MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406608472 · doi:10.1590/1984-3143-ar2024-0037

Swine clones: potential application for animal production and animal models

2025· review· en· W4406608472 on OpenAlexaff
Thaís Naomi Gonçalves Nesiyama, Juliano Rodrigues Sangalli, Tiago Henrique Camara De, Kaiana Recchia, Simone Maria Massami Kitamura Martins, André Furugen Cesar de Andrade, Juliana Germano Ferst, Gustavo Henrique Doná Rodrigues Almeida, Mariana Groke Marques, Renata Gebara Sampaio Dória, Adriano Bonfim Carregaro, Marcus Antônio Rossi Feliciano, María Angélica Miglino, Fabiana Fernandes Bressan, Felipe Perecin, Juliano Coelho da Silveira, Lawrence C. Smith, Vilceu Bordignon, Flávio Vieira Meirelles

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Reproduction · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersFaculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade de São PauloConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsSomatic cell nuclear transferCloning (programming)BiologyHomologous recombinationGenetically modified organismSomatic cellGeneticsRecombinant DNAGenome editingLimitingMolecular cloningGeneComputational biologyBiotechnologyCRISPRComputer scienceBlastocystGene expressionEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), or cloning, is used to reprogram cells and generate genetically identical embryos and animals. However, the cloning process is inefficient, limiting its application to producing valuable animals. In swine, cloning is mainly utilized to produce genetically modified animals. Indeed, recombinant DNA technologies have evolved considerably in recent years, with homologous recombination and gene editing technologies becoming more efficient and capable of recombining both alleles in a single cell. The selection of appropriate cells and their use as nuclear donors for SCNT is the most common method for generating edited and genetically modified animals for commercial and research purposes. This article reviews current applications of swine cloning and shares our personal experiences with the procedure in this species.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ReproductionSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207