one of the first endangered taxa for which conservation-motivated research began, the life-history data for the illegally cloned Argali male is considered in light of its conservation relevance. Of the five taxa for which reproductive clones were produced, only one was cloned for a direct conservation application; the rest were for research purposes. Few efforts have ever been designed for conservation applications (Table 3). Only one other program, notably excluded from Table 2, was designed in a manner to advance research and simultaneously produce clones that would benefit the recovery of their wild populations: cloning efforts for the European mouflon [71,143] Table 3; however, the international Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) no longer considers European mouflon a distinct subspecies. It has been regarded as a descendant of historically feral domestic sheep, and thus was reclassified from Ovis orientalis (gmelini) musimon to Ovis aries musimon [144,145]. European mouflon are no longer considered a distinct nor endangered taxon, nullifying the biodiversity conservation relevance of former genetic rescue driven research efforts. Although, as with many feral populations, conserving the ferally originating populations of European mouflon does have cultural and potentially ecological value to Mediterranean island habitats.

3. Discussion

3.1. Trends in Conservation-Related Cloning Efforts

While the history of conservation-related cloning efforts seems to support the conclusion that cloning is not ready yet for conservation applications, a closer examination of trends in conservation-relevant cloning efforts, (particularly in comparison with domestic taxa), suggests that further consideration is warranted. All cloning efforts that failed to produce live births (Table 2) or healthy adult clones (Table 1) share several common variables that may have impacted success. Each effort employed cross-species cloning and all but one effort performed far fewer experimental replicates than typical efforts that yielded healthy adults. One potential reason that cross-species cloning may be responsible for these relative failures is that cross-species cloning has exhibited lower efficiencies than same-species cloning. However, this may not be a strong pattern: (1) most efforts using cross-species cloning produced too few offspring to draw meaningful statistics and (2) there are few studies directly comparing same-species and cross-species cloning. It has been hypothesized that the evolutionary distance between the donor taxa and the oocyte taxa is a barrier to cross-species success, as successful mammalian cross-species cloning has only been achieved for taxa diverged <6.5 million years [41,123,124] Table 2. However, many published reviews overlooked the successes of cross-species fish and amphibian clones [39,43,46,47,48,49,51,54], for which multiple taxa have produced fertile clones using donor cell and oocyte taxa that diverged 9–106 million years ago (Table 4), suggesting that fish and amphibians may be more amenable to successful cross-species reproduction via cloning. Notably, the need to use surrogate mothers as ovum donors and/or gestational surrogates to clone mammals presents additional variables: even closely related mammalian taxa may have endocrine regulation, gestational lengths, and live birth weights/sizes that differ enough to inhibit the development of cross-species clones. A diversity of mammalian somatic/oocyte combinations have proven functionally compatible in vitro; rabbit oocytes in particular have shown to activate a wide range of genomes, supporting embryonic development to the blastocyst stage [41], and in some instances that pursued further development in vitro or in vivo later stages were achieved. Perhaps the most intriguing case was when Chen et al. [146] attempted to clone giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) using domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus domestica) oocytes and a domestic cat (Felis catus) surrogate mother. This combination of taxa was ~94 million years (panda/rabbit) and 55 million years (panda/cat) diverged [119]. While a live birth was not produced, the cloned embryo developed for approximately ten days in utero. It is not possible to determine how the variables of the donor cytoplast, uterine environment, or diet of the surrogate mother influenced the result. However, we believe the results support further study of cross-species cloning variables.
One variable that did not appear to be a barrier for the panda experiment was mito-nuclear incompatibility, which may not be as significant a barrier as many have hypothesized. The rabbit mitochondrial DNA was incompatible with the panda nuclear genome, but this may not have inhibited development, as it was observed that the panda donor mitochondrial DNA proliferated and the rabbit mtDNA disappeared, resulting in an embryo that possessed only panda mtDNA [146]. This same phenomenon was observed in viable cross-species clones of domestic carp, Cyprinus carpio var. Wuyuanesis, generated with oocytes of goldfish, Carassius auratus, diverged ~34 million years [119]. The clones possessed only domestic carp mtDNA [147].
Although cross-species cloning is the underlying method of all cloning efforts that failed to produce healthy adults, cross-species cloning has worked effectively for the majority of its applications to date. A total of 26 (81%) of the total 32 taxa for which cross-species cloning was used have reported healthy adult clones, of which 17 were confirmed fertile/reproductive (see Table 1). There are no strong trends when comparing and contrasting successes versus relative failures in cross-species cloning, indicating the factors influencing outcomes are complex, and as yet largely unknown. By our observation, we conclude the best predictor of cloning success to be scale (i.e., the number of attempts/treatments/replicates). Increasing scale is not simply a matter of increasing the number of replicates to compensate for low efficiency rates; it is multidimensional. Large-scale efforts allow researchers to compare multiple parameters, including cell culture conditions [111] or donor cell type [81]. They also afford the opportunity to test differing treatments to optimize efficiency [27]. In general, successful efforts performed more experimental replicates and tested more individual donor cell lines, subjected to multiple treatments, than failed efforts [110 for example]. Biological complications/barriers were not cited nor reported by personal communications as the primary reason that cloning efforts failed to produce healthy adult clones or were terminated for any taxon in recent decades, particularly for conservation-relevant efforts (Table 3).
What we found when examining the history of cloning is that the most significant differences between conservation-related efforts versus non-conservation cloning efforts were program persistence, refinement, and the continued use of cloning for a given taxon once success was achieved. We have illustrated this contrast in Figure 1. For conservation-related cloning efforts, proof-of-principle, i.e., achieving successful pregnancies or a single birth became the end-point for almost all programs, whereas for most domestic taxa, it was a launching point for independent laboratories and commercial entities to continue cloning hundreds and thousands of each respective taxon since (Figure 1). Conservation related cloning efforts collectively have produced only 38 adult clones from 10 taxa (Table 2), with clones of an eleventh taxon, the Przewalski’s horse clone, reportedly developing normally and nearing sexual maturity [102].

3.2. Factors Hindering Progress for Conservation Cloning

Several factors contribute significantly to the divergent trends in cloning for conservation versus cloning for research or commercial applications. The first and foremost is funding: cloning domestic taxa has an apparent return on investment, and funding support for model research overwhelmingly overshadows funds available for conservation [148]. The second is that reproductive biology, husbandry, and welfare knowledge of domestic taxa vastly exceeds that of wildlife [149]. Additionally, the ready availability of oocytes is a primary reason why domestic taxa have been used as oocyte donors and recipient surrogate mothers in conservation-related efforts [150].
Our investigations of published literature and interviews of cloning practitioners (Table 3) suggest that the leading reasons why cloning projects were not performed at larger scales or were terminated were due to funding and resource constraints rather than biological barriers inherent to the methods used nor insufficient knowledge of husbandry and reproductive biology. Regulatory restrictions, opposition or disinterest from certain stakeholder groups, and lack of political support were also reported as major factors influencing the parameters of cloning efforts (Table 3). For two efforts (banteng and sturgeon), the reason for termination was noted that other reproductive technologies were applicable or more promising to pursue/apply. However, in general, scientific difficulties in the cloning process were not cited as the basis for terminating efforts. Importantly, we found no reports that cited animal welfare as a problematic barrier to the conservation cloning efforts in question. If we accept claims from published interviews, cloning efforts have tended to exceed the welfare conditions required in animal research [108], a central principle for all animal programs within the Association of Zoos and Aquariums [151] within which multiple cloning research efforts have been pursued.
To date, the ephemeral nature of conservation-cloning efforts has not been examined in published reviews. We hypothesize that problematic narratives of cloning may contribute to the lack of continuing cloning efforts. Although there is no evidence in previous literature, we hypothesize that the high-profile nature of disappointments (i.e., early deaths, sterility) in early conservation cloning efforts came to dominate both public and scientific dialogues, overshadowing their value to scientific progress, and even overshadowing successful contemporary cloning achievements. While wildlife cloning successes have been inconsistently reported in previous reviews, the failures of the guar and bucardo have been universally cited [29,30,31,32,33,34,36,150]. We speculate that greater attention to failures in wildlife cloning, which receive more public interest than domestic taxa in popular media, has inflated commonly believed misconceptions that cloning cannot yield healthy offspring [152]. There is a lack of research of how social perceptions may have affected progress, or lack thereof, for applying cloning within conservation management. If there is a general impression that conservation cloning is not viable, which is interpretable from the content of most reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, then further research could be discouraged and limit funding interests within an already underfunded field. It has been shown that public use of particular science research outputs affects available funding [153]. Public “use” can be seen as equivalent to public support for a particular field of science. Higher public use of science has been shown to drive higher funding [153]. An increased understanding regarding why cloning fails, technical improvements in methodology, non-scientific factors shaping past efforts, and awareness of cloning successes, as we have cursorily reviewed here, each deserve individual and deeper analytical review. Such attention will aid in advancing research as well as narratives of cloning.
Other factors contribute to the lack of consideration for cloning applications by the conservation community. The incomplete narratives of the state of cloning technology stem from the fact that a large portion of data and methodology is either absent or has not been published in peer-review, and thus has not been vetted by the scientific community. However, in terms of long-term studies of clone health and longevity, funding limitations are once again a primary constraint. For many cloned taxa, life expectancy of natural born individuals in human care facilities can exceed 10 years, with some taxa with life expectancies reaching half a century (Table 3). Therefore, inter-generational research of these taxa requires multiple decades and can not only surpass the lifespan of the careers of principal investigators, but also requires decades of sustained animal care funding.
A multitude of factors, all of which stem from limited funding, have contributed to the disjointed progression of research and applications for conservation cloning compared to non-conservation research and commercial enterprises. We are suggesting that by disregarding the sporadic nature of conservation cloning research across a range of taxa and the limited experimental data that have been obtained in comparison to model systems such as the mouse, that it is premature to dismiss cloning as a conservation option worthy of more experimental evaluation. With renewed, adequately funded efforts performed at greater scales, testing new variations of oocyte/recipient taxa, and employing knowledge gained from advancements in domestic taxa [154], it is more probable that healthy fertile adult clones can be produced for many of the taxa for which previous efforts failed.

3.3. Considerations for Applied Conservation Cloning in Practice

Cloning offers a number of ways to enhance the management of ex situ populations using both frozen zoos and wild populations as sources of genetic material [2,29,30,34,35,36,155,156,157]. Though several other advanced reproductive technologies have been used in conservation, cloning is currently the only means of reproducing individual organisms from somatic cells for a diversity of taxa (producing offspring from in vitro gametogenesis using induced pluripotent stem cells has so far only been achieved in mice, [158,159]). Although cloning is not a universally applicable technology, conceivably it could be used to reproduce individuals from mammalian, fish, and amphibian taxa for conservation purposes.
The establishment and genetic management of ex situ populations of threatened taxa is an area of conservation in which cloning could be applied now. Maintaining ex situ populations of wild taxa is increasingly vital to safeguarding the security of healthy populations in the wild, as noted in the OnePlan approach of IUCN [160] and the One Conservation Proposal [154]. The devastating 2019–2020 fires in Australia are a key example of why ex situ populations are a lifeline in the face of human driven climate change. As the fires and the ash-laden floods that ensued created mass mortality events for entire ecosystems, conservationists rushed to capture and save individuals in the wild and bring them to safe harbor ex situ [161,162,163]. With populations of many taxa declining over the world [164,165], it is likely that ex situ populations, and therefore strategic reproductive strategies including cloning, will be critical for long-term recovery of many taxa [166].
For instance, cloning could be used to establish founding ex situ breeding populations of threatened taxa without removing individuals from the wild, if cell cultures can be established from non-lethal tissue biopsies. This is a particularly attractive application for rare fish and amphibian taxa which develop instinctively without the need for parental nurturing. Cloning has already been proven by historic efforts for several currently threatened amphibians (Table 1). Though no healthy adult amphibian clones have been produced from the donor cells of metamorphosed adults, cells of tadpoles have yielded healthy clones. Tail clippings from tadpoles could be collected non-lethally. Another limitation to duplicating wild amphibian populations is that cloning will need to utilize primary tissue samples without cell culture expansion, as has been done in almost all previous amphibian cloning studies. This is because to date the only tissue samples that have consistently yielded cell cultures have been from internal organs collected post-mortem [167], which effectively limits options for collecting tissues from wild individuals. Although there are limitations to cell culture and biobanking, this is an area highly worth pursuing research and applications given the current biodiversity crisis. It is estimated that nearly 41% of known amphibian taxa are at risk of extinction [168,169]. Ex situ populations of amphibians are becoming increasingly important as losses of populations and entire taxa due to the rapid spread of chytridiomycosis occurs. As species rely more and more on ex situ populations for recovery, the value of advancing biobanking and reproductive technologies becomes more apparent in terms of overall program costs. A recently published model by Howell et al. [170] for the threatened Oregon Spotted Frog, Rana pretiosa, estimated that back-crossing females every generation (at 3-year intervals) with cryopreserved founder sperm would allow a breeding program to retain 90% founder heterozygosity over 100 years with 97% fewer breeding individuals (58 versus 1826) and 96% lower cost over the cumulative century (USD 21 million versus USD 537 million). The ability to preserve and restore female genomes for breeding through cloning would further reduce resources and costs to achieve genetic management goals [171].
Establishing ex situ populations for threatened taxa before they become critically endangered improves the prognosis of recovering taxa in two ways [154]. Selecting founders when populations are still large captures a greater extent of standing genetic variation than can be expected when populations reach the nadir of a bottleneck. Secondly, working to build animal care knowledge, which is greatly enhanced with adequate time and numbers, reduces potential conflicts between removing animals from the wild and establishing robust populations under human care. When only a few individuals of a taxa remain, every loss is significant and action is urgent. With established cell cultures, cryopreservation, and cloning techniques for a specific taxon, losses are potentially recoverable and actionable timeframes potentially indefinite [2,29,157].
The reality of maintaining ex situ populations is that available capacity constrains population sizes. Populations that persist in small numbers over multiple generations inevitably lose genetic variation due to genetic drift. Cloning offers the ability to mitigate drift and restore or introduce new variation periodically from wild populations or biobanked cells. Variation is the underlying foundation of adaptation, hence maintaining the highest genetic diversity possible in ex situ populations is key to breeding individuals capable of adapting and surviving when introduced to the wild [172]. As noted earlier with the case example of amphibians, biobanking and advanced reproductive technologies can greatly reduce the numbers of individuals needed to maintain genetic diversity.
For populations that have already lost significant genetic variation during historic bottlenecks, cloning from cryopreserved resources offers a means to genetic rescue that would otherwise not be possible. Genetic rescue conventionally has been the practice of introducing new, healthy and unrelated individuals into genetically impoverished populations exhibiting or presumed to be experiencing inbreeding depression. The underlying hypothesis is that increasing genetic variation and associated heterozygosity in a population increases the population’s viability, as measured by positive population growth [173], which has been the result for ~95% of genetic rescue interventions [174]. As with establishing ex situ populations, we advocate for early, proactive intervention. Like most conservation practice, genetic rescue has been a reactive discipline, implemented only when populations are in clear crisis. There is an emerging paradigm shift to perform genetic rescue proactively, as a form of managing gene flow, before populations exhibit declines and deleterious inbreeding phenotypes [175,176,177]. The effectiveness of using genetic rescue early and periodically has been shown in genetic rescue simulations for two taxa that have been models for the benefits of genetic rescue and managed gene flow historically [173], the greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) and the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). [178,179]
While previously published reviews have consistently asserted that cloning for conservation requires further empirical research before subsequent application [33,34,36,180], the two are not mutually exclusive. Through the pursuit of cloning for applied conservation, scientists and practitioners produce valuable data for assisted reproduction. Conservation cloning can proceed with the intention to move beyond proof-of-principle research toward conservation action, consistent with the IUCN OnePlan approach. If programs secure adequate funding and integrate the following guidelines, conservation cloning efforts can fill targeted knowledge gaps and optimize taxa-specific cloning protocols while working to reproduce individuals of strategic value to management and recovery.
  • Cloning research should be advanced using taxa for which cloning can provide benefits to conservation and management. Individuals to be cloned should be selected for their strategic value for long-term management of taxa-specific genetic variation for many generations into the future. Conservation cloning efforts would ideally meet the overlapping criteria shown in Figure 2. If existing knowledge is not extensive, but the value of cloning for conservation is significant and urgent, research would preferably be designed to fill such knowledge gaps as cloning trials are performed.
  • Biopsies to obtain cells from living donors should be minimally invasive, and in the case of ex situ animals should be obtained opportunistically during routine medical exams or other procedures to minimize handling that could induce stress. Donor cells should be cultured, expanded, and cryopreserved to save cells for future conservation purposes. If possible, cells should be reprogrammed to yield induced pluripotent stem cells, establishing a nearly inexhaustible resource [181].
  • Oocytes and recipient surrogate mothers of common, non-threatened taxa with well-understood reproductive biology and husbandry should receive highest consideration. Not only does this practice alleviate welfare concerns for the focal taxa, but provides the ability to expand populations independent of natural breeding seasons, as domestic taxa can be bred continuously [154].
  • The number of recipients and embryos transferred to establish pregnancies for mammalian taxa should be performed at scales in which live births can be expected. Commercial cloning companies and private ranchers can provide valuable knowledge and capacity to achieve success. For example, private ranches can be of significant value for cloning wild ungulates. Private ranches possess significantly larger herds of numerous exotic ungulates than zoos [182].
  • Collection of data to build comprehensive baselines of normal and pathological embryonic, prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal development should be undertaken, incorporating control studies to enable research to identify developmental abnormalities in the cloning process.
  • The results of cloning efforts need to be reported through peer-reviewed, open source outlets. If authors can show genetic evidence to support cloning claims, then journals need to allow the publishing of observations of cloned individuals despite the proprietary methods that may be employed to produce cloned embryos.
  • Observations and analysis of health, behavior, and longevity should be made and reported throughout the lifetime of clones and at least one generation of offspring.
With appropriate levels of experimental rigor, conservation cloning efforts are more likely to be fruitful and trustworthy. To achieve this, cloning interventions will require sustained funding, and political and stakeholder support for durations of years and potentially decades. The program to produce fertile and reproductive black-footed ferret clones has been ongoing for over a decade since its inception, over half of which involved recovery team engagement, program design, fundraising, and iterative science before actual cloning began.
The programs cloning black-footed ferrets and Przewalski’s horses were used as case examples to develop the recommendations listed above. These cloning efforts are the first genetic rescue cloning efforts in history, operating under the “proactive” genetic rescue paradigm to increase genetic diversity before inbreeding yields significant fitness problems. The aim of these initiatives is to clone historic individuals with underrepresented or entirely absent genetic variation in present day generations to increase standing genetic diversity. While reintroduced wild populations of Przewalski’s horses and black-footed ferrets are capable of population expansion, the species have still experienced considerable losses. The severe bottlenecks these taxa experienced (black-footed ferret has 7 founders, Przewalski’s horse has 12 wild Przewalski’s horse founders) have severely eroded their genetic diversity [183,184], complicating their long-term management ex situ and creating concerns for their long-term adaptability in changing wild environments. Due to habitat fragmentation, gene-flow among reintroduced wild populations is also virtually impossible without human intervention, creating the conditions under which inbreeding depression may occur cryptically even though populations exhibit positive growth, as has been documented in reintroduced populations [185]. Even if wild populations become relatively large, reductions in genetic diversity in their past may diminish fitness over time. The black-footed ferret and Przewalski’s horses are not rare cases. Hundreds of animal species have undergone severe bottlenecks and are currently at varying stages of population recovery [165,186]. in which biobanking and reproductive technologies could provide the same genetic rescue options in the future.
However, species are not saved by technological advancements, but by the dedication and devotion of diverse conservationists, spanning participants from local communities to internationally collaborative teams. Conservation is a discipline built upon cultural values, with the recognition that a biodiverse world is not only integral to enriching the human experience, but that wild taxa have innate value. As responsible stewards, conservationists must carefully consider all aspects of interventions when saving a taxon, from impacts on ecosystems to the welfare of individual organisms. In this regard, new advanced reproductive technology initiatives are also working to lead by example, as members of the black-footed ferret and the northern white rhinoceros genetic rescue initiatives have worked to analyze and develop broadly applicable ethical frameworks for considering the use of cloning and advanced reproductive technologies in conservation [187,188].
It is our hope that the new genetic rescue cloning initiatives of the black-footed ferret and Przewalski’s horse inspire renewed interest and usher in a never-before-seen era of practical cloning applications in conservation. With the immense declines of wildlife populations, the core of the biodiversity crisis is not only the extinctions of taxa, but the extinction of adaptive genetic variation that leaves fragmented populations vulnerable to future changes, even as their populations recover in numbers [164,165,166,186]. Collections of cryopreserved viable cells and conservation breeding programs are no longer insurance policies in the battle to conserve biodiversity, they are needed at the front lines.

4. Conclusions

A thorough evaluation of the history of cloning, presented here, reveals that at least one, and oftentimes numerous healthy reproductive clones have been produced for the majority of the 56 total taxa that have reported live births/hatching of cloned individuals. The reliability and reproducibility of cloning model organisms and domestic taxa has led to commercially profitable cloning services for animal agriculture, sport, and companionship industries over the past 25 years. While conservation-relevant cloning research programs have been smaller scale and intermittent compared to the routine cloning activities of biomedical research and commercial industries, there have been many diverse wild taxa successfully cloned for the purpose of building towards meaningful conservation applications. A total of 14 taxa have been successfully cloned for conservation research (and most recently the first true applications). Collectively these efforts have produced 72 live births overall for conservation research. Of those 14 species, 38 clones (53%) of 10 taxa (71%) survived to the weaning stages with reports of fertility for 6 of those species. Many wildlife clones met or exceeded their life expectancies and all that reached adulthood were reported as healthy and normal developmentally. Although the number of wildlife clones pales in comparison to the thousands of cloned animals produced for commercial and biomedical research purposes, the details of fertility, health, and longevity of wildlife clones serve to dispel widely held misconceptions. Our inquiries to scientists that led previous conservation relevant cloning research revealed that the smaller scales and intermittent nature of wildlife cloning was shaped by many factors, prominently limited funding. With greater funding investment in this field cloning can be strategically applied to achieve conservation outcomes that no other available method may deliver, as exemplified by the Przewalski’s horse and black-footed ferret programs.

Author Contributions

B.J.N. conceptualized this study, visualized figures, and wrote the original and edited drafts of the manuscript. B.J.N. and S.P. performed investigation of literature and inquires. R.P., S.B., O.A.R. and R.J.W. reviewed and edited drafts of the manuscript. O.A.R. contributed to visualization of figures. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

O.A.R. and R.J.W. were funded by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. The work of B.J.N., R.P. was supported by the generous donors of Revive & Restore. S.B.’s and S.P.’s time was donated in-kind.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data is presented in this publication.

Acknowledgments

Elizabeth Bennet, Bridget Baumgartner, Heather Sparks, Evelyn Brister, and George Church reviewed early drafts of this manuscript and provided feedback. Previously unpublished information regarding past cloning efforts was provided by Michael Archer, Debbie Berg, Alice Blue-McLendon, Hung Chun-Chang, John Engelhardt, Effrosyni Fatira, Alberto Fernándaz-Arias, Pasqualino Loi, Mike Kjelland, Lisa Murphy, Martin Pšenička, Hwang Woo-Suk, Qiang Sun, Gregg Veneklasen, Shawn Walker, and Nisar Ahmed Wani.

Conflicts of Interest

B.J.N. and R.P. are employed by the non-profit organization Revive & Restore. S.B. sits on the board of Revive & Restore. O.A.R. is employed by the non-profit organization San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Benirschke, K. The frozen zoo concept. Zoo Biol. 1984, 3, 325–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ryder, O.A.; Benirschke, K. The potential use of “cloning” in the conservation effort. Zoo Biol. 1997, 16, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. USFWS. Advancements for Black-footed Ferret Conservation Continue with New Offspring from Cloned Ferret. Press Release 2024. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-11/advancements-black-footed-ferret-conservation-continue-new-offspring-cloned (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  4. Novak, B.J.; Gober, P.; Bortner, R.; Garelle, D.; Wright, M.; Novak, J.; Houck, M.L.; Ryder, O.A.; Milutinovich, D.; Benavidez, J.; et al. First endangered black-footed ferrets, Mustela nigripes, cloned for genetic rescue. bioRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wisely, S.M.; Ryder, O.A.; Santymire, R.M.; Engelhardt, J.F.; Novak, B.J. A Road Map for 21st Century Genetic Restoration: Gene Pool Enrichment of the Black-Footed Ferret. J. Hered. 2015, 106, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Howard, J.G.; Lynch, C.; Santymire, R.M.; Marinari, P.E.; Wildt, D.E. Recovery of gene diversity using long-term cryopreserved spermatozoa and artificial insemination in the endangered black-footed ferret. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 102–111. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, J. Six Cloned Horses Help Rider Win Prestigious Polo Match. Science. 2016. Available online: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/six-cloned-horses-help-rider-win-prestigious-polo-match (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  8. Gambini, A.; Maserati, M. A journey through horse cloning. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2017, 30, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, J. Two of a Kind: China’s First Pet Cloning Service Duplicates Star Pooch. Reuters. 2018. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/two-of-a-kind-chinas-first-pet-cloning-service-duplicates-star-pooch-idUSKBN1OG11I/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  10. Kim, M.J.; Oh, H.J.; Hwang, S.Y.; Hur, T.Y.; Lee, B.C. Health and temperaments of cloned working dogs. J. Vet. Sci. 2018, 19, 585–591. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaudhary, S.B. World’s First Cloned Female Camel Celebrates 10th Birthday in Dubai. Gulf News UAE/Science. 2019. Available online: https://gulfnews.com/uae/science/worlds-first-cloned-female-camel-celebrates-10th-birthday-in-dubai-1.63194680 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  12. van der Berg, J.P.; Kleter, G.A.; Kok, E.J. Regulation and safety considerations of somatic cell nuclear transfer-cloned farm animals and their offspring used for food production. Theriogenology 2019, 135, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wells, D.N.; Misica, P.M.; Tervit, H.R.; Vivanco, W.H. Adult somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to preserve the last surviving cow of the Enderby Island cattle breed. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 1998, 10, 369–378. [Google Scholar]
  14. Backus, L. Enderby Island Cattle: A Breeding Strategy for Genetic Conservation. 2006. Available online: https://rarebreeds.co.nz/enderbycattle.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  15. Qingqing, C. Update: World’s First Cloned Endangered Xizang Cattle Species Born Chen Qingqing. Global Times China/Society. 2024. Available online: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202401/1306259.shtml (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  16. Alberio, R.; Wolf, E. 25th Anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Nuclear transfer and the development of genetically modified/gene edited livestock. Reproduction 2021, 162, F59–F68. [Google Scholar]
  17. Galli, C.; Lazzari, G. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Current applications of SCNT in advanced breeding and genome editing in livestock. Reproduction 2021, 162, F23–F32. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Greenfield, A. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Cloning, mitochondrial replacement and genome editing: 25 years of ethical debate since Dolly. Reproduction 2021, 162, F69–F78. [Google Scholar]
  19. Klinger, B.; Schnieke, A. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer Twenty-five years after Dolly: How far have we come? Reproduction 2021, 162, F1–F10. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. Loi, P.; Palazzese, L.; Scapolo, P.A.; Fulka, J.; Fulka, H.; Czernik, M. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Scientific and technological approaches to improve SCNT efficiency in farm animals and pets. Reproduction 2021, 162, F33–F43. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ogura, A.; Matoba, S.; Inoue, K. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic-cell nuclear transfer: Epigenetic abnormalities associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reproduction 2021, 162, F45–F58. [Google Scholar]
  22. Polejaeva, I.A. 25th anniversary of cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer: Generation of genetically engineered livestock using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Reproduction 2021, 162, F11–F22. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dinnyés, A.; Sousa, P.; King, T.; Wilmut, I. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer: Recent Progress and Challenges. Cloning Stem Cells 2002, 4, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Di Berardino, M.A. Origin and Progress of Nuclear Transfer In Nonmammalian Animals. In Nuclear Transfer Protocols: Cell Reprogramming and Transgenesis; Verma, P.J., Trounson, A.O., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ogura, A.; Inoue, K.; Wakayama, T. Recent advancements in cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Keefer, C.L. Artificial cloning of domestic animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 8874–8878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Matoba, S.; Zhang, Y. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Reprogramming: Mechanisms and Applications. Cell Stem Cell 2018, 23, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Inoue, K. Mouse somatic cell nuclear transfer: What has changed and remained unchanged in 25 years. J. Reprod. Dev. 2023, 69, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Ryder, O.A. Cloning advances and challenges for conservation. Trends Biotechnol. 2002, 20, 231–232. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Holt, W.V.; Pickard, A.R.; Prather, R.S. Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning. Reproduction 2004, 127, 317–324. [Google Scholar]
  31. Loi, P.; Modlinski, J.A.; Ptak, G. Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: A salvage tool seeking first aid. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 217–228. [Google Scholar]
  32. Loi, P.; Iuso, D.; Czernik, M.; Ogura, A. A New, Dynamic Era for Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer? Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 791–797. [Google Scholar]
  33. Borges, A.A.; Pereira, A.F. Potential role of intraspecific and interspecific cloning in the conservation of wild mammals. Zygote 2019, 27, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Swegen, A.; Appeltant, R.; Williams, S.A. Cloning in action: Can embryo splitting, induced pluripotency and somatic cell nuclear transfer contribute to endangered species conservation? Biol. Rev. 2023, 98, 1225–1249. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mastromonaco, G.F. A quarter century of CANDES: The state of embryo technologies in companion animals, non-domestic and endangered species. Theriogenology Wild. 2023, 4, 100069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cowl, V.B.; Comizzoli, P.; Appeltant, R.; Bolton, R.L.; Browne, R.K.; Holt, W.V.; Penfold, L.M.; Swegen, A.; Walker, S.L.; Williams, S.A. Cloning for the Twenty-First Century and Its Place in Endangered Species Conservation. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2024, 12, 91–112. [Google Scholar]
  37. Briggs, R.; King, T.J. Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs’ eggs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1952, 38, 455–463. [Google Scholar]
  38. Briggs, R.; King, T.J. 1Changes in the nuclei of differentiating endoderm cells as revealed by nuclear tansplantation. J. Morhpology 1957, 100, 269–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sambuichi, H. The roles of the nucleus and the cytoplasm in development I. An interspecific hybrid frog, developed from a combination of Rana nigro-maculata nigromaculata cytoplasm with a diploid nucleus of Rana nigromaculata brevipoda. J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. Biol. Div 1957, 17, 33–41. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tecirlioglu, R.T.; Guo, J.; Trounson, A.O. Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer and preliminary data for horse-cow/mouse iSCNT. Stem Cell Rev. 2006, 2, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Beyhan, Z.; Iager, A.E.; Cibelli, J.B. Interspecies Nuclear Transfer: Implications for Embryonic Stem Cell Biology. Cell Stem Cell 2007, 1, 502–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. McKinnell, R.G. Intraspecific Nuclear Transplantation in Frogs. J. Hered. 1962, 53, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gurdon, J.B. The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from differentiating endoderm cells of Xenopus laevis. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 1960, 8, 505–526. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Gurdon, J.B. The transplantation of nuclei between two subspecies of Xenopus laevis. Heredity 1961, 16, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kawamura, T.; Nishioka, M.; Myorei, Y. Reproductive capacity of autotetraploid males in brown frogs. J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. Biol. Div. 1963, 1, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nishioka, M. Reciprocal nucleo-cytoplasmic hybrids between Rana brevipoda and Rana plancyi chosenica. Sci. Rep. Lab. Amphib. Biol. Hiroshima Univ. 1972, 1, 259–275. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nishioka, M. Reciprocol Nucleo-cytoplasmic Hybrids between Rana esculenta and Rana brevipoda. Sci. Rep. Lab. Amphib. Biol. Hiroshima Univ. 1972, 1, 245–257. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nishioka, M. Nucleo-cytoplasmic Hybrids between Rana japonica and Rana temporaria temporaria. J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. Biol. Div. 1972, 1, 211–243. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tong, D.; Shangqin, W.; Ye, Y.; Yan, S.; Du, M.; Lu, D. Nuclear transplantation of fish. Chin. Sci. Bull. 1963, 7, 60–61. [Google Scholar]
  50. Signoret, J. Transplantations nucléaires et différenciation embryonnaire. Arch. Biol. 1965, 71, 591–606. [Google Scholar]
  51. Aimar, C. Analyse par la greffe nucléaire des propriétés morphogéné- tiques des noyaux embryonnaires chez Pleurodeles waltlii (Amphibien Urodèle). Application à l’étude de la gémellarité expérimentale. Ann. Embryol. Morphog. 1972, 5, 5–42. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tong, D.; Ye, Y.; Miao, D. Nuclear transplantation in teleosts: Hybrid fish produced by injecting carp nucleus into crucian cytoplasm. Chin. Sci. 1980, 4, 376–380. [Google Scholar]
  53. Illmensee, K.; Hoppe, P.C. Nuclear transplantation in mus musculus: Developmental potential of nuclei from preimplantation embryos. Cell 1981, 23, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Yan. S.Y.; Lu, D.Y.; Du, M.; U, G.S.; Han, Z.; Yang, H.Y.; Wu, Z.A. Nuclear transplantation in teleosts. Nuclear transplantation between different subfamilies–hybrid fish from the nucleus of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) and the cytoplasm of blunt-snout bream (Mega/obrama amblycaephala). Chin. J. Biotech. 1985, 1, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  55. Willadsen, S.M. Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature 1986, 320, 63–65. [Google Scholar]
  56. Prather, R.S.; Barnes, F.L.; Sims, M.M.; Robl, J.M.; Eyestone, W.H.; and First, N.L. Nuclear transplantation in the bovine embryo: Assessment of donor nuclei and recipient oocyte. Biol. Reprod. 1987, 37, 859–866. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stice, S.L.; Robl, J.M. Nuclear reprogramming in nuclear transplant rabbit embryos. Biol. Reprod. 1988, 39, 657–664. [Google Scholar]
  58. Prather, R.S.; Sims, M.M.; First, N.L. Nuclear transplantation in early pig embryos. Biol. Reprod. 1989, 41, 414–418. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Yan, S.Y.; Tu, M.; Yang, H.Y.; Mao, Z.G.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Fu, L.J.; Li, G.S.; Huang, G.P.; Li, S.H.; Jin, G.Q. Developmental incompatibility between cell nucleus and cytoplasm as revealed by nuclear transplantation experiments in teleost of different families and orders. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 1990, 34, 255–266. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yong, Z.; Jianchen, W.; Jufen, Q.; Zhiming, H. Nuclear transplantation in goats. Theriogenology 1991, 35, 289. [Google Scholar]
  61. Meng, L.; Ely, J.J.; Stouffer, R.L.; Wolf, P.; Rhesus, D. Monkeys produced by nuclear transfer. Biol. Reprod. 1997, 57, 454–459. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kang, Y.; Dai, S.; Zeng, Y.; Wang, F.; Yang, P.; Yang, Z.; Pu, Y.; Li, Z.; Chen, X.; Tian, B.; et al. Cloning and base editing of GFP transgenic rhesus monkey and off-target analysis. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabo3123. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Liao, Z.; Zhang, J.; Sun, S.; Li, Y.; Xu, Y.; Li, C.; Cao, J.; Nie, Y.; Niu, Z.; Liu, J.; et al. Reprogramming mechanism dissection and trophoblast replacement application in monkey somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 5. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Wakamatsu, Y.; Ju, B.; Pristyaznhyuk, I.; Niwa, K.; Ladygina, T.; Kinoshita, M.; Araki, K.; and Ozato, K. Fertile and diploid nuclear transplants derived from embryonic cells of a small laboratory fish, medaka (Oryzias latipes). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 1071–1076. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bubenshchikova, E.; Kaftanovskaya, E.; Motosugi, N.; Fujimoto, T.; Arai, K.; Kinoshita, M.; Hashimoto, H.; Ozato, K.; Wakamatsu, Y. Diploidized eggs reprogram adult somatic cell nuclei to pluripotency in nuclear transfer in medaka fish (Oryzias latipes). Dev. Growth Differ. 2007, 49, 699–709. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hill, J.R.; Winger, Q.A.; Long, C.R.; Looney, C.R.; Thompson, J.A.; Westhusin, M.E. Development rates of male bovine nuclear transfer embryos derived from adult and fetal cells. Biol. Reprod. 2000, 62, 1135–1140. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Meirelles, F.V.; Bordignon, V.; Watanabe, Y.; Watanabe, M.; Dayan, A.; Lôbo, R.B.; Garcia, J.M.; Smith, L.C. Complete replacement of the mitochondrial genotype in a Bos indicus calf reconstructed by nuclear transfer to a bos taurus oocyte. Genetics 2001, 158, 351–356. [Google Scholar]
  68. Yu, M.; Muteti, C.; Ogugo, M.; Ritchie, W.A.; Raper, J.; Kemp, S. Cloning of the African indigenous cattle breed Kenyan Boran. Anim. Genet. 2016, 47, 510–511. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lanza, R.P.; Cibelli, J.B.; Diaz, F.; Moraes, C.T.; Farin, P.W.; Farin, C.E.; Hammer, C.J.; West, M.D.; Damiani, P. Cloning of an endangered species (Bos gaurus) using interspecies nuclear transfer. Cloning 2000, 2, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  70. Srirattana, K.; Imsoonthornruksa, S.; Laowtammathron, C.; Sangmalee, A.; Tunwattana, W.; Thongprapai, T.; Chaimongkol, C.; Ketudat-Cairns, M.; Parnpai, R. Full-term development of gaur-bovine interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos: Effect of Trichostatin A treatment. Cell Reprogramming 2012, 14, 248–257. [Google Scholar]
  71. Loi, P.; Ptak, G.; Barboni, B.; Fulka, J., Jr.; Cappai, P.; Clinton, M. Genetic rescue of an endangered mammal by cross-species nuclear transfer using post-mortem somatic cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2001, 19, 962–964. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shin, T.; Kraemer, D.; Pryor, J.; Liu, L.; Rugila, J.; Howe, L.; Buck, S.; Murphy, K.; Lyons, L.; Westhusin, M. A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation. Nature 2002, 415, 859. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hu, W.; Wang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, Z. Nuclear transplantation in different strains of zebrafish. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2002, 47, 1277–1280. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee, K.Y.; Huang, H.; Ju, B.; Yang, Z.; Lin, S. Cloned zebrafish by nuclear transfer from long-term-cultured cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2002, 20, 795–799. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhou, Q.; Renard, J.P.; Le Friec, G.; Brochard, V.; Beaujean, N.; Cherifi, Y.; Fraichard, A.; Cozzi, J. Generation of fertile cloned rats by regulating oocyte activation. Science 2003, 302, 1179. [Google Scholar]
  76. Folch, J.; Cocero, M.J.; Chesné, P.; Alabart, J.L.; Domínguez, V.; Cognié, Y.; Roche, A.; Fernández-Arias, A.; Martí, J.I.; Sánchez, P.; et al. First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies (Capra pyrenaica pyrnaica) by cloning. Theriogenology 2009, 71, 1026–1034. [Google Scholar]
  77. Janssen, D.L.; Edwards, M.L.; Koster, J.A.; Lanza, R.P.; Ryder, O.A. 206 postnatal management of chryptorchid banteng calves cloned by nuclear transfer utilizing frozen fibroblast cultures and enucleated cow ova. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2003, 16, 224. [Google Scholar]
  78. Galli, C.; Lagutina, I.; Crotti, G.; Colleoni, S.; Turini, P.; Ponderato, N.; Duchi, R.; Lazzari, G. A cloned horse born to its dam twin. Nature 2003, 424, 635. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  79. CVM Researchers First to Clone White-Tailed Deer. Texas A&M University Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Science. 2003. Available online: https://vetmed.tamu.edu/news/press-releases/cvm-researchers-first-to-clone-white-tailed-deer/ (accessed on 25 November 2014).
  80. Hlavaty, C. Now a Grandfather, First Clone of His Kind Turns 10 at A&M. Houston Crhonicale. 2013. Available online: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/now-a-grandfather-first-clone-of-his-kind-turns-4542735.php (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  81. Berg, D.K.; Li, C.; Asher, G.; Wells, D.N.; Oback, B. Red deer cloned from antler stem cells and their differentiated progeny. Biol. Reprod. 2007, 77, 384–394. [Google Scholar]
  82. Haigh, A.J.; MacDonald, W.A.; Lloyd, V.K. The generation of cloned Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2005, 169, 1165–1167. [Google Scholar]
  83. Gómez, M.C.; Pope, C.E.; Giraldo, A.M.; Lyons, L.; Harris, R.F.; King, A.; Cole, A.; Godke, R.A.; Dresser, B.L. 38 birth of african wild cat cloned kittens. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2003, 16, 141–142. [Google Scholar]
  84. Gómez, M.C.; Pope, C.E.; Kutner, R.H.; Ricks, D.M.; Lyons, L.A.; Ruhe, M.; Dumas, C.; Lyons, J.; López, M.; Dresser, B.L.; et al. Nuclear transfer of sand cat cells into enucleated domestic cat oocytes is affected by cryopreservation of donor cells. Cloning Stem Cells 2008, 10, 469–484. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jang, G.; Lee, B.C. Update on the first cloned dog and outlook for canine cloning. Cell Reprogramming 2015, 17, 325–326. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kim, M.K.; Jang, G.; Oh, H.J.; Yuda, F.; Kim, H.J.; Hwang, W.S.; Hossein, M.S.; Kim, J.J.; Shin, N.S.; Kang, S.K.; et al. Endangered wolves cloned from adult somatic cells. Cloning Stem Cells 2007, 9, 130–137. [Google Scholar]
  87. Oh, H.J.; Kim, M.K.; Jang, G.; Kim, H.J.; Hong, S.G.; Park, J.E.; Park, K.; Park, C.; Sohn, S.H.; Kim, D.Y.; et al. Cloning endangered gray wolves (Canis lupus) from somatic cells collected postmortem. Theriogenology 2008, 70, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, Z.; Sun, X.; Chen, J.; Liu, X.; Wisely, S.M.; Zhou, Q.; Renard, J.P.; Leno, G.H.; Engelhardt, J.F. Cloned ferrets produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Dev. Biol. 2006, 293, 439–448. [Google Scholar]
  89. Shi, D.; Lu, F.; Wei, Y.; Cui, K.; Yang, S.; Wei, J.; Liu, Q. Buffalos (Bubalus bubalis) cloned by nuclear transfer of somatic cells. Biol. Reprod. 2007, 77, 285–291. [Google Scholar]
  90. Selokar, N.L.; Sharma, P.; Saini, M.; Sheoran, S.; Rajendran, R.; Kumar, D.; Sharma, R.K.; Motiani, R.K.; Kumar, P.; Jerome, A.; et al. Successful cloning of a superior buffalo bull. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11366. [Google Scholar]
  91. Wani, N.A.; Wernery, U.; Hassan, F.A.H.; Wernery, R.; Skidmore, J.A. Production of the first cloned camel by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Biol. Reprod. 2010, 82, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. First Cloned Camel Gives Birth to First Cloned Offspring in Dubai. The National UAE. 2015. Available online: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/first-cloned-camel-gives-birth-to-first-cloned-offspring-in-dubai-1.65260 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  93. Hwang, I.; Jeong, Y.W.; Kim, J.J.; Lee, H.J.; Kang, M.; Park, K.B.; Park, J.H.; Kim, Y.W.; Kim, W.T.; Shin, T.; et al. Successful cloning of coyotes through interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer using domestic dog oocytes. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2013, 25, 1142–1148. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  94. Entrepreneurs Clone Animals: Local Rancher, Veterinarian Supplement Deer Herd. Amarillo Globe-News. 2013. Available online: https://www.amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-10-25/entreprenuers-clone-animals-local-rancher-veternarian-supplement-deer (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  95. Hajian, M.; Hosseini, S.M.; Forouzanfar, M.; Abedi, P.; Ostadhosseini, S.; Hosseini, L.; Moulavi, F.; Gourabi, H.; Shahverdi, A.H.; Vosough Taghi Dizaj, A.; et al. “Conservation cloning” of vulnerable Esfahan mouflon (Ovis orientalis isphahanica): In vitro and in vivo studies. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 57, 959–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Dehghan, S.K. Scientists in Iran Clone Endangered Mouflon–Born to Domestic Sheep. The Guardian. 2015. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/05/iran-scientists-clone-endangered-mouflon-domestic-sheep (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  97. Wani, N.A.; Vettical, B.S.; Hong, S.B. First cloned Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) calf produced by interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: A step towards preserving the critically endangered wild Bactrian camels. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. DOJ, Office of Public Affairs. Montana Man Stentence for Federal Wildlife Trafficking Charges as Part of Yearslong Effort to Create Giant Hybrid Sheep for Captive Hunting. Press Release Number: 24-1233. 2024. Available online: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-sentenced-federal-wildlife-trafficking-charges-part-yearslong-effort-create (accessed on 24 November 2024).
  99. Gomez, J.; Limehouse, J. Montana Rancher Gets 6 Months in Prison for Creating Hybrid Sheep for Captive Hunting. USA TODAY. 2024. Available online: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/10/01/montana-rancher-sentenced-giant-sheep-hybrid-hunting/75463964007/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  100. Liu, Z.; Cai, Y.; Wang, Y.; Nie, Y.; Zhang, C.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Poo, M.; et al. Cloning of macaque monkeys by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 2018, 172, 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, Z.; Cai, Y.; Liao, Z.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, X.; Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Nie, Y.; et al. Cloning of a gene-edited macaque monkey by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 6, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Novak, B.J.; Ryder, O.A.; Houck, M.L.; Walker, K.; Russell, L.; Russell, B.; Walker, S.; Arenivas, S.S.; Aston, L.; Veneklasen, G.; et al. Endangered Przewalski’s Horse, Equus przewalskii, Cloned from Historically Cryopreserved Cells. Animals 2025, 15, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. World′s First Cloned Arctic Wolf Was Born! Sinogene Empowers Species Diversity Conservation. Sinogene. 2022. Available online: https://www.sinogenepets.com/worlds-first-cloned-arctic-wolf-was-born-sinogene-empowers-species-diversity-conservation.html (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  104. Sliwa, A.; Ghadirian, T.; Appel, A.; Banfield, L.; Sher Shah, M.; Watcher, T. Felis margarita. IUCN Red List. Threat. Species 2016, e.T8541A50651884. [Google Scholar]
  105. White, K.L.; Bunch, T.D.; Mitalipov, S.; Reed, W.A. Establishment of pregnancy after the transfer of nuclear transfer embryos produced from the fusion of argali (Ovis ammon) nuclei into domestic sheep (Ovis aries) enucleated oocytes. Cloning 1999, 1, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Williams, B.; Shin, T.; Liu, L.; Flores-Foxworth, G.; Romano, J.; Rugila, J.; Dean, D.; Burghardt, R.; Westhusin, M.; Kraemer, D. Abstracts for Poster Presentation-Cloning/Nuclear Transfer-Interspecies Nuclear Transfer of Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana). Theriogenology 2002, 57, 457. [Google Scholar]
  107. Williams, J.B.; Shin, T.; Liu, L.; Flores-Foxworth, G.; Romano, J.; Blue-McClendon, A.; Kraemer, D.; Westhusin, M.E. Cloning of Exotic/Endangered Species: Desert Bighorn Sheep. Methods Mol. Biol. 2006, 348, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  108. Friese, C. Cloning Wildlife: Zoos, Captivity, and the Future of Endangered Animals; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  109. Hwang, W. Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer for the production of endangered Korean tiger (Pantera Tigris Altaica). Theriogenology 2001, 55, 271. [Google Scholar]
  110. Damiani, P. Development of giant eland (Taurotragus oryx) and bovine (Bos taurus) oocytes. Theriogenology 2003, 59, 390. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gómez, M.C.; Pope, C.E.; Ricks, D.M.; Lyons, J.; Dumas, C.; Dresser, B.L. Cloning endangered felids using heterospecific donor oocytes and interspecies embryo transfer. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2009, 21, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  112. Li, Y.; Dai, Y.; Du, W.; Zhao, C.; Wang, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, R.; Li, N. In vitro development of yak (Bos grunniens) embryos generated by interspecies nuclear transfer. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2007, 101, 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  113. Lafsky, M. What Happens When One Cloned Wolf Mates With Another Cloned Wolf? Discover Magazine. 2009. Available online: https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/what-happens-when-one-cloned-wolf-mates-with-another-cloned-wolf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  114. Yin, X.; Lee, Y.; Lee, H.; Kim, N.; Kim, L.; Shin, H.; Kong, I. In vitro production and initiation of pregnancies in inter-genus nuclear transfer embryos derived from leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) nuclei fused with domestic cat (Felis silverstris catus) enucleated oocytes. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 275–282. [Google Scholar]
  115. Imsoonthornruksa, S.; Sangmalee, A.; Srirattana, K.; Parnpai, R.; Ketudat-Cairns, M. Development of intergeneric and intrageneric somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cat embryos and the determination of telomere length in cloned offspring. Cell Reprogramming 2012, 14, 79–87. [Google Scholar]
  116. Yong, E. Resurrecting the Extinct Frog With a Stomach for a Womb. National Geographic. 2013. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/resurrecting-the-extinct-frog-with-a-stomach-for-a-womb (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  117. Fatira, E.; Havelka, M.; Labbé, C.; Depincé, A.; Iegorova, V.; Pšenička, M.; Saito, T. Application of interspecific Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (iSCNT) in sturgeons and an unexpectedly produced gynogenetic sterlet with homozygous quadruple haploid. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5997. [Google Scholar]
  118. Fatira, E.; Havelka, M.; Labbé, C.; Depincé, A.; Pšenička, M.; Saito, T. A newly developed cloning technique in sturgeons; an important step towards recovering endangered species. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10453. [Google Scholar]
  119. Kumar, S.; Suleski, M.; Craig, J.E.; Kasprowicz, A.E.; Sanderford, M.; Li, M.; Stecher, G.; Hedges, S.B. TimeTree 5: An Expanded Resource for Species Divergence Times. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2022, 39, msac174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Botigué, L.R.; Song, S.; Scheu, A.; Gopalan, S.; Pendleton, A.L.; Oetjens, M.; Taravella, A.M.; Seregély, T.; Zeeb-Lanz, A.; Arbogast, R.M.; et al. Ancient European dog genomes reveal continuity since the Early Neolithic. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 16082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Orlando, L. Ancient Genomes Reveal Unexpected Horse Domestication and Management Dynamics. BioEssays 2020, 42, 1900164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Wilmut, I.; Schnieke, A.E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A.J.; Campbell, K.H.S. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997, 385, 810–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lagutina, I.; Fulka, H.; Lazzari, G.; Galli, C. Interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: Advancements and problems. Cell Reprogramming 2013, 15, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mrowiec, P.; Bugno-Poniewierska, M.; Młodawska, W. The perspective of the incompatible of nucleus and mitochondria in interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer for endangered species. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2021, 56, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Su, J.; Zhang, J.; Xing, X.; Zhou, C.; Yao, K.; An, Q.; Zhang, Y. H3K9 demethylase KDM4E is an epigenetic regulator for bovine embryonic development and a defective factor for nuclear reprogramming. Development 2018, 145, dev158261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Matoba, S.; Wang, H.; Jiang, L.; Lu, F.; Iwabuchi, K.A.; Wu, X.; Inoue, K.; Yang, L.; Press, W.; Lee, J.T.; et al. Loss of H3K27me3 imprinting in somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos disrupts post-implantation development. Cell Stem Cell 2018, 23, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ruan, D.; Peng, J.; Wang, X.; Ouyang, Z.; Zou, Q.; Yang, Y.; Chen, F.; Ge, W.; Wu, H.; Liu, Z.; et al. XIST derepression in active X chromosome hinders pig somatic cell nuclear transfer. Stem Cell Rep. 2018, 10, 494–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Su, J.; Luo, Y.; Quan, F.; Zhang, Y. Nuclear Donor Cell Lines Considerably Influence Cloning Efficiency and the Incidence of Large Offspring Syndrome in Bovine Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2013, 48, 660–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sinclair, K.D.; Corr, S.A.; Gutierrez, C.G.; Fisher, P.A.; Lee, J.H.; Rathbone, A.J.; Choi, I.; Campbell, K.H.S.; Gardner, D.S. Healthy ageing of cloned shee. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12359. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  130. Wakayama, S.; Kohda, T.; Obokata, H.; Tokoro, M.; Li, C.; Terashita, Y.; Mizutani, E.; Nguyen, V.T.; Kishigami, S.; Ishino, F.; et al. Successful serial recloning in the mouse over multiple generations. Cell Stem Cell 2013, 12, 293–297. [Google Scholar]
  131. Kim, M.J.; Oh, H.J.; Kim, G.A.; Setyawan, E.M.N.; Bin Choi, Y.; Lee, S.H.; Petersen-Jones, S.M.; Ko, C.M.J.; Lee, B.C. Birth of clones of the world’s first cloned dog. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Li, J.; Chen, D.; Han, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Wen, D.; Sun, Q.; Liu, Z.; Wang, M.; Lian, L.; Du, J.; et al. Serial nuclear transfer improves the development of interspecies reconstructed giant panda (Aluropoda melanoleuca) embryos. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2002, 47, 467–469. [Google Scholar]
  133. Sun, X.; Yan, Z.; Yi, Y.; Li, Z.; Lei, D.; Rogers, C.S.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Welsh, M.J.; Leno, G.H.; et al. Adeno-associated virus–targeted disruption of the CFTR gene in cloned ferrets. J. Clin. Investig. 2008, 118, 1578–1583. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  134. Gurdon, J.B. Nuclear transplantation in eggs and oocytes. J. Cell Sci. 1986, 4, 287–318. [Google Scholar]
  135. Gurdon, J.B. The Control of Gene Expression in Animal Development; Oxford and Harvard University Presses: Oxford, UK, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  136. Burgstaller, J.P.; Brem, G. Aging of Cloned Animals: A Mini-Review. Gerontology 2017, 63, 417–425. [Google Scholar]
  137. FDA. Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. 2008. Available online: https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2008-N-0033-0004/content.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  138. Watanabe, S.; Nagai, T. Death losses due to stillbirth, neonatal death and diseases in cloned cattle derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer and their progeny: A result of nationwide survey in Japan. Anim. Sci. J. 2009, 80, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. First Cloned Mouse Dies Of Old Age. CBS News. 2000. Available online: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-cloned-mouse-dies-of-old-age/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  140. Myers, M.; World’s First Cloned Cat Dies. Texas A&M Today. 2020. Available online: https://today.tamu.edu/2020/03/04/worlds-first-cloned-cat-dies/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  141. World’s 1st Cloned Cow Dies in Central Japan at 21. Kyodo News. 2019. Available online: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/10/6a9f77a90f6b-worlds-1st-cloned-cow-dies-in-central-japan-at-21.html (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  142. Ji-Sook, B. 1st Clond Wolf Found Dead at Zoo. The Korea Times. 2009. Available online: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/11/113_51074.html (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  143. Ptak, G.; Clinton, M.; Barboni, B.; Muzzeddu, M.; Cappai, P.; Tischner, M.; Loi, P. Preservation of the wild European mouflon: The first example of genetic management using a complete program of reproductive biotechnologies. Biol. Reprod. 2002, 66, 796–801. [Google Scholar]
  144. Michel, S.; Ghoddousi, A. Ovis gmelini. IUCN Red List. Threat. Species 2020, 2020, e.T54940218A22147055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Casinello, J. CABI International, Ovis Aries Musimon (European mouflon). 2022. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.1079/cabicompendium.71353 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  146. Chen, D.Y.; Wen, D.C.; Zhang, Y.P.; Sun, Q.Y.; Han, Z.M.; Liu, Z.H.; Shi, P.; Li, J.S.; Xiangyu, J.G.; Lian, L.; et al. Interspecies implantation and mitochondria fate of panda-rabbit cloned embryos. Biol. Reprod. 2002, 67, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  147. Guanfu, H.; Guiwei, Z.; Xiangjiang, L.; Hongwei, L.; Zhong, L.; Shaona, H. The carp-goldfish nucleocytoplasmic hybrid has mitochondria from the carpal as the nuclear donor species. Gene 2014, 536, 265–271. [Google Scholar]
  148. Farris, S.M. The rise to dominance of genetic model organisms and the decline of curiosity-driven organismal research. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243088. [Google Scholar]
  149. Comizzoli, P.; Holt, W.V. Breakthroughs and new horizons in reproductive biology of rare and endangered animal species. Biol. Reprod. 2019, 101, 514–525. [Google Scholar]
  150. Bolton, R.L.; Mooney, A.; Pettit, M.T.; E Bolton, A.; Morgan, L.; Drake, G.J.; Appeltant, R.; Walker, S.L.; Gillis, J.D.; Hvilsom, C. Resurrecting biodiversity: Advanced assisted reproductive technologies and biobanking. Reprod. Fertil. 2022, 3, R121–R146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Whitham, J.C.; Wielebnowski, N. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 247–260. [Google Scholar]
  152. Myths About Cloning. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2020. Available online: https://public4.pagefreezer.com/browse/FDA/06-04-2023T20:24/https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-cloning/myths-about-cloning (accessed on 10 October 2020).
  153. Yin, Y.; Dong, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, D.; Jones, B.F. Public use and public funding of science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 1344–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Pizzutto, C.S.; Colbachini, H.; Jorge-Neto, P.N. One Conservation: The integrated view of biodiversity conservation. Anim. Reprod. 2021, 18, e20210024. [Google Scholar]
  155. Wildt, D.E.; Rall, W.F.; Critser, J.K.; Monfort, S.L.; Seal, U.S. Living collections for biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 1997, 47, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  156. Lee, K. Can cloning save endangered species? Curr. Biol. 2001, 11, 245–246. [Google Scholar]
  157. Ryder, O.A. Opportunities and Challenges for Conserving Small Populations: How Zoos Can Hel. In The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation, 1st ed.; Minteer, B.A., Maienshein, J., Collins, J.P., Rabb, G., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  158. Hayashi, K.; Ohta, H.; Kurimoto, K.; Aramaki, S.; Saitou, M. Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell 2011, 146, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  159. Hayashi, K.; Ogushi, S.; Kurimoto, K.; Shimamoto, S.; Ohta, H.; Saitou, M. Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial germ cell-like cells in mice. Science 2012, 338, 971–975. [Google Scholar]
  160. Conservation Planning Specialist Grou (n.d.). The One Plan Approach to Conservation International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Available online: https://www.cpsg.org/our-approach/one-plan-approach-conservation (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  161. Pickrell, J. Australian Fires Have Incinerated the Habitats of up to 100 Threatened Species. Science News. 2020. Available online: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/australian-fires-incinerated-habitats-threatened-species-ecological-disaster (accessed on 24 November 2024).
  162. Readfearn, G. “Triple Whammy”: Drought, Fires and Floods Push Australian Rivers into Crisis. The Guardian. 2020. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/triple-whammy-hits-push-australian-rivers-crisis (accessed on 24 November 2024).
  163. Readfearn and Graham. “A Moment of Complete Despair”: Last Population of Macquarie Perch All but Wiped Out in NSW River Carnage. The Guardian. 2020. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/15/last-population-macquarie-perch-nsw-river-carnage-bushfire-ash-fish-species (accessed on 24 November 2024).
  164. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E6089–E6096. [Google Scholar]
  165. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Raven, P.H. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 13596–13602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Smith, D.; Abeli, T.; Bruns, E.B.; Dalrymple, S.E.; Foster, J.; Gilbert, T.C.; Hogg, C.J.; Lloyd, N.A.; Meyer, A.; Moehrenschlager, A.; et al. Extinct in the wild: The precarious state of Earth’s most threatened group of species. Science 2023, 379, eadd2889. [Google Scholar]
  167. Houck, M.L.; Lear, T.L.; Charter, S.J. Animal Cytogenetics. In The AGT Cytogenetics Laboratory Manual, 4th ed.; Arsham, M.S., Barch, M.J., Lawce, H.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. eBooks: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1055–1102. [Google Scholar]
  168. González-del-Pliego, P.; Freckleton, R.P.; Edwards, D.P.; Koo, M.S.; Scheffers, B.R.; Pyron, R.A.; Jetz, W. Phylogenetic and Trait-Based Prediction of Extinction Risk for Data-Deficient Amphibians. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, 1557–1563.e3. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  169. Luedtke, J.A.; Chanson, J.; Neam, K.; Hobin, L.; Maciel, A.O.; Catenazzi, A.; Borzée, A.; Hamidy, A.; Aowphol, A.; Jean, A.; et al. Ongoing declines for the world’s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 2023, 622, 308–314. [Google Scholar]
  170. Howell, L.G.; Frankham, R.; Rodger, J.C.; Witt, R.R.; Clulow, S.; Upton, R.M.O.; Clulow, J. Integrating Biobanking Minimises Inbreeding and Produces Significant Cost Benefits for a Threatened Frog Captive Breeding Programs. Conserv. Lett. 2021, 14, e12776. [Google Scholar]
  171. Browne, R.K.; Luo, Q.; Wang, P.; Mansour, N.; Kaurova, S.A.; Gakhova, E.N.; Shishova, N.V.; Uteshev, V.K.; Kramarova, L.I.; Venu, G.; et al. The Sixth Mass Extinction and Amphibian Species Sustainability Through Reproduction and Advanced Biotechnologies, Biobanking of Germplasm and Somatic Cells, and Conservation Breeding Programs (RBCs). Animals 2024, 14, 3395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Frankham, R.; Ballou, J.D.; Ralls, K.; Eldridge, M.D.B.; Dudash, M.R.; Fenster, C.B.; Lacy, R.C.; Sunnocks, P. Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  173. Bell, D.A.; Robinson, Z.L.; Funk, W.C.; Fitzpatrick, S.W.; Allendorf, F.W.; Tallmon, D.A.; Whiteley, A.R. The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 1070–1079. [Google Scholar]
  174. Frankham, R. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: Meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24, 2610–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Pavlova, A.; Tonkin, Z.; Pearce, L.; Robledo-Ruiz, D.; Lintermans, M.; Ingram, B.; Lyon, J.; Beitzel, M.; Broadhurst, B.; Rourke, M.; et al. A shift to metapopulation genetic management for persistence of a species threatened by fragmentation: The case of an endangered Australian freshwater fish. Authorea Prepr. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Pavlova, A.; Beheregaray, L.B.; Coleman, R.; Gilligan, D.; Harrisson, K.A.; Ingram, B.A.; Kearns, J.; Lamb, A.M.; Lintermans, M.; Lyon, J.; et al. Severe consequences of habitat fragmentation on genetic diversity of an endangered Australian freshwater fish: A call for assisted gene flow. Evol. Appl. 2017, 10, 531–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Kriesner, P.; Weeks, A.R.E.; Sunnucks, P. Assessing genetic risks to Victorian flora and fauna. In For Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Monash University: Clayton, VIC, Australia, 2020; ISBN 978-1-76105-313-9. [Google Scholar]
  178. Hardy, M.A.; Hull, S.D.; Zuckerberg, B. Swift action increases the success of population reinforcement for a declining prairie grouse. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 1906–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. van de Kerk, M.; Onorato, D.P.; Hostetler, J.A.; Bolker, B.M.; Oli, M.K. Dynamics, persistence, and genetic management of the endangered Florida Panther Population. Wildl. Monogr. 2019, 203, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Czernik, M.; Anzalone, D.A.; Palazzese, L.; Oikawa, M.; Loi, P. Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Failures, successes and the challenges ahead. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2019, 63, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  181. Hutchinson, A.M.; Appeltant, R.; Burdon, T.; Bao, Q.; Bargaje, R.; Bodnar, A.; Chambers, S.; Comizzoli, P.; Cook, L.; Endo, Y.; et al. Advancing stem cell technologies for conservation of wildlife biodiversity. Development 2024, 151, dev203116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Wildt, D.; Miller, P.; Koepfli, K.P.; Pukazhenthi, B.; Palfrey, K.; Livingston, G.; Beetem, D.; Shurter, S.; Gregory, J.; Takács, M.; et al. Breeding centers, private ranches, and genomics for creating sustainable wildlife populations. BioScience 2019, 69, 928–943. [Google Scholar]
  183. Wisely, S.M.; Statham, M.J.; Fleischer, R.C. Pleistocene Refugia and Holocene Expansion of a Grassland-Dependent Species, the Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes). J. Mammal. 2008, 89, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Der Sarkissian, C.; Ermini, L.; Schubert, M.; Yang, M.A.; Librado, P.; Fumagalli, M.; Jónsson, H.; Bar-Gal, G.K.; Albrechtsen, A.; Vieira, F.G.; et al. Evolutionary genomics and conservation of the endangered Przewalski’s horse. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, 2577–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Taylor, H.R.; Colbourne, R.M.; Robertson, H.A.; Nelson, N.J.; Allendorf, F.W.; Ramstad, K.M. Cryptic inbreeding depression in a growing population of a long-lived species. Mol. Ecol. 2017, 26, 799–813. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  186. Wiedenfeld, D.A.; Alberts, A.C.; Angulo, A.; Bennett, E.L.; Byers, O.; Contreras-MacBeath, T.; Drummond, G.; da Fonseca, G.A.; Gascon, C.; Harrison, I.; et al. Conservation resource allocation, small population resiliency, and the fallacy of conservation triage. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 1388–1395. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  187. Ryder, O.A.; Friese, C.; Greely, H.T.; Sandler, R.; Saragusty, J.; Durrant, B.S.; Redford, K.H. Exploring the limits of saving a subspecies: The ethics and social dynamics of restoring northern white rhinos (Ceratotherium simum cottoni). Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, e241. [Google Scholar]
  188. Sandler, R.L.; Moses, L.; Wisely, S.M. An ethical analysis of cloning for genetic rescue: Case study of the black-footed ferret. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 257, 109118. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Duration of adult somatic cell cloning efforts by taxon and purpose. The purposes of each cloning effort are indicated by color and position: conservation-relevant cloning efforts are above the timeline with application-oriented efforts in green and research-oriented efforts in blue, while commercial or model research cloning fall below the timeline all colored black. Taxa marked with † are domestic taxa cloned as proxies for conservation-oriented research, but in the case of the European mouflon it was mistakenly classified as a wild species at the time. Two wild taxa that were the focus of conservation cloning research were also cloned for commercial purposes: the White-tailed Deer and Argali Sheep, and are therefore listed both above and below the timeline. Dashed lines represent cloning research and development preceding live births. Two years was estimated as the average research and development lead-up time for taxa, unless otherwise stated in publications or personal communication. Empty circles indicate efforts that failed to produce live births. Solid circles indicate the first achieved live births. Circles with stars indicate that fertile adult clones were produced. Solid lines indicate active cloning efforts for a given taxa, while breaks in lines represent inactivity. Beyond 2025, dotted lines indicate taxa for which it is likely that cloning activities will continue.
Figure 1. Duration of adult somatic cell cloning efforts by taxon and purpose. The purposes of each cloning effort are indicated by color and position: conservation-relevant cloning efforts are above the timeline with application-oriented efforts in green and research-oriented efforts in blue, while commercial or model research cloning fall below the timeline all colored black. Taxa marked with † are domestic taxa cloned as proxies for conservation-oriented research, but in the case of the European mouflon it was mistakenly classified as a wild species at the time. Two wild taxa that were the focus of conservation cloning research were also cloned for commercial purposes: the White-tailed Deer and Argali Sheep, and are therefore listed both above and below the timeline. Dashed lines represent cloning research and development preceding live births. Two years was estimated as the average research and development lead-up time for taxa, unless otherwise stated in publications or personal communication. Empty circles indicate efforts that failed to produce live births. Solid circles indicate the first achieved live births. Circles with stars indicate that fertile adult clones were produced. Solid lines indicate active cloning efforts for a given taxa, while breaks in lines represent inactivity. Beyond 2025, dotted lines indicate taxa for which it is likely that cloning activities will continue.
Animals 15 00989 g001
Figure 2. Ideal conservation cloning program Venn diagram.
Figure 2. Ideal conservation cloning program Venn diagram.
Animals 15 00989 g002
Table 1. Successfully cloned species and subspecies, ordered by year of first achieved live birth or hatching.
Table 1. Successfully cloned species and subspecies, ordered by year of first achieved live birth or hatching.
Common NameSpecies NameYear of First Live Birth/HatchingHigher ClassificationWild or DomesticCurrent IUCN StatusSame-Species CloningCross-Species CloningHealthy Adult Clone(s) ProducedEvaluation of Reproductive CapabilityReference(s)Nature of Reference
Dark-spotted frogPelophylax nigromaculatus (formerly P. nigromaculata)1957AmphibianWildNear Threatened (assessed 2004); species was cloned before IUCN red list was formed ×YesFertile[39]Peer-reviewed publication.
Northern leopard frogLithobates pipiens (formerly Rana pipiens)1957AmphibianWildLeast Concern× YesFertile[38,42]Peer-reviewed publication.
African clawed frogXenopus laevis laevis1960AmphibianDomesticLeast Concern××YesFertile[43]Peer-reviewed publication.
Mwanza frogXenopus victorianus1961AmphibianWildLeast Concern ×YesFertile[44]Peer-reviewed publication.
Durama pond frogPelophylax porosus (formerly P. p. brevipoda)1963AmphibianWildLeast Concern××YesFertile[45,46,47]Peer-reviewed publication.
Japanese brown frogRana japonica1963AmphibianWildLeast Concern ×YesFertile[45]Peer-reviewed publication.
Montane brown frogRana ornativentris (formerly R. ornaventris)1963AmphibianWildLeast Concern ×YesUnknown (Original reference could not be obtained, information gleaned from other papers)[46,48]Peer-reviewed publication.
GoldfishCarassisus auratus auratus1963FishDomesticLeast Concern ×YesFertile[49]Peer-reviewed publication.
BitterlingRhodeus sinensis1963FishWildLeast Concern×× (cross-genus)YesFertile[49]Peer-reviewed publication.
Common Asian carpCyprinus carpio1963FishDomesticWild populations Vulnerable (assessed 1996)×× (cross-species and cross-genus)YesFertile[49]Peer-reviewed publication.
AxolotlAmbystoma mexicanum1965AmphibianDomesticWild populations Critically Endangered (assessed 1986)× YesFertile[50]Peer-reviewed publication.
Peter’s platannaXenopus petersii1966AmphibianWildLeast Concern ×YesUnknown (Original reference could not be obtained, information gleaned from other papers)[46]Peer-reviewed publication.
Iberian ribbed newtPleurodeles waltl1970AmphibianWildNear Threatened (assessed 2006)××YesFertile[51]Peer-reviewed publication.
Edough ribbed newtPleurodeles poireti1970AmphibianWildEndangered (assessed 2004)××YesUnknown (Original reference could not be obtained, information gleaned from other papers)[51]Peer-reviewed publication.
Gold-spotted pond frogPelophylax plancyi (formerly P. chosenicus)1972AmphibianWildVulnerable (assessed 2004) ×YesFertile[46]Peer-reviewed publication.
Common frogRana temporaria1972AmphibianWildLeast Concern ×YesInfertile[48]Peer-reviewed publication.
Edible frogPelophylax esculenta (possibly. P. ridibundus or P. lessonae)1972AmphibianWildNot classified, considered common ×NoNA[47]Peer-reviewed publication.
Wild goldfishCarassius auratus1980FishWildLeast Concern×× (cross-subspecies)YesFertile[52]Peer-reviewed publication.
MouseMus musculus1981MammalDomesticLeast Concern× YesFertile[53]Peer-reviewed publication.
Grass CarpCtenopharyngoden idellus1984FishWildNot classified, considered common × (cross-genus)YesFertile[54]Peer-reviewed publication.
SheepOvis aries1986MammalDomesticNot Applicable× YesFertile[55]Peer-reviewed publication.
CattleBos taurus1987MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[56]Peer-reviewed publication.
RabbitOryctolagus cuniculus domestica1988MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[57]Peer-reviewed publication.
PigSus scrofa domesticus1989MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[58]Peer-reviewed publication.
LoachParamisgurnus dabryanus1990FishWildNot classified, considered common× YesFertile[59]Peer-reviewed publication.
GoatCapra hircus1991MammalDomesticNot Applicable× YesFertile[60]Peer-reviewed publication.
Rhesus macaqueMacaca mulatta1997MammalWildLeast Concern× Clones born in 2020 are still alive and nearing age of sexual maturity. NA[61,62,63]Peer reviewed publications, current status of clones provided by Dr. Qiang Sun.
MedakaOryzias latipes1999FishDomesticLeast Concern× YesFertile[64,65]Peer-reviewed publication.
ZebuBos indicus1999MammalDomesticLeast Concern ×YesFertile[66,67,68]Peer-reviewed publications.
GaurBos gaurus2001MammalWildVulnerable ×NoNA[69,70]Peer-reviewed publication.
European mouflonOvis aries musimon2001MammalFeral DomesticNot classified, not applicable (was considered a wild species at time of cloning, O. gmelini musimon, which was classified as Near Threatened) ×YesReached weaning age, but not sexual maturity[71]Peer-reviewed publication. Fertility information provided by Dr. Pasqualino Loi.
Domestic CatFelis catus2001MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[72]Peer-reviewed publication.
ZebrafishDanio rerio2002FishDomesticLeast Concern× YesFertile[73,74]Peer-reviewed publication.
RatRattus norvegicus domestica2002MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[75]Peer-reviewed publication.
Bucardo (died)Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica2003MammalWildExtinct (nominate species Least Concern) ×NoNA[76]Peer-reviewed publication.
BantengBos javanicus2003MammalWildEndangered ×YesInfertile[77]Conference abstract. Fertility reported here for the first time.
HorseEquus caballus2003MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[78]Peer-reviewed publication.
White-tailed deerOcocoileus virginianus2003MammalWildLeast Concern× YesFertile[79,80]All information reported in popular press.
Red deerCervus elaphus2003MammalWildLeast Concern× YesFertile[81]Peer-reviewed publication. Fertility information provided by Dr. Debbie Berg.
FruitflyDrosophila melanogaster2004InsectDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[82]Peer-reviewed publication.
African wild catFelis sylvestris lybica2004MammalWildLeast Concern ×YesFertile[83]Peer-reviewed publication.
Sand cat *Felis margarita2004MammalWildLeast Concern (Near Threatened at time of cloning) ×NoNA[84]Peer-reviewed publication.
Domestic DogCanis lupus familiaris2005MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[85]Peer-reviewed publication.
Gray WolfCanis lupus lupus2005MammalWildLeast Concern × (cross-subspecies)YesUnknown[86,87]Peer-reviewed publication.
Domestic FerretMustela putorius furo2006MammalDomesticLeast Concern× YesFertile[88]Peer-reviewed publication. Fertility information provided by Dr. John Engelhardt.
Water BuffaloBubalus bubalis2007MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[89,90]Peer-reviewed publication
Dromedary CamelCamelus dromadarius2009MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable× YesFertile[91,92]Peer-reviewed publication.
CoyoteCanis latrans2011MammalWildLeast Concern ×YesFertile[93]Peer-reviewed publication. Fertility information provided by Dr. Hwang Suk.
Mule deerOcocoileus hemionus2012MammalWildLeast Concern× YesFertile[94]Reported in popular press. Fertility information provided by Shawn Walker.
Esfahan mouflonOvis gmelini isphahanica2015MammalWildNear Threatened ×UnknownUnknown[95,96]Live births reported in peer-reviewed publication in 2010, single live birth reported by researchers to press in 2015.
Bactrian camelCamelus bactrianus2017MammalDomesticNot classified, not applicable ×NoNA[97]Peer-reviewed publication.
ArgaliOvis ammon2017MammalWildNear Threatened ×YesFertile[98,99]Reported in popular press and government press release from court case documents.
Cynomolgus monkeysMacaca fascicularis2018MammalWildEndangered (assessment published 2020); species was listed as Least Concern at the time of cloning× YesFertile[100,101]Peer reviewed publication. Current status of clones provided by Dr. Qiang Sun
Przewalksi’s HorseEquus przewalskii2020MammalWildEndangered ×Clone born in 2020 is alive and expected to reach sexual maturity in 2025; second clone will reach sexual maturity in 2028Cannot be evaluated yet[102]Peer-reviewed publication.
Black-footed ferretMustela nigripes2020MammalWildEndangered ×YesFertile[3,4]Preprint and government press release.
Arctic wolfCanis lupus arctos2022MammalWildLeast Concern ×UnknownNot yet reported[103]Press release.
The designation × denotes which method of cloning has been applied successfully to the species. When recording reproductive capability the designation NA (not applicable) is provided for species in which no individual clone reached sexual maturity, and therefore reproductive capability could not be ascertained. * The sand cat is not considered endangered today, and although listed as Near Threatened from 2002 to 2016, it was likely not endangered. Its downgraded listing from Near Threatened to Least Concern was not due to recovery, but due to a reassessment. The species is rarely seen, but has been consistently observed [104]. The Mediterranean population, however, is still listed as Near Threatened.
Table 2. Detailed information regarding conservation related cloning efforts.
Table 2. Detailed information regarding conservation related cloning efforts.
Common NameSpecies NameStatusMethodYear(s)Oocyte DonorSomatic/Oocyte Donor Evolutionary Divergence Estimated (Range) MYA *Recipient Surrogate MothersNumber of Embryos Transferred/Fostered for DevelopmentNumber of Live Births/HatchingPercentage Implanted/Fostered Embryos Resulting in Live Births/HatchingNumber of Clones Reaching Weaning AgeReproductive CapabilityReferencesNature of References
ArgaliOvis ammonNear ThreatenedCross-species1999, 2017Ovis aries (domestic), O. c. canadensis × O. aries hybrid0.96 (0.4730–1.4406)Ovis aries (domestic), O. c. canadensis x O. aries hybrid, O. c. canadensis x O. aries/O. gmelini (Rocky Mountain Bighorn x Texas Dall Sheep hybrid)28, 1650, 10, 0.6%0, 1Cloned argali was used to produce >50 offspring via hybridization with Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Ovis canadensis canadensis[98,99,105]Peer reviewed publication, court case documents
Desert Bighorn SheepOvis canadensis nelsonii (formerly O. c. mexicana)Least ConcernCross-species2000, 2017Ovis aries (domestic)3.14 (2.30–4.97)Ovis aries (domestic)223000NA[106,107]Conference abstract, book series, and information provided by Dr. Mike Kjelland.
GaurBos gaurusVulnerableCross-species2001, 2012Bost taurus3.76 (2.86–5.42)Bos taurus44 **1, 12.4% (averaged); 0–11% per cell line/treatment0NA[69,70,108]Peer reviewed publication reports of viable cloned pregnancies in 2000, live birth reported to press by San Diego Zoo Global, Advanced Cell Technologies, and TransOva Genetics. Live births from another research group were Fertile in peer-reviewed literature in 2012.
TigerPanthera tigris altaicaEndangeredCross-species2001Could not obtain original reference.---000NA[109]Conference abstract is referenced in other papers, but original reference could not be obtained to extract data regarding each step of the cloning process.
BantengBos javanicusEndangeredCross-species2003Bos taurus3.76 (2.86–5.42)Bos taurusNA2NA1Infertile[108]Abstract from conference. Reproductive capability and Reason for program termination presented in this publication by co-authors of previous peer-reviewed report.
BucardoCapra pyrenaica pyrenaicaSubspecies Extinct (Evolutionarily Torpid), Nominate species Least ConcernCross-species2003, 2013Capra hircus2.85 (1.25–5.61)Capra pyrainaica hispanica and Capra pyrenaica hispanica x Capra hircus hybrids154, NA1, 00.6% (total)0NA[76]Peer-reviewed publication. The research team renewed efforts in 2013, but produced no pregnancies. Personal communication Dr. Alberto Fernándaz-Arias.
Red deerCervus elaphusLeast ConcernSame-species2003–2005Cervus elaphus-Cervus elaphus841012% (averaged)8Clones produced normal sperm, were never bred.[81]Peer-reviewed publication, personal communication Debbie Berg.
White-tailed DeerOdocoileus virginianisLeast ConcernSame-species2003 onwardOdocoileus virginianis-Odocoileus virginianisNANANA1Cloned deer was reported to produce offspring, with up to three generations of descendants.[79,80]First clone Fertile by Texas A&M University and ViaGen Pets & Equine, but never published in peer-review. Total number of adult clones produced provided by ViaGen Pet’s and Equine. Personal communication Shawn Walker.
ElandTragelaphus oryxLeast ConcernCross-species2003Bos taurus17.3 (14.3–19.3)--000NA[110]Conference abstract is referenced in other papers, but original reference could not be obtained to extract data regarding each step of the cloning process.
SandcatFelis margaritaLeast ConcernCross-species2004Felis catus3.6 (1.13–5.10)Felis catus1600140.3–1.8% per treatment/cell line0NA[84,111]Peer-reviewed publications.
Black-footed catFelis nigripesVulnerableCross-species2004Felis catus4.35 (3.36–5.92)Felis catus698000NA[84,111]Peer-reviewed publications.
Rusty spotted catPrionailurus rubiginosusNear ThreatenedCross-species2004Felis catus9 (5.6–11.9)Felis catus201000NA[84,111]Peer-reviewed publications.
African wildcatFelis sylvestris lybicaLeast ConcernCross-species2004Felis catus2.8 (1.40–5.10)Felis catus1627171% (averaged)8Clones were bred, one generation of descendants published.[111]Peer-reviewed publication.
Domestic Yak ***Bos grunniensNot Listed, Not applicableCross-species2005Bos taurus4.36 (2.72–6.46)Bos taurus324000NA[112]Peer-reviewed publication.
Gray WolfCanis lupus lupusLeast ConcernCross-subspecies2005, 2007Canis lupus familiaris(0.02–0.04)Canis lupus familiaris251, 3722, 60.8%; 0–9.5% per oocyte donor/recipient combination2,3NA[86,87,113]Two independent research groups published successful results in peer-reviewed literature. Reports of intent to breed in popular press.
Leopard catPrionailurus bengalensisLeast ConcernCross-species2005Felis catus9 (5.6–11.9)Felis catus435000NA[114]Peer-reviewed publication.
Esfahan MouflonOvis gmelini isphahanicaNear ThreatenedCross-species2010–2015Ovis aries (domestic)1.17 (0.47–8.10)Ovis aries (domestic)122, NA16% (averaged); NA0, NAUnknown[95,96]Two live births reported in peer-reviewed publication in 2010, single live birth reported by researchers to press in 2015.
CoyoteCanis latransLeast ConcernCross-species2011Canis lupus familiaris3.04 (1.39–4.51)Canis lupus familiaris32082.5% (averaged)8Clones were bred, two litters have been born to cloned parents to date.[93]Peer-reviewed publication. Reproduction information provided by Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk.
Rocky Mountain Bighorn SheepOvis canadensis canadensisLeast ConcernCross-species2012Ovis aries3.14 (2.30–4.97)Ovis aries (domestic)NA000NANAInformation provided by Dr. Mike Kjelland.
Marbled catPardofelis marmorataNear ThreatenedCross-species2012Felis catus15.2 (12.2–16.6)Felis catus461000NA[115]Peer-reviewed publication.
Southern Gastric Brooding FrogRheobatrachus silusExtinctCross-species2013-Mixophyes fasciolatus141 (123–149)-NA000NA[116]Popular press. Current status provided by Dr. Michael Archer
Bactrian Camel ***Camelus bactrianusNot Listed, Not applicableCross-species2017Camelus dromedarius6.4 (2.4–9.5)Camelus dromedarius2613.8% (total)0NA[97]Peer-reviewed publication.
Russian SturgeonAcipenser gueldenstaedtiiCritically EndangeredCross-species2018, 2019Acipenser ruthenus71 (8–71)-266000NA[117,118]Peer reviewed publications.
SterletAcipenser ruthenusVulnerableSame-species2018Acipenser ruthenus--129000NA[117]Peer-reviewed publication.
BelugaHuso husoCritically EndangeredCross-species2019Acipenser ruthenus158 (16–172)-130000NA[117,118]Peer reviewed publications.
Przewalksi’s HorseEquus przewalskiiEndangeredCross-species2020, 2023Equus caballus(0.035–0.055)Equus caballus11218% (total)2NA[102]Peer-reviewed publication..
Black-footed ferretMustela nigripesEndangeredCross-species2020 onwardMustela putorius furo0.5Mustela putorius furo16330–2.4%3One clone has produced 2 kits to date[4,5]Preprint and USFWS press release.
Arctic wolfCanis lupus arctosLeast ConcernCross-subspecies2022Canis lupus familiaris(0.02–0.04)Canis lupus familiaris8510.1%1NA[103]Press Release Announcement by SinoGene, China.
The number of embryos transferred, number of live births/hatching, and number of clones reaching weaning age are recorded per the years in which cloning attempts were made, with the data per year separated by a comma (,). When recording reproductive capability the designation NA (not applicable) is provided for species in which no individual clone reached sexual maturity, and therefore reproductive capability could not be ascertained. * Divergence times retrieved from [119] for all taxa except gray wolves [120] and Przewalski’s horse [121]. ** Percentage efficiency is calculated from 41 implanted embryos, as 3 fetuses were terminated early for scientific evaluation and may otherwise have resulted in viable clones. *** Although domestic species, the efforts to clone yak and bactrian camel were motivated as proof-of-concepts for their endangered wild counterparts.
Table 3. Reasons for initiation and termination of conservation-related cloning efforts and accompanying information of longevity and causes of death.
Table 3. Reasons for initiation and termination of conservation-related cloning efforts and accompanying information of longevity and causes of death.
Common NameSpecies NamePrimary Purpose for CloningReason for Program TerminationLongevityTypical LifespanCauses of Death and Post-Natal Information.ReferencesNature of Reference
CoyoteCanis latransResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceObtaining live birth satisfied end goal.One lived 4 years, two lived 8 years, one lived 9 years. Four clones were still alive in 2020 at 9 years of age.13–15 yearsThe first death was caused by wounds incurred from fighting, causes of two deaths unknown, one death due to heartworm parasitic infection. Clones were bred and produced six F1 offspring, one of which was cannibalized at less than one year of age, another died less than one year of age, cause unknown, and the remaining four were alive at six and four years of age in 2020.Personal communication.Information provided by Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk.
African wildcatFelis sylvestris lybicaResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceNo response to inquiry; assumption that live births satisfied research end-goalsThree clones lived < 36 h, six lived < 30 days, one lived 1 month, one lived 3 years, two were terminated at 14 years. Four clones were still alive in 2020 at 16 years of age.13–14 yearsTwo perinatal deaths due to bacterial infections. One perinatal death due to acute pneumonia from aspiration from bottle-feeding. Remaining perinatal deaths due to respiratory failure, potentially due to underdeveloped lungs. One clone died at 1 month of age due to poor fitness. One clone died at 3 years of age due to trauma. Two clones were euthanized due to age related issues at extreme old age. Four clones (50%) were alive and exceeding life expectancy in 2020. These clones produced eight F1 offspring, two of which died at one year of age (unknown reasons, suspected accident in enclosure), one euthanized at age 14 due to age related complications, and the remaining five were alive at 15 years of age in 2020.[111]Peer-reviewed publication, additional information provided by Lisa Murphy.
GaurBos gaurusResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceBoth studies achieved scientific end-goals; cloning the gaur by San Diego Zoo Global, Advanced Cell Technologies, and TransOva Genetics was an initial proof of concept for endangered bovids. Cloning additional gaur by San Diego Zoo Global was not pursued because it would not serve significant conservation value.>48 hUp to 26 years (typical range unknown)The single clone died of dysentery.[70,108]Live birth and death in 2000 reported in press. Reason for termination reported from interviews in published book.
European mouflonOvis aries musimonResearch and Application: to advance conservation cloning science and recover deceased individuals within a small managed population. At the initiation of the work the species was classified as a distinct wild taxon, but now is considered a feral subspecies of domestic sheep.Limited funding prevented further attempts. When initiated, Italy prohibited cloning of domestic animals unless for transgenic research, wild animals were exempted from the ban. Cloning mouflon presented an opportunity to advance cloning research as well as to recover the genotypes of deceased individuals within a small island population on Sicily.14 months8–12 yearsThe single clone was released to the same management area that the somatic donor lived. It died of pulmonary adenomatosis induced by infection. This was the same disease that caused the death of the somatic cell donor, and therefore susceptibility to the disease was not due to poorer fitness of the clone. Pulmonary infections are a major cause of multiple sheep taxa mortalities worldwide. Until onset of infection the clone was healthy and developed normally. Personal communication.Information provided by Dr. Pasqualino Loi.
BucardoCapra pyrenaica pyrenaicaApplication: to recover a subspecies that had gone extinct from cryopreserved cell lines. Limited funding and opposition from specific political and conservation stakeholders. A recent successful reintroduction of a related Ibex subspecies to the bucardo’s former range now precludes significant ecological value of recovering the extinct subspecies.~7 minutes16 yearsThe clone died due to complications arising from an extra, abnormal lung lobe. This was likely due to problematic early embryonic nuclear reprogramming or later gestational complications.[76]Peer-reviewed publication. Reason for program termination provided by Dr. Alberto Fernándaz-Arias.
BantengBos javanicusApplication: genetic management of under-represented individual in ex situ zoo populationsAlthough cloning will be of value long-term, other lower cost genetic management options are currently adequate, negating justification to continue efforts to produce a fertile clone currently.One clone lived 7 days, the second lived 7 yearsUp to 27 years (typical range unknown)The first clone was large and failed to gain strength, an abnormality in domestic cattle that occurs in higher frequencies in clones. The second individual was healthy throughout its life and died of injuries incurred in an accident with another animal in its enclosure, not uncommon for individuals in multi-individual enclosures.[77]Author Oliver Ryder, collaborator and co-author on previous peer-reviewed publications regarding this program, provided detailed information.
White-tailed DeerOdocoileus virginianisResearch: first clone was produced for conservation cloning research; subsequent efforts for private enterprise (see Figure 1)Conservation cloning research achieved its end-goal. Cloning of these taxa continues by commercial efforts.First cloned deer lived 15 years, many individuals are currently alive.6–14 yearsThe first cloned deer, Dewey, died of natural aging, having exceeded typical life expectancy. He was reported as healthy throughout his life.[79,80]Reported in popular press, additional information provided by Dr. Alice Blue-McClendon.
Red deerCervus elaphusResearch: unrelated to conservationNew Zealand Deer Industry stakeholders had no further interest in cloning deer.Two lived < 1 week, one lived 5 years, one lived 7 years, two terminated at 8 years, three terminated at 10 years of age.10–13 yearsOne calf died likely due to several observed pathologies (contracted flexor tendons in all legs, enlarged fatty liver, and incomplete lung inflation-these issues are observed in naturally reproduced individuals but expected at higher frequency in clones). One calf died due to parental neglect. One adult died from injury, breaking his neck on a fence, and another died of injuries incurred while fighting another clone while rutting-both causes of death not infrequent for males of all deer species. The remaining clones, born in 2003 and 2005 were euthanized together, at ages 8 and 10, due to lack of funding to continue animal care.[81]Peer-review publication, additional information provided by Dr. Debbie Berg.
SandcatFelis margaritaResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceNo response to inquiry; assumption that live births satisfied research end-goalsNine clones lived < 36 h, three lived < 30 days, one lived 30 days, one lived 60 days.Up to 13 years (typical range unknown)Deaths were due to respiratory failure, possibly due to underdeveloped lungs. Four died of acute pneumonia resulting from aspiration during bottle-feeding.[84]Peer-reviewed publication.
Gray WolfCanis lupusResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceObtaining live birth satisfied end goal.4 years and 11 years10–18 yearsExact causes of death for clones born in 2005 are unknown, assumed to be heat exposure and age related. Data for clones born in 2007 was not obtained.[86,87,142]Information only obtained for the first 2 cloned wolves produced by [86]. First death reported in popular press, additional information provided by Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk.
Esfahan MouflonOvis gmelini isphahanicaApplication: To increase population size of ex situ back up populationsNo response to inquiry; assumption that live births satisfied research end-goals<1 day, <14 days8–12 yearsClones born in 2010 may have died due to organ abnormalities, potentially indicative of prematurity, though normal phenotypes of newborns for this species are unknown, so cause of death is inconclusive. The clone born in 2015 was reported healthy at 14 days of age. The current status of this clone could not be obtained.[95,96]Peer-reviewed publicaton and popular press.
Rocky Mountain Bighorn SheepOvis canadensisResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceLimited funding.NA6–15 yearsNAPersonal communication.Information provided by Dr. Mike Kjelland.
Bactrian CamelCamelus bactrianusResearch: proof-of-concept for conservation cloning of wild endangered Bactrian camels (Camelus ferus)Wild Bactrian camel conservation groups were disinterested in pursuing conservation cloning; high demand for cloning dromedary camels for athletic and aesthetic competition has precluded further bactrian camel work.<7 days20–40 yearsClone died of acute septicemia.[97]Death reported in peer-reviewed publication. Reason for termination provided by Dr. Nisar Ahmed Wani.
SterletAcipenser ruthenusResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceThe primary scientist conducting cloning experiments performed this work to earn her doctorate degree. Once graduated, the program ended. Due to the low efficiency and difficulty of obtaining success in cloning, the laboratory group has shifted focus to other germ-cell based advanced reproductive techniques, including the more promising process of culturing, preserving, and transplanting of primordial germ cells to breeding surrogates.NA22–25 yearsNA[117]Peer-reviewed publication. Reason for termination provided by Dr. Effrosyni Fatira and Dr. Martin Pšenička.
Russian SturgeonAcipenser gueldenstaedtiiNA38 yearsNA[117,118]
BelugaHuso husoNA>100 years possibleNA[117,118]
Przewalksi’s HorseEquus przewalskiiApplication: genetic rescue of under-represented individual to increase adaptive diversity of ex situ and reintroduced in situ populationsNA—program is ongoingClones are alive at 1 and 4 years of age at time of manuscript submission20–25 yearsNA[102]Peer reviewed publication.
Black-footed ferretMustela nigripesApplication: genetic rescue to of an unrepresented individual (establishing a new founder) to increase adaptive diversity of ex situ and reintroduced in situ populationsNA—program is ongoingClones are alive at 1 and 4 years of age at time of manuscript submission4–6 yearsNA[4,5]Preprint and USFWS press release.
Arctic wolfCanis lupus arctosResearch: to advance conservation cloning scienceNo response to inquiry; assumption that live births satisfied research end-goalsClone is alive at over 2 years of age at time of submission7-–10 yearsNA[103]Press Release Announcement by SinoGene, China.
The lifespans (longevity) for clones of efforts that did not produce live births the information is entered as NA (not applicable). For clones that are still alive at the time of submission the causes of death is also entered as NA (not applicable).
Table 4. Divergence times of fish and amphibian cross-species and cross-genus clones that yielded hatched offspring. * Divergence times retrieved from [119] for all taxa.
Table 4. Divergence times of fish and amphibian cross-species and cross-genus clones that yielded hatched offspring. * Divergence times retrieved from [119] for all taxa.
Higher ClassicficationSomatic Cell DonorOocyte DonorSomatic/Oocyte Species Evolutionary Divergence in MYA *NoteReference(s)Nature of Reference
FishRhodeus sinensisCarassius auratus106 (68–102)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[49]Peer-reviewed publication.
FishCyprinus carpioCrassius auratus, Carassius carassius34 (21–46)reciprocal transfers with C. auratus also produced live hatching, no reciprocal transfers with C. carassius performed[49]Peer-reviewed publication.
FishCtenopharyngoden idellusMegalobrama amblycaephala12.1 (9.3–21.4)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[54]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianPelophylax nigromaculataPelophylax porosus brevipoda9.92 (4.09–17.22)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[39]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianXenopus victorianusXenopus laevis11.05 (7.89–14.40)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[44]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianRana ornativentrisRana japonica21.4 (13.7–24.4)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[46,48]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianPleurodeles waltlPleurodeles poireti17.3 (10.1–19.3)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[51]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianPelophylax esculentaPelophylax porosus brevipoda33 (21–42)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[46]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianPelophylax chosenicusPelophylax porosus brevipoda9.92 (4.09–17.22)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[48]Peer-reviewed publication.
AmphibianRana temporariaRana japonica19.4 (11.4–24.4)reciprocal transfers also produced live hatching[47]Peer-reviewed publication.
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

Novak, B.J.; Brand, S.; Phelan, R.; Plichta, S.; Ryder, O.A.; Wiese, R.J. Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning. Animals 2025, 15, 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15070989

AMA Style

Novak BJ, Brand S, Phelan R, Plichta S, Ryder OA, Wiese RJ. Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning. Animals. 2025; 15(7):989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15070989

Chicago/Turabian Style

Novak, Ben J., Stewart Brand, Ryan Phelan, Sasha Plichta, Oliver A. Ryder, and Robert J. Wiese. 2025. "Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning" Animals 15, no. 7: 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15070989

APA Style

Novak, B. J., Brand, S., Phelan, R., Plichta, S., Ryder, O. A., & Wiese, R. J. (2025). Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning. Animals, 15(7), 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15070989

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