ArticleScientific reports2022
Insights from one thousand cloned dogs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reviving the Dire Wolf? A Case Study in Welfare Ethics, Legal Gaps, and Ontological Ambiguity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal cloning has been popularized for more than two decades, since the birth of Dolly the Sheep 25 years ago in 1996. There has been an apparent waning of interest in cloning, evident by a reduced number of reports. Over 1500 dogs, representing approximately 20% of the American Kennel Club's recognized breeds, have now been cloned, making the dog (Canis familiaris) one of the most successfully cloned mammals. Dogs have a unique relationship with humans, dating to prehistory, and a high degree of genome homology to humans. A number of phenotypic variations, rarely recorded in natural reproduction have been observed in in these more than 1000 clones. These observations differ between donors and their clones, and between clones from the same donor, indicating a non-genetic effect. These differences cannot be fully explained by current understandings but point to epigenetic and cellular reprograming effects of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Notably, some phenotypic variations have been reversed through further cloning. Here we summarize these observations and elaborate on the cloning procedure.
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.