ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2011
Comparative studies on sorting cells from Artemia sinica at different developmental stages for in vitro cell culture.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in cellular agriculture: lessons from Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2025Article
- Differential DNA methylation in Pacific oyster reproductive tissue in response to ocean acidification.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- ArHsp40, a type 1 J-domain protein, is developmentally regulated and stress inducible in post-diapause Artemia franciscana.Cell stress & chaperones · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell growth in primary cell culture of the brine shrimp (Artemia sinica) embryo at 12 and 20 h after rehydration at 25°C was examined comparatively in modified Leibovitz-15 medium. The cells from A. sinica embryo at 12 h after rehydration were dispersed, and the cells disseminated but did not attach to the surface of wells and multiply at 2 d of culture, and 12 d later, the cells were degenerated and dead. The best growth of the brine shrimp cells was obtained from the prenauplii of A. sinica at 20 h after dormant embryo rehydration. The fibroblast-like cells attached to the well surface and multiplied at 15 d after the primary culture was set up. Confluent monolayer was formed at 50 d. The prenauplii cells have been subcultured up to passage 3 and maintained for approximately 200 d. The reasons for cell growth potential at the different developmental stages of Artemia embryo were discussed.
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.