Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29707740›Full record

ReviewFish physiology and biochemistry2018

Biotechnology applied to fish reproduction: tools for conservation.

Diógenes Henrique de Siqueira-Silva, Taiju Saito, Amanda Pereira Dos Santos-Silva, Raphael da Silva Costa, Martin Psenicka, George Shigueki Yasui

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Fish physiology and biochemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Stem Cells and Wildlife Conservation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Establishment of aBiology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Diógenes Henrique de Siqueira-SilvaUNIFESSPA - Federal University of South and Southeast of Para - Institute for Health and Biological Studies - IESB, Faculty of Biology - FACBIO, Laboratory of Neuroscience and Behavior, Marabá, Para, Brazil. diogenessilva@unifesspa.edu.br.
Taiju SaitoNishiura Station, South Ehime Fisheries Research Center, Ehime University, Uchidomari, Ainan, Japan.
Amanda Pereira Dos Santos-SilvaPPG Biological Sciences, Zoology, UNESP - Paulista State University, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Raphael da Silva CostaPPG in Animal Biology, UNESP - Paulista State University, São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Martin PsenickaResearch Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Vodnany, Czech Republic.
George Shigueki YasuiLaboratory of Fish Biotechnology, National Center for Research and Conservation of Continental Fish, Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity Conservation, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BREhime University · JPInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade · BRUniversidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará · BRUniversity of South Bohemia in České Budějovice · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review discusses the new biotechnological tools that are arising and promising for conservation and enhancement of fish production, mainly regarding the endangered and the most economically important species. Two main techniques, in particular, are available to avoid extinction of endangered fish species and to improve the production of commercial species. Germ cell transplantation technology includes a number of approaches that have been studied, such as the transplantation of embryo-to-embryo blastomere, embryo-to-embryo differentiated PGC, larvae to larvae and embryo differentiated PGC, transplantation of spermatogonia from adult to larvae or between adults, and oogonia transplantation. However, the success of germ cell transplantation relies on the prior sterilization of fish, which can be performed at different stages of fish species development by means of several protocols that have been tested in order to achieve the best approach to produce a sterile fish. Among them, fish hybridization and triploidization, germline gene knockdown, hyperthermia, and chemical treatment deserve attention based on important results achieved thus far. This review currently used technologies and knowledge about surrogate technology and fish sterilization, discussing the stronger and the weaker points of each approach.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiotechnologyConservation of Natural ResourcesFishesGerm CellsReproductionReproductive Techniques, AssistedChimeraFish sterilizationGerm cell transplantationSurrogate broodstock technology

Identifiers

PMID29707740
OpenAlexW2800178510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.