ArticleMolecular reproduction and development2019
Improvement of in vitro and early in utero porcine clone development after somatic donor cells are cultured under hypoxia.
Article in Molecular reproduction and development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overcoming Barriers in Porcine SCNT: A Comprehensive Review of Developmental Challenges and Innovations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Reproduction (Re)defined.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Article
- Current Techniques of Gene Editing in Pigs for Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
- Manipulating the Epigenome in Nuclear Transfer Cloning: Where, When and How.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Applications of omics and nanotechnology to improve pig embryo production in vitro.Molecular reproduction and development · 2019Review
- Improvement of in vitro and early in utero porcine clone development after somatic donor cells are cultured under hypoxia.Molecular reproduction and development · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genetically engineered pigs serve as excellent biomedical and agricultural models. To date, the most reliable way to generate genetically engineered pigs is via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), however, the efficiency of cloning in pigs is low (1-3%). Somatic cells such as fibroblasts frequently used in nuclear transfer utilize the tricarboxylic acid cycle and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation for efficient energy production. The metabolism of somatic cells contrasts with cells within the early embryo, which predominately use glycolysis. We hypothesized that fibroblast cells could become blastomere-like if mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation was inhibited by hypoxia and that this would result in improved in vitro embryonic development after SCNT. In a previous study, we demonstrated that fibroblasts cultured under hypoxic conditions had changes in gene expression consistent with increased glycolytic/gluconeogenic metabolism. The goal of this pilot study was to determine if subsequent in vitro embryo development is impacted by cloning porcine embryonic fibroblasts cultured in hypoxia. Here we demonstrate that in vitro measures such as early cleavage, blastocyst development, and blastocyst cell number are improved (4.4%, 5.5%, and 17.6 cells, respectively) when donor cells are cultured in hypoxia before nuclear transfer. Survival probability was increased in clones from hypoxic cultured donors compared to controls (8.5 vs. 4.0 ± 0.2). These results suggest that the clones from donor cells cultured in hypoxia are more developmentally competent and this may be due to improved nuclear reprogramming during somatic cell nuclear transfer.
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.