ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2013
Mitochondrial DNA transmission and confounding mitochondrial influences in cloned cattle and pigs.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Fibroblasts as Donor Nuclei for Handmade Cloning in Sheep Using a Single-Cell Transcriptome.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Interspecific Nuclear Transfer Blastocysts Reconstructed from Arabian Oryx Somatic Cells and Domestic Cow Ooplasm.Veterinary sciences · 2022Article
- Improving porcine SCNT efficiency by selecting donor cells size.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2021Article
- Extranuclear Inheritance of Mitochondrial Genome and Epigenetic Reprogrammability of Chromosomal Telomeres in Somatic Cell Cloning of Mammals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Functional consequences of mitochondrial mismatch in reconstituted embryos and offspring.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2019Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a powerful tool for production of cloned animals, SCNT embryos generally have low developmental competency and many abnormalities. The interaction between the donor nucleus and the enucleated ooplasm plays an important role in early embryonic development, but the underlying mechanisms that negatively impact developmental competency remain unclear. Mitochondria have a broad range of critical functions in cellular energy supply, cell signaling, and programmed cell death; thus, affect embryonic and fetal development. This review focuses on mitochondrial considerations influencing SCNT techniques in farm animals. Donor somatic cell mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can be transmitted through what has been considered a "bottleneck" in mitochondrial genetics via the SCNT maternal lineage. This indicates that donor somatic cell mitochondria have a role in the reconstructed cytoplasm. However, foreign somatic cell mitochondria may affect the early development of SCNT embryos. Nuclear-mitochondrial interactions in interspecies/intergeneric SCNT (iSCNT) result in severe problems. A major biological selective pressure exists against survival of exogenous mtDNA in iSCNT. Yet, mtDNA differences in SCNT animals did not reflect transfer of proteomic components following proteomic analysis. Further study of nuclear-cytoplasmic interactions is needed to illuminate key developmental characteristics of SCNT animals associated with mitochondrial biology.
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.