Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32666261›Full record

ArticleMolecular biotechnology2020

Pregnancy and Calving Rates of Cloned Dromedary Camels Produced by Conventional and Handmade Cloning Techniques and In Vitro and In Vivo Matured Oocytes.

F Moulavi, B Asadi-Moghadam, M Omidi, M Yarmohammadi, M Ozegovic, A Rastegar, S M Hosseini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Accomplishment of canine cloning throughJournal of animal science and technology · 2024
    Article
  3. A Modified Handmade Cloning Method for Dromedary Camels.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F MoulaviDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
B Asadi-MoghadamDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
M OmidiDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
M YarmohammadiDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
M OzegovicDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
A RastegarDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
S M HosseiniDepartment of Embryology, Camel Advanced Reproductive Technologies Centre, Government of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. huteistmeintag@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2438-331X
Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite practical implication of cloning in camelids, its broad application has been hampered by technical and biological problems. Method of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and oocyte competence are the principal technical and biological factors, respectively, that determine the cloning efficiency. This study, therefore, investigated differential contributions of two SCNT methods [modified handmade cloning (mHMC) vs. conventional (cNT)] and two recipient oocyte sources [abattoir-derived (Vitro) vs. FSH-stimulated (Vivo)] on the efficiency of dromedary camel cloning. The mHMC method supported similar rates of fusion, cleavage, and total blastocyst development, compared to conventional NT (cNT) (94, 89.1, and 68.5% vs. 78.9, 92, and 73.5%, respectively) when Vivo oocytes are used. However, using Vitro oocytes, mHMC supported significantly higher rates for these criteria, except for the cleavage, compared to cNT (95.5, 76.2, 25.2% vs. 75.3, 76.7, and 13.9%, respectively). A total of seven clones were born from mHMC/Vitro (four calves), mHMC/Vivo (one calf), cNT/Vitro (one calf), and mHMC/Vivo&Vivo (one calf)-derived embryos with overall efficiencies of 31.9, 26.6, 20, and 30% for initial pregnancy, 10.6, 6.6, 7.5, and 5% for development to term, and 8.5, 6.6, 2.5, 5% for development to weaving, respectively. To conclude, the quality of recipient oocyte greatly impacts cloning efficiency in vitro with no apparent carrying over effect on cloning efficiency in vivo, but the efficiency of SCNT method may compensate for the initial poor oocyte competence during in vitro and in vivo development of cloned embryos. The introduced mHMC could be a superior alternative to conventional method for simple, fast, and efficient production of cloned offspring in camelids.

Indexed as

Cloning, OrganismIn Vitro Oocyte Maturation TechniquesNuclear Transfer TechniquesOocytesAnimalsCamelusFemalePregnancyDromedary camelHandmade cloningIn vitro maturationOocyte competence

Identifiers

PMID32666261
OpenAlexW3042406920

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.