Review: Genetic and Epigenetic Aspects of Cloning and Potential Effects on Offspring of Cloned Mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the biological mechanisms by which host cytoplasm and donor nuclei interact to produce a developmentally competent reconstructed embryo remain largely unknown, some advances have been made to our understanding of the genetic and epigenetic factors involved in the of reprogramming of the donor nucleus. Genetic alterations, which comprise changes to the genetic information in both the nuclear and cytoplasm compartments, are passed on to subsequent generations at fertilization and are a potential source of variation among cloned animals and their offspring. Apart from the major chromosomal anomalies found in developmentally arrested embryos and fetuses, less detrimental rearrangements and/or mutations are likely to go unnoticed in most donor cell karyotypes, suggesting that such problems could lead to inheritable anomalies among clones and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA is also relevant to cloning because most animals inherit most or all of their mitochondria from the host oocyte. Epigenetic alterations to the DNA or to the histone packaging proteins are independent of gene sequences. Aberrant epigenetic events may lead to variable gene expression or mitosis and consequent effects on development and phenotype. Although much of the epigenetic marking is reset during embryogenesis and development, the impact of epimutations on progeny remains unexplored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".