Biobanks, offspring fitness and the influence of developmental plasticity in conservation biology

Mitigation of the widely known threats to the world's biodiversity is difficult, despite the strategies and actions proposed by international agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Nevertheless, many scientists devote their time and effort to finding and implementing various solutions to the problem. One potential way forward that is gaining popularity involves the establishment of biobank programs aimed at preserving and storing germplasm from threatened species, and then using it to support the future viability and health of threatened populations. This involves developing and using assisted reproductive technologies to achieve their goals. Despite considerable advances in the effectiveness of reproductive technologies, differences between the reproductive behavior and physiology of widely differing taxonomic groups mean that this approach cannot be applied with equal success to many species. Moreover, evidence that epigenetic influences and developmental plasticity, whereby it is now understood that embryonic development, and subsequent health in later life, can be affected by peri-conceptional environmental conditions, is raising the possibility that cryopreservation methods themselves may have to be reviewed and revised when planning the biobanks. Here, I describe the benefits and problems associated with germplasm biobanking across various species, but also offer some realistic assessments of current progress and applications.

Conservation Biology and Reproduction in a Time of Developmental Plasticity

The objective of this review is to ask whether, and how, principles in conservation biology may need to be revisited in light of new knowledge about the power of epigenetics to alter developmental pathways. Importantly, conservation breeding programmes, used widely by zoological parks and aquariums, may appear in some cases to reduce fitness by decreasing animals' abilities to cope when confronted with the 'wild side' of their natural habitats. Would less comfortable captive conditions lead to the selection of individuals that, despite being adapted to life in a captive environment, be better able to thrive if relocated to a more natural environment? While threatened populations may benefit from advanced reproductive technologies, these may actually induce undesirable epigenetic changes. Thus, there may be inherent risks to the health and welfare of offspring (as is suspected in humans). Advanced breeding technologies, especially those that aim to regenerate the rarest species using stem cell reprogramming and artificial gametes, may also lead to unwanted epigenetic modifications. Current knowledge is still incomplete, and therefore ethical decisions about novel breeding methods remain controversial and difficult to resolve.