ReviewThe Journal of reproduction and development2018
Reproductive technologies for the generation and maintenance of valuable animal strains.
Review in The Journal of reproduction and development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generation of rat offspring from ovarian oocytes by xenotransplantation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A universal method for generating knockout mice in multiple genetic backgrounds using zygote electroporation.Biology open · 2023Article
- Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Amount of Cas9 protein introduced into mouse embryos via electroporation affects the genome-editing rate.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2022Article
- Production of genome-edited mice by visualization of nucleases introduced into the embryos using electroporation.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2020Article
- Review
- Practical Approaches for Knock-Out Gene Editing in Pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many types of mutant and genetically engineered strains have been produced in various animal species. Their numbers have dramatically increased in recent years, with new strains being rapidly produced using genome editing techniques. In the rat, it has been difficult to produce knockout and knock-in strains because the establishment of stem cells has been insufficient. However, a large number of knockout and knock-in strains can currently be produced using genome editing techniques, including zinc-finger nuclease (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nuclease (TALEN), and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) system. Microinjection technique has also contributed widely to the production of various kinds of genome edited animal strains. A novel electroporation method, the "Technique for Animal Knockout system by Electroporation (TAKE)" method, is a simple and highly efficient tool that has accelerated the production of new strains. Gamete preservation is extremely useful for maintaining large numbers of these valuable strains as genetic resources in the long term. These reproductive technologies, including microinjection, TAKE method, and gamete preservation, strongly support biomedical research and the bio-resource banking of animal models. In this review, we introduce the latest reproductive technologies used for the production of genetically engineered animals, especially rats, using genome editing techniques and the efficient maintenance of valuable strains as genetic resources. These technologies can also be applied to other laboratory animals, including mice, and domestic and wild animal species.
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.