Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434676›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022

Whole-genome methylation analysis reveals epigenetic variation between wild-type and nontransgenic cloned, ASMT transgenic cloned dairy goats generated by the somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Hao Wu, Wendi Zhou, Haijun Liu, Xudai Cui, Wenkui Ma, Haixin Wu, Guangdong Li, Likai Wang, Jinlong Zhang, Xiaosheng Zhang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hao WuNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Wendi ZhouNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Haijun LiuInstitute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Tianjin, Tianjin, 300192, China.
Xudai CuiQingdao Senmiao Industrial Co., Ltd., Qingdao, 266101, China.
Wenkui MaNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Haixin WuNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Guangdong LiNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Likai WangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Jinlong ZhangInstitute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Tianjin, Tianjin, 300192, China.
Xiaosheng ZhangInstitute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Tianjin, Tianjin, 300192, China.
Pengyun JiNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Zhengxing LianNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Guoshi LiuNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of the Ministry of Agricultural, Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China. gshliu@cau.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7475-0283
China Agricultural University · CNTianjin Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNSanya University · CNMinistry of Agriculture · ID

Funding

Key Research and Development Project of Hainan Province ZDYF2021XDNY174National Transgenic Key Project of the Ministry of Agriculture of China 2018ZX0800801BScience and Technology Major Project of Inner Mongolia 2021ZD0023-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) is of great significance to biological research and also to the livestock breeding. However, the survival rate of the SCNT cloned animals is relatively low compared to other transgenic methods. This indicates the potential epigenetic variations between them. DNA methylation is a key marker of mammalian epigenetics and its alterations will lead to phenotypic differences. In this study, ASMT (acetylserotonin-O-methyltransferase) ovarian overexpression transgenic goat was produced by using SCNT. To investigate whether there are epigenetic differences between cloned and WT (wild type) goats, WGBS (whole-genome bisulfite sequencing) was used to measure the whole-genome methylation of these animals.

resultsIt is observed that the different mCpG sites are mainly present in the intergenic and intronic regions between cloned and WT animals, and their CG-type methylation sites are strongly correlated. DMR (differentially methylated region) lengths are located around 1000 bp, mainly distributed in the exonic, intergenic and intronic functional domains. A total of 56 and 36 DMGs (differentially methylated genes) were identified by GO and KEGG databases, respectively. Functional annotation showed that DMGs were enriched in biological-process, cellular-component, molecular-function and other signaling pathways. A total of 10 identical genes related to growth and development were identified in GO and KEGG databases.

conclusionThe differences in methylation genes among the tested animals have been identified. A total of 10 DMGs associated with growth and development were identified between cloned and WT animals. The results indicate that the differential patterns of DNA methylation between the cloned and WT goats are probably caused by the SCNT. These novel observations will help us to further identify the unveiled mechanisms of somatic cell cloning technology, particularly in goats.

Indexed as

Acetylserotonin-O-methyltransferaseDairy goatDNA methylationGene editingSomatic cell nuclear transfer

Identifiers

PMID36434676
PMCPMC9701027
OpenAlexW4310046156

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.