MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560413494 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab67

67 ORGAN WEIGHT VARIATION IN CLONED PIGS

2004· article· en· W1560413494 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jorge A. Piedrahita, Shawn Walker, Gretchen M. Zaunbrecher

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsOviductBiologyAndrologyTheriogenologyMolecular biologyTrypsinizationReproductive technologyCryopreservationEndocrinologyBiochemistryGeneticsEmbryoMedicineTrypsin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, we compared adult clones and naturally bred control females using a series of physiological and genetic parameters and found considerable variation in certain traits in clones. In order to more fully understand this clonal variation we examined the organ weight differences among a group of clones from a single litter. Briefly, in vitro-matured oocytes were stripped of their cumulus cells at 46–48 h postmaturation by vortexing in TCM 199 containing 5% FCS with 0.1% hyaluronidase, and placed in Ca-free NCSU-23 with 4 mg mL-1 BSA. Oocytes were stained in Ca-free NCSU-23 containing 4 mg mL-1 BSA and 5 µg mL-1 Hoechst 3334 for 10 min, and enucleated in Ca-free, salt buffered, NCSU-23 containing 5% FCS and 7.5 µg mL-1 of cytochalasin B, Puromycin-resistant fetal fibroblasts grown for 35 days in D-MEM/F-12 containing 15% FCS and 1.65 µg mL-1 puromycin were synchromized by contact inhibition for 1-2 days. Cells were trypsinized, resuspended in salt buffered NCSU-23 with 10% FCS and placed into the perivitelline space. Couplets wer fused by 2 V AC for 2 s followed by 2 pulses DC of 1.4 kv cm-1 for 50 µs. Following fusion, the oocytes were placed in NCSU-23 containing 4 mg mL-1 BSA for 1.5–2 h. The oocytes were then electroactivated by 2 pulses of 1.2 kg cm-1 for 50 µs, allowed to recuperate for 10–15 min, and transferred into the oviduct of a naturally synchronized recipient. A total of 286 doublets were transferred into 4 recipients one of which became pregnant and gave birth to 9 clones (9/81). One clone died soon after birth. The remaining 8 clones were weaned at three weeks and kept as a group until Day 120 at which time the animals were euthanized for organ recovery. Weights were determined for major organs, and coefficients of variation (CV) calculated for both absolute weights, and corrected total weight. Corrected weights were calculated as weight of organ divided by weight of clone. CV for absolute and corrected weights, respectively, were: uterus, 15.1% and 5%; left kidney, 13.2% and 6.9%; right kidney, 11% and 6.8%; spleen, 29.7% and 27.1%; liver, 20.6% and 19.7%; lung, 37.5% and 32%; heart, 20.2% and 15.5%; and brain, 5.6% and 9.5%. Both absolute and corrected weights indicated that there is a high degree of variation in some of the organs among a group of identical clones. To determine whether the variation we observed is typical of non-cloned swine, we compared the variations in the clones to those observed in a group of 3 age-matched, sex-matched, breed-matched controls that had been kept with the clones for approximately 90 days. Relative coefficients of variation of corrected organ weights between clones and non-cloned animals were: uterus, 0.18; left kidney, 0.34; right kidney, 0.34; spleen, 2.58; liver, 1.08; lung, 1.06; heart, 0.59; and brain, 0.7. In summary, these results indicate that some organs in cloned animals have a high degree of weight variability, most likely due to epigenetic aberrations of overriding environmental effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207