Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32230814›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2020

Lessons Learned from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

Chantel Gouveia, Carin Huyser, Dieter Egli, Michael S Pepper

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Serum starvation is as efficient as roscovitine on the cycle synchronization in GIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2024
    Article
  14. One-stepFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Mitigating age-related somatic mutation burden.Trends in molecular medicine · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chantel GouveiaInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Department of Immunology and South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Extramural Unit for Stem Cell Research and Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.
Carin HuyserDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reproductive Biology Laboratory, University of Pretoria, Steve Biko Academic Hospital, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.
Dieter EgliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Michael S PepperInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Department of Immunology and South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Extramural Unit for Stem Cell Research and Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6406-2380
South African Medical Research Council · ZAColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USSteve Biko Hospital · ZA

Funding

South African Medical Research Council Flagship Grant and Extramural Unit for Stem Cell Research and Therapy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) has been an area of interest in the field of stem cell research and regenerative medicine for the past 20 years. The main biological goal of SCNT is to reverse the differentiated state of a somatic cell, for the purpose of creating blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can be derived for therapeutic cloning, or for the purpose of reproductive cloning. However, the consensus is that the low efficiency in creating normal viable offspring in animals by SCNT (1-5%) and the high number of abnormalities seen in these cloned animals is due to epigenetic reprogramming failure. In this review we provide an overview of the current literature on SCNT, focusing on protocol development, which includes early SCNT protocol deficiencies and optimizations along with donor cell type and cell cycle synchrony; epigenetic reprogramming in SCNT; current protocol optimizations such as nuclear reprogramming strategies that can be applied to improve epigenetic reprogramming by SCNT; applications of SCNT; the ethical and legal implications of SCNT in humans; and specific lessons learned for establishing an optimized SCNT protocol using a mouse model.

Indexed as

Nuclear Transfer TechniquesAnimalsBlastocystCell DifferentiationCellular ReprogrammingCloning, OrganismEmbryo, MammalianEmbryonic DevelopmentEmbryonic Stem CellsEpigenomicsEye EnucleationHumansOocytescloningenucleationepigenetic reprogrammingESCnuclear reprogrammingnuclear transferoocyteSCNTsomatic cell

Identifiers

PMID32230814
PMCPMC7177533
OpenAlexW3013297627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.