ArticleAnimal bioscience2024
Comparison of primordial germ cell differences at different developmental time points in chickens.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2024. 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.
- Transcriptome Comparison Between the Cultured and In Vivo Chick Primordial Germ Cells by SMART-Seq-Based Single-Cell RNA Sequencing.Development, growth & differentiation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRecently, the application in the field of germplasm resource conservation has become an important application of primordial germ cells (PGCs). However, due to the lack of deep understanding of the biological characteristics of PGCs at different time points, there is no systematic scheme for the selection of PGCs at which time points in practical application, which affects the practical application effect of PGCs. This study aims to clarify the differences in PGCs during development.
methodsHere, migration experiment, EdU proliferation assay and cell apoptosis assay were conducted to compare the differences in the migration ability, the proliferation ability and the recovery efficiency among female and male PGCs at E3.5, E4.5, and E5.5, which were explained by the following transcriptome sequencing analysis.
resultsWe found that there were larger differences between female and male PGCs at different embryonic ages, while smaller differences between female and male PGCs at the same embryonic age. Further comparison showed that the cell migration ability of female and male PGCs decreased gradually during development, so female and male PGCs at E3.5 are more suitable for in vitro allotransplantation. At the same time, the proliferation ability of PGCs gradually decreased during development, and cell adhesion and extracellular matrix communication were weakened, indicating that female and male PGCs of E3.5 are more suitable for in vitro long-term culture cell line establishment. Interestingly, female and male PGCs at E5.5 showed strong DNA damage repair ability, thus more suitable for in vitro long-term cryopreservation.
conclusionThis study provides a theoretical basis for systematically selecting PGCs at suitable developmental time points as cell materials for efficient utilization by analyzing the characteristics of female and male PGCs at different developmental time points based on transcriptome.
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.