Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718875›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026

Stem Cells and Wildlife Conservation.

Gabriela Mastromonaco, Paula Mackie, Virginia Russell, Pierre Comizzoli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Gabriela MastromonacoReproductive Sciences Unit, Toronto Zoo, Toronto, ON, Canada. gmastromonaco@torontozoo.ca.
Paula MackieReproductive Sciences Unit, Toronto Zoo, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Virginia RussellReproductive Sciences Unit, Toronto Zoo, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pierre ComizzoliSmithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) have been investigated and applied for species conservation for more than 50 years. These gamete- and embryo-based technologies require access to reproductively active males and females, which can be challenging in conservation breeding programs for threatened and endangered species. The advancements in stem cell technologies over the past 10 years, specifically the induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult somatic cells and related stem cell-based "ex vivo genesis" systems, have been remarkable. Knowledge gained from laboratory animals and humans has laid the foundation for the application of stem cell technologies in wildlife species, which prompted an increase in living cell biobanks around the world, and a recent emergence of biotech companies promising technology-based solutions for the restoration of currently threatened and resurrection of extinct species. While studies have shown the potential for stem cells in the ART arsenal, there are significant challenges that must be overcome, beginning with the low efficiency and genetic instability that are hindering the transition from research to application. This review highlights the key stem cell technologies in reproductive medicine with a focus on applications for species conservation.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesReproductive Techniques, AssistedStem CellsAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleEndangered speciesIn vitro systemsReprogrammingSomatic cellsStem cellsWildlife reproduction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.