Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24670652›Full record

ArticleNature2014

Nuclear reprogramming by interphase cytoplasm of two-cell mouse embryos.

Eunju Kang, Guangming Wu, Hong Ma, Ying Li, Rebecca Tippner-Hedges, Masahito Tachibana, Michelle Sparman, Don P Wolf, Hans R Schöler, Shoukhrat Mitalipov

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cloning by SCNT: Integrating Technical and Biology-Driven Advances.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Wandering along the epigenetic timeline.Clinical epigenetics · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Various nuclear reprogramming systems using egg and oocyte materials.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eunju KangDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Guangming WuMax Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster 48149, Germany.
Hong MaDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Ying LiDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Rebecca Tippner-HedgesDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Masahito Tachibana1] Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA [2] South Miyagi Medical Center, Miyagi 989-1253, Japan.
Michelle SparmanDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Don P WolfDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.
Hans R SchölerMax Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster 48149, Germany.
Shoukhrat MitalipovDivision of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, USA.

Funding

Upgrade of confocal microscopy at the Oregon National Primate Research CenterP51OD011092 · OD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Bonnie J. Nagel · 2012 to 2026
$203.9M
Histocompatible Primate Embryonic Stem CellsR01HD057121 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI MITALIPOV, SHOUKHRAT · 2009 to 2013
$3.4M
Mitochondrial Gene TherapyR01HD063276 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI MITALIPOV, SHOUKHRAT · 2010 to 2014
$3.0M
Altered Nuclear TransferR01HD059946 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI MITALIPOV, SHOUKHRAT · 2010 to 2014
$2.7M
Evaluation of stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelial cells for retinal diseR01EY021214 · NEI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI NEURINGER, MARTHA · 2011 to 2015
$2.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021214NEI NIH HHS R01EY021214NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD057121NICHD NIH HHS R01HD057121NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD059946NICHD NIH HHS R01HD059946NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD063276NICHD NIH HHS R01HD063276NIH HHS P51 OD011092NIH HHS P51OD011092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful mammalian cloning using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into unfertilized, metaphase II (MII)-arrested oocytes attests to the cytoplasmic presence of reprogramming factors capable of inducing totipotency in somatic cell nuclei. However, these poorly defined maternal factors presumably decline sharply after fertilization, as the cytoplasm of pronuclear-stage zygotes is reportedly inactive. Recent evidence suggests that zygotic cytoplasm, if maintained at metaphase, can also support derivation of embryonic stem (ES) cells after SCNT, albeit at low efficiency. This led to the conclusion that critical oocyte reprogramming factors present in the metaphase but not in the interphase cytoplasm are 'trapped' inside the nucleus during interphase and effectively removed during enucleation. Here we investigated the presence of reprogramming activity in the cytoplasm of interphase two-cell mouse embryos (I2C). First, the presence of candidate reprogramming factors was documented in both intact and enucleated metaphase and interphase zygotes and two-cell embryos. Consequently, enucleation did not provide a likely explanation for the inability of interphase cytoplasm to induce reprogramming. Second, when we carefully synchronized the cell cycle stage between the transplanted nucleus (ES cell, fetal fibroblast or terminally differentiated cumulus cell) and the recipient I2C cytoplasm, the reconstructed SCNT embryos developed into blastocysts and ES cells capable of contributing to traditional germline and tetraploid chimaeras. Last, direct transfer of cloned embryos, reconstructed with ES cell nuclei, into recipients resulted in live offspring. Thus, the cytoplasm of I2C supports efficient reprogramming, with cell cycle synchronization between the donor nucleus and recipient cytoplasm as the most critical parameter determining success. The ability to use interphase cytoplasm in SCNT could aid efforts to generate autologous human ES cells for regenerative applications, as donated or discarded embryos are more accessible than unfertilized MII oocytes.

Indexed as

Cellular ReprogrammingInterphaseNuclear Transfer TechniquesAnimalsCell CountCloning, OrganismCytoplasmEmbryo, MammalianEmbryonic Stem CellsFemaleInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMaleMetaphaseMice

Identifiers

PMID24670652
PMCPMC4124901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.