ReviewBiology of reproduction2009
The current status of evidence for and against postnatal oogenesis in mammals: a case of ovarian optimism versus pessimism?
Review in Biology of reproduction, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Female Reproductive Performance and Maternal Birth Month: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Exploring Multiple Seasonal Mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Revisiting Claims of the Continued Absence of Functional Germline Stem Cells in Adult Ovaries.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2023Article
- Review
- Workflow Optimization for Identification of Female Germline or Oogonial Stem Cells in Human Ovarian Cortex Using Single-Cell RNA Sequence Analysis.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2022Article
- The making of 'old eggs': the science of reproductive ageing between fertility and anti-ageing technologies.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2022Article
- Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells combined with gonadotropin therapy restore postnatal oogenesis of chemo-ablated ovaries in rats via enhancing very small embryonic-like stem cells.Stem cell research & therapy · 2021Article
- Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma in assisted reproduction: too much too soon?Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Regenerative Medicine Approaches in Bioengineering Female Reproductive Tissues.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Review
- Germ cell nests in adult ovaries and an unusually large ovarian reserve in the naked mole-rat.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2021Article
- Article
- A way for in vitro/ex vivo egg production in mammals.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2019Review
- New Frontiers in IVF: mtDNA and autologous germline mitochondrial energy transfer.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2019Review
- In Utero Exposure to Benzo[a]pyrene Induces Ovarian Mutations at Doses That Deplete Ovarian Follicles in Mice.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2019Article
- Review
- Female Fertility Preservation through Stem Cell-based Ovarian Tissue Reconstitution In Vitro and Ovarian Regeneration In Vivo.Clinical medicine insights. Reproductive health · 2019Review
- Used protocols for isolation and propagation of ovarian stem cells, different cells with different traits.Journal of ovarian research · 2016Review
- FACS-sorted putative oogonial stem cells from the ovary are neither DDX4-positive nor germ cells.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Identification of germ cell-specific VASA and IFITM3 proteins in human ovarian endometriosis.Journal of ovarian research · 2015Article
- Birth month affects lifetime disease risk: a phenome-wide method.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2015Article
- Use of DEAD-box polypeptide-4 (Ddx4) gene promoter-driven fluorescent reporter mice to identify mitotically active germ cells in post-natal mouse ovaries.Molecular human reproduction · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whether or not oogenesis continues in the ovaries of mammalian females during postnatal life was heavily debated from the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. However, in 1951 Lord Solomon Zuckerman published what many consider to be a landmark paper summarizing his personal views of data existing at the time for and against the possibility of postnatal oogenesis. In Zuckerman's opinion, none of the evidence he considered was inconsistent with Waldeyer's initial proposal in 1870 that female mammals cease production of oocytes at or shortly after birth. This conclusion rapidly became dogma, and remained essentially unchallenged until just recently, despite the fact that Zuckerman did not offer a single experiment proving that adult female mammals are incapable of oogenesis. Instead, 20 years later he reemphasized that his conclusion was based solely on an absence of data he felt would be inconsistent with the idea of a nonrenewable oocyte pool provided at birth. However, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan, an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Indeed, building on the efforts of a few scientists who continued to question this dogma after Zuckerman's treatise in 1951, we reported several data sets in 2004 that were very much inconsistent with the widely held belief that germ cell production in female mammals ceases at birth. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the magnitude of the paradigm shift being proposed, this work reignited a vigorous debate that first began more than a century ago. Our purpose here is to review the experimental evidence offered in recent studies arguing support for and against the possibility that adult mammalian females replenish their oocyte reserve. "Never discourage anyone who continually makes progress, no matter how slow."-Plato (427-347 BC).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.