ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Towards Practical Conservation Cloning: Understanding the Dichotomy Between the Histories of Commercial and Conservation Cloning.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. 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.
- Rapid derivation of cloning-competent cells from peripheral blood advances conservation biobanking.The Journal of heredity · 2026Article
- Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals.Transgenic research · 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
- Can Molecular Attributes of Mammalian Granulosa Cells and Ovarian Putative Stem Cells Predestine Them to Be a Promising Tool for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine?International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Intergenerational justice, the impending sixth mass extinction, reproduction and advanced biotechnologies, and humanity's future.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 40 years ago, scientists imagined ways cloning could aid conservation of threatened taxa. The cloning of Dolly the sheep from adult somatic cells in 1996 was the breakthrough that finally enabled the conservation potential of the technology. Until the 2020s, conservation cloning research efforts yielded no management applications, leading many to believe cloning is not yet an effective conservation tool. In strong contrast, domestic taxa are cloned routinely for scientific and commercial purposes. In this review, we sought to understand the reasons for these divergent trends. We scoured peer-reviewed and gray literature and sent direct inquiries to scientists to analyze a more comprehensive history of the field than was analyzed in previous reviews. While most previous reviewers concluded that a lack of reproductive knowledge of wildlife species has hindered advances for wider conservation applications, we found that resource limitations (e.g., numbers of surrogates, sustainable funding) and widely held misconceptions about cloning are significant contributors to the stagnation of the field. Recent successes in cloning programs for the endangered black-footed ferret (
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.