ArticleCellular reprogramming2015
Factors Determining the Efficiency of Porcine Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer: Data Analysis with Over 200,000 Reconstructed Embryos.
Article in Cellular reprogramming, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comparison Between Electroporation at Different Voltage Levels and Microinjection to Generate Porcine Embryos with Multiple Xenoantigen Knock-Outs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Efficient delivery of a large-size Cas9-EGFP vector in porcine fetal fibroblasts using a Lonza 4D-Nucleofector system.BMC biotechnology · 2023Article
- The Effects of anVeterinary medicine international · 2023Article
- One-Step In Vitro Generation of ETV2-Null Pig Embryos.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Resurrecting biodiversity: advanced assisted reproductive technologies and biobanking.Reproduction & fertility · 2022Review
- Back to the future: optimised microwell culture of individual human preimplantation stage embryos.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Integration of Large Transgene into PigG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Article
- Practical Approaches for Knock-Out Gene Editing in Pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
- Article
- Production of α1,3-galactosyltransferase and cytidine monophosphate-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase gene double-deficient pigs by CRISPR/Cas9 and handmade cloning.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2017Article
- Successful cloning of an adult breeding boar from the novel Chinese Guike No. 1 swine specialized strain.3 Biotech · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data analysis in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) research is usually limited to several hundreds or thousands of reconstructed embryos. Here, we report mass results obtained with an established and consistent porcine SCNT system (handmade cloning [HMC]). During the experimental period, 228,230 reconstructed embryos and 82,969 blastocysts were produced. After being transferred into 656 recipients, 1070 piglets were obtained. First, the effects of different types of donor cells, including fetal fibroblasts (FFs), adult fibroblasts (AFs), adult preadipocytes (APs), and adult blood mesenchymal (BM) cells, were investigated on the further in vitro and in vivo development. Compared to adult donor cells (AFs, APs, BM cells, respectively), FF cells resulted in a lower blastocyst/reconstructed embryo rate (30.38% vs. 37.94%, 34.65%, and 34.87%, respectively), but a higher overall efficiency on the number of piglets born alive per total blastocysts transferred (1.50% vs. 0.86%, 1.03%, and 0.91%, respectively) and a lower rate of developmental abnormalities (10.87% vs. 56.57%, 24.39%, and 51.85%, respectively). Second, recloning was performed with cloned adult fibroblasts (CAFs) and cloned fetal fibroblasts (CFFs). When CAFs were used as the nuclear donor, fewer developmental abnormalities and higher overall efficiency were observed compared to AFs (56.57% vs. 28.13% and 0.86% vs. 1.59%, respectively). However, CFFs had an opposite effect on these parameters when compared with CAFs (94.12% vs. 10.87% and 0.31% vs. 1.50%, respectively). Third, effects of genetic modification on the efficiency of SCNT were investigated with transgenic fetal fibroblasts (TFFs) and gene knockout fetal fibroblasts (KOFFs). Genetic modification of FFs increased developmental abnormalities (38.96% and 25.24% vs. 10.87% for KOFFs, TFFs, and FFs, respectively). KOFFs resulted in lower overall efficiency compared to TFFs and FFs (0.68% vs. 1.62% and 1.50%, respectively). In conclusion, this is the first report of large-scale analysis of porcine cell nuclear transfer that provides important data for potential industrialization of HMC technology.
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.