Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22928970›Full record

ArticleCellular reprogramming2012

Expression of innate immune response genes in liver and three types of adipose tissue in cloned pigs.

Tina Rødgaard, Kerstin Skovgaard, Jan Stagsted, Peter M H Heegaard

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cellular reprogramming, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tina RødgaardInnate Immunology Group, National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Kerstin Skovgaard
Jan Stagsted
Peter M H Heegaard
Technical University of Denmark · DKAarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pig has been proposed as a relevant model for human obesity-induced inflammation, and cloning may improve the applicability of this model. We tested the assumptions that cloning would reduce interindividual variation in gene expression of innate immune factors and that their expression would remain unaffected by the cloning process. We investigated the expression of 40 innate immune factors by high-throughput quantitative real-time PCR in samples from liver, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and neck SAT in cloned pigs compared to normal outbred pigs. The variation in gene expression was found to be similar for the two groups, and the expression of a small number of genes was significantly affected by cloning. In the VAT and abdominal SAT, six out of seven significantly differentially expressed genes were downregulated in the clones. In contrast, most differently expressed genes in both liver and neck SAT were upregulated (seven out of eight). Remarkably, acute phase proteins (APPs) dominated the upregulated genes in the liver, whereas APP expression was either unchanged or downregulated in abdominal SAT and VAT. The general conclusion from this work is that cloning leads to subtle changes in specific subsets of innate immune genes. Such changes, even if minor, may have phenotypic effects over time, e.g., in models of long-term inflammation related to obesity.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueCloning, OrganismGene ExpressionAnimalsBase SequenceBlood ProteinsDNA PrimersEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayImmunity, InnateReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSwineBlood ProteinsDNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID22928970
PMCPMC3459008
OpenAlexW1826775941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.