Epigenetic consequences of artificial reproductive technologies to the bovine imprinted genes SNRPN, H19/IGF2, and IGF2R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal breeders have made widespread use of assisted reproductive technologies to accelerate genetic improvement programs aimed at obtaining more, better and cheaper food products. Selection approaches have traditionally focused on Mendel's laws of inheritance using parental phenotypic characteristics and quantitative genetics approaches to choose the best parents for the next generation, regardless of their gender. However, apart from contributing DNA sequence variants, male and female gametes carry parental-specific epigenetic marks that play key roles during pre- and post-natal development and growth of the offspring. We herein review the epigenetic anomalies that are associated with artificial reproductive technologies in current use in animal breeding programs. For instance, we demonstrate that bovine embryos and fetuses derived by in vitro culture and somatic cell nuclear transfer show epigenetic anomalies in the differentially methylated regions controlling the expression of some imprinted genes. Although these genomic imprinting errors are undetected in the somatic tissues after birth, further research is warranted to examine potential germ cell transmission of epimutations and the potential risks of reproducing cattle using artificial reproductive technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".