ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2021
Application of the modified handmade cloning technique to pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is frequently employed to produce cloned animals in laboratories, this technique is expensive and inefficient. Therefore, the handmade cloning (HMC) technique has been suggested to simplify and advance the cloning process, however, HMC wastes many oocytes and leads to mitochondrial heteroplasmy. To solve these problems, we propose a modified handmade cloning (mHMC) technique that uses simple laboratory equipment, i.e., a Pasteur pipette and an alcohol lamp, applying it to porcine embryo cloning. To validate the application of mHMC to pig cloning, embryos produced through SCNT and mHMC are compared using multiple methods, such as enucleation efficiency, oxidative stress, embryo developmental competence, and gene expression. The results show no significant differences between techniques except in the enucleation efficiency. The 8-cell and 16-cell embryo developmental competence and Oct4 expression levels exhibit significant differences. However, the blastocyst rate is not significantly different between mHMC and SCNT. This study verifies that cloned embryos derived from the two techniques exhibit similar generation and developmental competence. Thus, we suggest that mHMC could replace SCNT for simpler and cheaper porcine cloning.
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.