MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1639214617 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab36

36 IMPROVING THE APPLICATION OF NUCLEAR TRANSFER FOR PRODUCING NON-DOMESTIC FELIDS

2004· article· en· W1639214617 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. C. Gómez, C. E. Pope, Leslie A. Lyons, Alex Cole, Mae K. Lopez, C. Dumas, B. L. Dresser

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsCytoplastBiologySomatic cell nuclear transferFelis catusCloning (programming)PopulationFelisAndrologyMolecular biologyBlastocystCATSEmbryoGeneticsInternal medicinePredationEmbryogenesisMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most remarkable aspects of somatic cell nuclear transfer (NT) is the possibility of avoiding extinction when there are few remaining animals of a specific felid population. Previously, we produced live male African Wildcat (AWC; Felis lybica) cloned kittens using inter-species nuclear transfer (Gomez et al. 2004 Cloning and Stem Cells 6, 217–228). The production of females is a primary objective of most breeding programs. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine (1) if we could produce live female AWC cloned kittens at a proportion similar to that previously demonstrated with males, and (2) if our inter-species NT technique used to produce AWC is applicable to in vitro production of another non-domestic felid species. Specifically, we evaluated the in vivo developmental competence of NT embryos derived by fusion of Black footed cat (BFC, Felis nigripes) and AWC fibroblasts with domestic cat (DSH, Felis catus) cytoplasts, after transfer into domestic cat recipients. Fibroblast cell lines were established from skin biopsies of BFC (6-year-old), and AWC (12-year-old) adult females. After at least three passages, cells were serum-starved for 5 days and injected into the perivitelline space of enucleated domestic cat oocytes. Fusion of cell-cytoplast couplets was induced by applying a 3-s AC pre-pulse of 20 V, 1 MHz, followed by two 30-µs DC pulses of 240 V/mm. Fused couplets were activated 2 to 3 h after fusion by exposure to two 60 µsec DC pulses of 120 V/mm, followed by 4 h incubation with 10 µg/mL cycloheximide and 5 µg/mL cytochalasin B. Reconstructed BFC (n = 16) and AWC (n = 536) NT Day 1 embryos were transferred by laparoscopy into the oviducts of 1 and 12 gonadotrophin-treated DSH recipients, respectively, on Day 1 after induced ovulation. Pregnancy was assessed by ultrasonography on Day 22. One cat (100%) receiving BFC NT embryos and 5 (41.6%) cats receiving AWC NT embryos became pregnant. Twenty-three AWC cloned embryos implanted and 11 kittens were born. Three BFC NT embryos implanted and the pregnancy is currently ongoing. AWC cloned kittens were phenotypically and genetically identical to their somatic cell donor. Their clonal identity was assessed by multiplex PCR amplification of 20 microsatellite markers, including seven markers that are known to be on the X chromosome. In summary, these results indicate that female AWC cloned kittens can be produced and BFC pregnancy can be established in domestic cat recipients. The embryo implantation rate and viability of AWC female cloned embryos was higher than that observed after the transfer of AWC male cloned embryos. The difference may be due to improvements in the NT procedure, rather than to differences in the sex of the cell lines. Table 1. Implantation rate and fetal survival to term of AWC and BFC NT embryos in pregnant domestic cat recipients

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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