ArticleBMC biotechnology2013
Factors influencing the efficiency of generating genetically engineered pigs by nuclear transfer: multi-factorial analysis of a large data set.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Activating a patient-relevant pathogenic variant of a genetically defined heart disease in a humanized pig model.Lab animal · 2026Article
- Lysophosphatidic acid-mediated enhancement of porcine oocyte chemical enucleation for somatic cell nuclear transfer.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Epigenetic Drift and the Generational Limit of Serial Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Factors Influencing the Production Efficiency of Cloned Pigs: A Large-Scale Retrospective Analysis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Current Techniques of Gene Editing in Pigs for Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
- Physiological basis for xenotransplantation from genetically modified pigs to humans.Physiological reviews · 2024Review
- Emerging Contributions of Pluripotent Stem Cells to Reproductive Technologies in Veterinary Medicine.Journal of developmental biology · 2024Review
- Outlook on genome editing application to cattle.Journal of veterinary science · 2024Review
- Characterization of Enlarged Tongues in Cloned Piglets.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- The Effects of anVeterinary medicine international · 2023Article
- Individual variation in buffalo somatic cell cloning efficiency is related to glycolytic metabolism.Science China. Life sciences · 2022Article
- Kidney ECM Pregel Nanoarchitectonics for Microarrays to Accelerate Harvesting Gene-Edited Porcine Primary Monoclonal Spheres.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Generation and first characterization of TRDC-knockout pigs lacking γδ T cells.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Current status of the application of gene editing in pigs.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2021Review
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated correction ofMolecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2021Article
- A New Toolbox in Experimental Embryology-Alternative Model Organisms for Studying Preimplantation Development.Journal of developmental biology · 2021Review
- Extranuclear Inheritance of Mitochondrial Genome and Epigenetic Reprogrammability of Chromosomal Telomeres in Somatic Cell Cloning of Mammals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Spontaneous and Engineered Large Animal Models of Neurofibromatosis Type 1.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Perspectives of pluripotent stem cells in livestock.World journal of stem cells · 2021Review
- Extraembryonic Endoderm (XEN) Cells Capable of Contributing to Embryonic Chimeras Established from Pig Embryos.Stem cell reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSomatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) using genetically engineered donor cells is currently the most widely used strategy to generate tailored pig models for biomedical research. Although this approach facilitates a similar spectrum of genetic modifications as in rodent models, the outcome in terms of live cloned piglets is quite variable. In this study, we aimed at a comprehensive analysis of environmental and experimental factors that are substantially influencing the efficiency of generating genetically engineered pigs. Based on a considerably large data set from 274 SCNT experiments (in total 18,649 reconstructed embryos transferred into 193 recipients), performed over a period of three years, we assessed the relative contribution of season, type of genetic modification, donor cell source, number of cloning rounds, and pre-selection of cloned embryos for early development to the cloning efficiency.
results109 (56%) recipients became pregnant and 85 (78%) of them gave birth to offspring. Out of 318 cloned piglets, 243 (76%) were alive, but only 97 (40%) were clinically healthy and showed normal development. The proportion of stillborn piglets was 24% (75/318), and another 31% (100/318) of the cloned piglets died soon after birth. The overall cloning efficiency, defined as the number of offspring born per SCNT embryos transferred, including only recipients that delivered, was 3.95%. SCNT experiments performed during winter using fetal fibroblasts or kidney cells after additive gene transfer resulted in the highest number of live and healthy offspring, while two or more rounds of cloning and nuclear transfer experiments performed during summer decreased the number of healthy offspring.
conclusionAlthough the effects of individual factors may be different between various laboratories, our results and analysis strategy will help to identify and optimize the factors, which are most critical to cloning success in programs aiming at the generation of genetically engineered pig models.
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.