ReviewBiomolecules2022
Conservation Biology and Reproduction in a Time of Developmental Plasticity.
Review in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- One Health and the Exposome: providing insights for wildlife health and reproduction.F&S reports · 2025Article
- A comprehensive study of Z-DNA density and its evolutionary implications in birds.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Environmental conditions elicit a slow but enduring response of histone post-translational modifications in Mozambique tilapia.Environmental epigenetics · 2024Article
- The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- Information Flow between Parents and Offspring Is Essential for Successful Development.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Review of the Effects of Enclosure Complexity and Design on the Behaviour and Physiology of Zoo Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this review is to ask whether, and how, principles in conservation biology may need to be revisited in light of new knowledge about the power of epigenetics to alter developmental pathways. Importantly, conservation breeding programmes, used widely by zoological parks and aquariums, may appear in some cases to reduce fitness by decreasing animals' abilities to cope when confronted with the 'wild side' of their natural habitats. Would less comfortable captive conditions lead to the selection of individuals that, despite being adapted to life in a captive environment, be better able to thrive if relocated to a more natural environment? While threatened populations may benefit from advanced reproductive technologies, these may actually induce undesirable epigenetic changes. Thus, there may be inherent risks to the health and welfare of offspring (as is suspected in humans). Advanced breeding technologies, especially those that aim to regenerate the rarest species using stem cell reprogramming and artificial gametes, may also lead to unwanted epigenetic modifications. Current knowledge is still incomplete, and therefore ethical decisions about novel breeding methods remain controversial and difficult to resolve.
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.