Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24844788›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Karyotype characterization of in vivo- and in vitro-derived porcine parthenogenetic cell lines.

Qiang Liu, Manling Zhang, Dongxia Hou, Xuejie Han, Yong Jin, Lihua Zhao, Xiaowei Nie, Xin Zhou, Ting Yun, Yuhang Zhao and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiang LiuState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Manling ZhangState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Dongxia HouThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Xuejie HanThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Yong JinState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Lihua ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Xiaowei NieState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Xin ZhouThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Ting YunThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Yuhang ZhaoThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Xianghua HuangThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Daorong HouState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Ning YangState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Zhaoqiang WuState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Xueling LiThe Key Laboratory of the National Education Ministry for Mammalian Reproductive Biology and Biotechnology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Rongfeng LiState Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Xenotransplantation, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Inner Mongolia University · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammalian haploid cell lines provide useful tools for both genetic studies and transgenic animal production. To derive porcine haploid cells, three sets of experiments were conducted. First, genomes of blastomeres from 8-cell to 16-cell porcine parthenogenetically activated (PA) embryos were examined by chromosome spread analysis. An intact haploid genome was maintained by 48.15% of blastomeres. Based on this result, two major approaches for amplifying the haploid cell population were tested. First, embryonic stem-like (ES-like) cells were cultured from PA blastocyst stage embryos, and second, fetal fibroblasts from implanted day 30 PA fetuses were cultured. A total of six ES-like cell lines were derived from PA blastocysts. No chromosome spread with exactly 19 chromosomes (the normal haploid complement) was found. Four cell lines showed a tendency to develop to polyploidy (more than 38 chromosomes). The karyotypes of the fetal fibroblasts showed different abnormalities. Cells with 19-38 chromosomes were the predominant karyotype (59.48-60.91%). The diploid cells were the second most observed karyotype (16.17%-22.73%). Although a low percentage (3.45-8.33%) of cells with 19 chromosomes were detected in 18.52% of the fetus-derived cell lines, these cells were not authentic haploid cells since they exhibited random losses or gains of some chromosomes. The haploid fibroblasts were not efficiently enriched via flow cytometry sorting. On the contrary, the diploid cells were efficiently enriched. The enriched parthenogenetic diploid cells showed normal karyotypes and expressed paternally imprinted genes at extremely low levels. We concluded that only a limited number of authentic haploid cells could be obtained from porcine cleavage-stage parthenogenetic embryos. Unlike mouse, the karyotype of porcine PA embryo-derived haploid cells is not stable, long-term culture of parthenogenetic embryos, either in vivo or in vitro, resulted in abnormal karyotypes. The porcine PA embryo-derived diploid fibroblasts enriched from sorting might be candidate cells for paternally imprinted gene research.

Indexed as

HaploidyKaryotypeAnimalsBlastocystBlastomeresCell LineCells, CulturedChromosome BandingCluster AnalysisEmbryonic Stem CellsEmbryo TransferFetusFibroblastsFlow CytometryGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, Developmental

Identifiers

PMID24844788
PMCPMC4028241
OpenAlexW2091080409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.