MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1593965669 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab73

73 EFFECT OF CALF RECLONING ON EMBRYO AND FETAL SURVIVAL

2004· article· en· W1593965669 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
D. Salamone, Claudio B. Santos, J. Lino Barañao, J.L. Bussmann, J. Artuso, I. Mújica, C.J. Munar, Guillermo Berra

Notice bibliographique

RevueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Mots-clésTransgeneBiologyTransfectionAndrologyTransgenesisReproductive technologyCloning (programming)Genetically modified organismFetusUmbilical cordEmbryoSomatic cell nuclear transferMolecular biologyCell cultureCell biologyCryopreservationGeneImmunologyGeneticsBlastocystEmbryogenesisMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In a large-scale cloning program destined to produce transgenic animals, it is very important to incorporate well-characterized transgene integration and gene expression. However, after non-homologous transfection, a wide variety of transgene copies are introduced, and these occur in different chromosome locations. Recloning a selected first-generation transgenic calf offers the opportunity to increase the homogeneity among transgenic animals. Calf recloning was performed in an experiment in which the survival rate was evaluated after a second round of cloning from transgenic umbilical cord and ear calf fibroblasts. The original genetically modified fetal cell line that produced the clones was used as control. Oocytes were aspirated from slaughterhouse ovaries and matured in TCM-199 + 5% FCS at 39°C for 24 h. Matured oocytes were denuded by vortexing for 3 min in TL HEPES with 1 mg mL-1 bovine testis hyaluronidase. Metaphases were assessed and oocytes were enucleated by visualization with Hoechst 33342 (5 µg mL-1) under UV light (<6 s). A fetal fibroblast cell line was initially established from a 75-day old Jersey female fetus. Genetically modified cells were isolated after selection with geneticin for 10–15 days following liposome transfection with a DNA construct containing a selectable neomycin resistance gene. Following nuclear transfer with these transgenic cells, new cell lines were isolated from umbilical cord and ear fibroblasts obtained from one of the cloned-transgenic calves so-produced. Donor cells from all three sources were used for nuclear transfer at G0/G1 cell cycle stages and were fused to enucleated oocytes by an electrical pulse. After 3 h, activation was induced by incubation in TL-HEPES with 5 µM ionomycin for 4 min and then 2 mM 6-DMAP for 3 h. The oocytes were then washed with TL- HEPES and cultured in SOF medium with an atmosphere of 5% CO2 + 5% O2 + 90% N2. Development to blastocyst stage (Days 7 to 9) was recorded. One or two blastocysts were transferred non-surgically per recipient cow, and pregnancies at 30 days or 60 days were determined by ultrasonography. All data were analyzed by chi-square test. Seven births were obtained from the original fetal cell line, one birth was obtained from recloned umbilical cord and four pregnancies are in the last third of gestation from recloned ear fibroblasts. Development to blastocyst stage was significantly different between transfected fetal fibroblast and both recloned treatment groups. Differences were observed in pregnancy rates between blastocysts generated by the different sources of donor cells. In spite of the lower blastocyst production, our results suggest that recloning provides an additional method to obtain transgenic animals, and that fibroblasts from umbilical cord could give better results for recloning than those obtained from young calf ear. Effect of different sources of donor cells for calf recloning on embryo and fetal survival

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,237
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,245
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentMême sujetAnimal Genetics and ReproductionTravaux en français237 207