ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2018
Development of genome engineering technologies in cattle: from random to specific.
Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of emerging technologies, nutritional practices, and management strategies to improve intramuscular fat composition in beef cattle.Animal biotechnology · 2024Review
- Outlook on genome editing application to cattle.Journal of veterinary science · 2024Review
- Generation of double knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) electroporation.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-Induced Knockout of miR-24 Reduces Cholesterol and Monounsaturated Fatty Acid Content in Primary Goat Mammary Epithelial Cells.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Advances and Perspectives in the Application of CRISPR-Cas9 in Livestock.Molecular biotechnology · 2021Review
- Harnessing endogenous repair mechanisms for targeted gene knock-in of bovine embryos.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Review
- VPA selectively regulates pluripotency gene expression on donor cell and improve SCNT embryo development.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The production of transgenic farm animals (e.g., cattle) via genome engineering for the gain or loss of gene functions is an important undertaking. In the initial stages of genome engineering, DNA micro-injection into one-cell stage embryos (zygotes) followed by embryo transfer into a recipient was performed because of the ease of the procedure. However, as this approach resulted in severe mosaicism and has a low efficiency, it is not typically employed in the cattle as priority, unlike in mice. To overcome the above issue with micro-injection in cattle, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) was introduced and successfully used to produce cloned livestock. The application of SCNT for the production of transgenic livestock represents a significant advancement, but its development speed is relatively slow because of abnormal reprogramming and low gene targeting efficiency. Recent genome editing technologies (e.g., ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR-Cas9) have been rapidly adapted for applications in cattle and great results have been achieved in several fields such as disease models and bioreactors. In the future, genome engineering technologies will accelerate our understanding of genetic traits in bovine and will be readily adapted for bio-medical applications in cattle.
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.