ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2019
Production and development of porcine tetraploid parthenogenetic embryos.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tetraploid embryo aggregation produces high-quality blastocysts with an increased trophectoderm in pigs.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to produce porcine tetraploid (4N) parthenogenetic embryos using various methods and evaluate their developmental potential. In method 1 (M1), porcine 4N parthenogenetic embryos were obtained by inhibiting extrusion of both first (PB1) and second (PB2) polar bodies; in methods 2 (M2) and 3 (M3), 4N parthenogenetic embryos were obtained by electrofusion of 2-cell stage diploid parthenogenetic embryos derived from inhibition of PB2 or PB1 extrusion, respectively. We found no differences in the rates of cleavage or blastocyst formation or the proportion of 4N embryos among M1, M2, and M3 groups. The different methods also did not influence apoptosis rates (number of TUNEL-positive cells/number of total cells) or expression levels of apoptosis-related
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.