ArticleAnimal reproduction2026
Cryopreservation of jaguar (
Article in Animal reproduction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Somatic cells serve as essential genetic resources for biobanking. Traditionally, jaguar fibroblast-like cells are frozen in cryovials using slow-freezing protocols. However, this approach necessitates access to ultra-low temperature freezers and requires substantial storage capacity. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a rapid-freezing protocol as a feasible alternative for the freezing of jaguar fibroblasts. Following cultivation to the third passage, cells were frozen using either slow-freezing (SF) or rapid-freezing (RF). For SF, cells were frozen in cryovials (-1 ºC/min), whereas RF involved rapid-freezing (-60 ºC/min) using nitrogen vapor and storage in 0.25 mL straws. Post-thaw, cells were re-cultured to assess recovery. Cell viability was assessed via light microscopy (Trypan blue), fluorescence microscopy (acridine orange + propidium iodide), and flow cytometry (Hoechst 33342 + propidium iodide) immediately post-thaw and upon reaching confluency (> 80%). Fresh culture viability assessed by Trypan blue, acridine orange, and flow cytometry was 98.2 ± 0.3%, 88.7 ± 3.9%, and 94.2 ± 2.2%, respectively. No significant differences in viability were observed between SF and RF immediately post-thaw or after subsequent cultivation. All three assays revealed significant differences (
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.