ReviewAnimal reproduction2024
40 'wild' years: the current reality and future potential of assisted reproductive technologies in wildlife species.
Review in Animal reproduction, 2024. 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.
- Placental changes with assisted reproductive technologies: insights from the transcriptomic and proteomic profiling of multiple species.Journal of animal science · 2026Review
- The role of emerging assisted reproductive technologies in the conservation of neotropical wild mammals - challenges, advances and perspectives.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Biobanking biodiversity: recent strategies, challenges, and opportunities.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Reproductive science and wildlife conservation: the knowns and unknowns!Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- Intercellular cyclic nucleotide dynamics mediate oocyte meiosis in mammalian preovulatory follicles.Current topics in developmental biology · 2026Review
- Advancing Wildlife Conservation Through Biobanking in South America.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past 40 years, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) have grown significantly in scale and innovation, from the bovine embryo industry's shift from in vivo derived to in vitro produced embryos and the development of somatic cell-based approaches for embryo production. Domestic animal models have been instrumental in the development of ARTs for wildlife species in support of the One Plan Approach to species conservation that integrates in situ and ex situ population management strategies. While ARTs are not the sole solution to the biodiversity crisis, they can offer opportunities to maintain, and even improve, the genetic composition of the captive and wild gene pools over time. This review focuses on the application of sperm and embryo technologies (artificial insemination and multiple ovulation/in vitro produced embryo transfer, respectively) in wildlife species, highlighting impactful cases in which significant progress or innovation has transpired. One of the key messages following decades of efforts in this field is the importance of collaboration between researchers and practitioners from zoological, academic, governmental, and private sectors.
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.