No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.
Efficacy of the porcine species in biomedical research
Karina Gutierrez, Naomi Dicks, Werner G. Glanzner and 2 more
Frontiers in Genetics · 2015
Abstract
Since domestication, pigs have been used extensively in agriculture and kept as companion animals. More recently they have been used in biomedical research, given they share many physiological and anatomical similarities with humans. Recent technological advances in assisted reproduction, somatic cell cloning, stem cell culture, genome editing, and transgenesis now enable the creation of unique porcine models of human diseases. Here, we highlight the potential applications and advantages of using pigs, particularly minipigs, as indispensable large animal models in fundamental and clinical research, including the development of therapeutics for inherited and chronic disorders, and cancers.
Full text
From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.
Introduction
The first evidence of swine domestication dates back to approximately 7000–9000 years ago (;;;; Figure 1A). China and Europe have been, since domestication, the pig-breeding centers dictating the profile of the pig breeds. The reason for domestication was to provide meat as a source of food protein, which stimulated pig selection and farming. Studies have been conducted using genome-wide genotyping and genetic variability to trace the migration, selection, and improvement from ancient wild species to modern swine. It is generally accepted that the majority of all modern breeds are derived from the Eurasian wild boar (European and Asian wild boars;; ). Although pig selection started just after domestication, it has only been since the mid-20th century that performance has been used as the main tool in the animal selection process. More recently, molecular biology technologies, genome-wide association studies, and next-generation sequencing have been applied to enhance the selection process of domesticated pig breeds (e.g., Duroc, Landrace, Pietrain, Yorkshire, etc.) to further improve traits of high economic value such as feed conversion, meat quality, growth, precocious puberty, and prolificity.
The variety of modern pig breeds available today, are a product of human intervention since domestication, but especially during the last century (Figure 1A). Besides breeds specialized for food production, smaller sized breeds (miniature- and micro-pigs) with certain characteristics such as obedience, friendly nature, and cognitive ability have also been selected for the purpose of companion animals. In addition, their use in biomedical research has been increasing considerably in the last years (Figure 1B).
Compared with other animals used in research (e.g., mice, rats, rabbits, and dogs), domestic farm pigs are much larger (>300 kg adult size), therefore, requiring more space and feed, and making them harder to handle. Mini- or micro-pigs are hence more desirable for research use. The adult sizes vary among breeds, reaching around 20–30 kg for a Panepinto micropig to 100 kg for a Munich minipig. Although many minipig breeds are a product of crossbreeding, some breeds, like the Yucatan pigs, are naturally occurring stocks. Since the late 1940s, minipigs have been further developed specifically for biomedical research purposes.
There are now several minipig breeds available for use in research. The main breeds developed in the USA are Yucatan, Sinclair (also known as Minnesota or Hormel miniature pig), Hanford, NIH minipig and Panepinto miniature pig. The minipig breeds developed in Europe are Göttingen, Munich, Berlin, Mini-Lewe, Czech-Republic, Vietnamese potbellied and Mini-Sib. In Asia, the breeds include Ohmini, Clawn, Lee Sung, and Chinese minipigs. The Göttingen and Yucatan breeds are the most commonly used minipigs in research, although there is no apparent clear reason for preference. Unlike the Yucatan, a natural breed, the Göttingen minipig was developed specifically for research use. Other breeds are used only by specific research groups, thus limiting their widespread availability in research. Nevertheless, the interest in the use of pigs in biomedical research has been rising over the last 40–45 years (Figure 1B).
Use of Pigs in Biomedical Research
Biomedical research is broad, spanning studies on underlying disease mechanisms to the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of preventative measures, diagnostic tests, and therapies. Most animal studies in recent times have used the murine species due to their small size, fast reproductive cycles and short lifespan. In addition, the availability of murine embryonic stem cells, fully annotated genome, and facile tools for targeted genetic manipulation have all contributed to the elucidation of gene functions and disease pathophysiology. However, in many cases, mouse models do not adequately represent features of human disorders. In this regard, animals that better represent human pathophysiology are required. Pigs and humans share many similarities such as size, physiology, anatomy, metabolic profile, and longer lifespan. For example, pig skin is structurally similar to human skin regarding thickness and spacing between hair follicles, making it useful for studies on wound healing and burn lesions. Pigs also share anatomical and physiological similarities with respect to the renal system, making them valuable for pharmacological studies. Pigs can also be useful in the study of nutrient absorption and intestinal transport, as well as the pathogenesis of gastrointestinal diseases. All these characteristics contribute to the development of superior models of human conditions.
The choice between outbred or inbred strains can have a significant impact on research outcomes. While, outbred strains may be better suited for quantitative trait loci studies, experiments addressing mechanistic aspects would benefit from the use of inbred strains. Some minipig breeds are already established for specific applications due to their unique characteristics (Table 1). Pigs have also been used for testing new therapies, devices, and efficacy and safety of new drugs prior to human trials. For instance, a novel endovascular chemotherapy filter, designed to reduce circulatory drug excess in vitro, was successfully tested in pigs. As well, a new method for pediatric liver transplantation was validated using pigs. Regarding pharmacokinetic and cytotoxic tests, pigs have been used for testing topical skin formulations, and are considered a better choice compared to dogs for the study of drugs that are metabolized by the aldehyde oxidase (AOX1), N-acetyltransferase (NAT1 or NAT2) or cytochrome (CYP2C9-like) enzymes.
In general, there is low incidence of naturally occurring pathologies described in pigs. The reason for this is twofold. First, human intervention by way of selective breeding has eliminated genes that increased disease susceptibility. Second, the majority of the domestic farm pigs are slaughtered at a young age (< 6 months old), precluding the detection of late onset diseases such as cancer. On the other hand, Vietnamese potbellied minipigs raised as companion animals do reach old ages. Indeed, a retrospective study found a variety of neoplasms with widespread metastases in these pigs of advanced age (~11 years; ). The most common malignances found included hepatic and intestinal carcinomas, and uterine and ovarian smooth muscle tumors.
Occurrence of malignant spontaneously regressing melanomas has been described in Sinclair minipigs. Selective interbreeding, by removing animals with red coat color that do not develop the lesions, increased the frequency of tumor formation in these selected minipigs. The tumors appear from birth and culminate in skin depigmentation after tumor regression showing a phenotype similar to human vitiligo. Studies conducted in these minipigs have shown decreased telomerase activity during melanoma regression, which has also been observed by inhibiting telomerase activity in human melanoma cells. Therefore, these minipigs may represent a useful model to study malignant melanomas because the tumors appear spontaneously and then either regress or grow progressively and metastasize similarly to human melanomas.
Another example of a naturally occurring condition in pigs is the dwarf phenotype, caused by a single amino acid change in the α1 chain of type X collagen. The COL10A1 gene, which encodes type X collagen, is expressed in hypertrophic chondrocytes during endochondral ossification. In humans, an amino acid variation in the same position of the type X collagen protein has been shown to be the cause of Schmid metaphyseal chondrodysplasia (SMCD), a mild skeletal disorder associated with dwarfism. Since mice lacking type X collagen do not develop abnormalities in long bone development, pigs represent a better animal model of human SMCD.
Another naturally occurring disease observed in Yucatan minipigs mimics human ventricular septal defect (VSD; ). The VSD in pigs can be observed in fetal stages similar to the congenital anomaly in humans, and can be used for the study of new methods of diagnosis or therapies.
Despite a number of natural occurring pig phenotypes that resemble human diseases, for most of human pathologies it is difficult to find representative animal models in nature. Thus, manipulation of diet, use of drugs and/or surgeries has been necessary to generate appropriate models. For example, minipig models for Type I diabetes were induced via administration of streptozotocin or alloxan to selectively destroy insulin-producing cells. High-energy diets in young minipigs lead to the development of obesity and metabolic syndromes, with increased visceral fat deposition, glucose intolerance, decreased insulin sensitivity, and higher levels of blood cholesterol and triglycerides, which progress to Type 2 Diabetes mellitus. Other chemicals have been used to induce cellular dysregulation and damage in pigs including the administration of N-nitrosodiethylamine to produce a liver cancer model.
Use of Engineered Pigs in Biomedical Research
Genetically modified animals have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of gene function and significance of inappropriate gene expression in metabolic malfunction in mammals. Genome editing holds great promise in generating these models, and has already permitted the rapid development of new pig models of several human diseases.
The cystic fibrosis (CF) model is an example of genetically engineered pigs created by targeted inactivation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. The resulting pigs exhibit clinical features and disease progression consistent with those observed in CF infants. In contrast, inactivation of the CFTR gene in mice did not produce the comorbidities typically observed in human CF patients.
Advanced reproductive technologies, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), can now be routinely applied to large animal species, including minipigs. Minipigs of different breeds have been cloned from different cell types, including genetically modified cells. In addition SCNT offers the possibility of creating isogenic and immunocompatible animals from the same cell line. Importantly, models of severe disorders can be generated from engineered cultured cells without the need of breeding sick animals. The sequencing of the pig genome is another key development in the production of gene-modified pigs in the post-genomic era. Genome editing techniques, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN), and clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) together with CRISPR associated (Cas) nucleases (CRISPR/Cas), now allow the precise manipulation of gene sequences in germ, embryonic and somatic cells. Among these methods, the CRISPR/Cas9 system is emerging as the method of choice because it permits gene editing to be accomplished in only one step by injecting both the specific guide RNAs and endonuclease into zygotes.
Another example of human disease that has the potential to be studied in genetically engineered pigs is heart arrhythmias. Mutations in the SCN5A gene, which encodes a subunit of the cardiac sodium channel Nav1.5 required for excitability and conduction in the myocardium, were found in patients with Bruguda syndrome. SCN5AE558X/+ engineered Yucatan minipigs with reduced expression of the sodium channel Nav1.5 have been created and these animals exhibit conduction abnormalities and susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias. There has also been considerable interest in genetically modified pig strains suitable for xenotransplantation. Most research into the development of appropriate xenotransplantation strains focused on addressing hyperacute rejection, which is initiated rapidly and involves preformed natural human antibodies and the complement system. This has been possible by targeting cell surface antigens such as α-1,3 galactosyltransferase or complement regulatory proteins such as human decay accelerating factor. The pigs made deficient of α-1,3 galactosyltransferase have contributed to the reduction of immunogenicity of donor tissue/organs. Transgenic pigs expressing antibodies against cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte antigen receptor, a cell-mediated immune response suppressor, were also developed.
A pig model for the human familial adenomatous polyposis was generated by inactivation of the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene. Mice lacking the APC gene exhibit non-metastatic neoplasias only in the small intestine. However, the pig model of colon and rectal cancer reproduces the human features of the disease, which includes the development of polyps spread along the whole large bowel in young animals. A candidate gene for the development of breast and ovarian cancer models is the breast cancer-associated gene 1 (BRCA1), which has been manipulated in both Yucatan and Göttingen cells, but lines of modified minipigs remain to be produced. The TP53 gene, which encodes the tumor suppressor protein p53 and is the most commonly observed suppressed gene in human tumors, was found to be mutated in Li-Fraumeni patients having increased risk to develop multiple types of cancers. Suppression of p53 in mesenchymal stem cells derived from pig bone marrow exhibits chemoresistance in vitro. Mutation of TP53 gene in Yucatan minipigs resulted in development of lymphomas and osteogenic tumors. More recently, a new engineered pig strain termed “oncopig” was developed, which promises inducible formation of a wide variety of cancers that are potentially novel platforms for research and therapeutics development. These examples illustrate the potential of genetically engineered pigs as robust models for the study of human pathologies that are not well represented in small laboratory animal species.
Improving the Usefulness of Pigs in Biomedical Research
Rodents have been the choice animal model for basic research, but are not always suitable for translational research due to marked differences in size, lifespan as well as metabolic, anatomical, and physiological discrepancies. On the other hand, the pig is more closely related to humans in terms of these parameters and, therefore, is better suited for recapitulation of human diseases. Indeed, the use of the pig in translational research is increasingly gaining acceptance (Figure 1C). Dogs and non-human primates have traditionally been used for this purpose, but rising ethical concerns have reduced their favor and increased demand for alternatives. The number of peer-reviewed papers describing the use of pigs as biomedical models has risen eightfold over the past 30 years (Figure 1B). Already, the pig has become well established in many areas of research and training. For instance, in the past 20 years the pig has replaced the dog as a model for surgical training and has also gained FDA approval for the testing of surgical implantation devices intended for human use. Minipig models, which are much smaller in size compared to the domestic farm breeds, offer lower operating costs compared to other large animal models and also reduce the concern of ethical acceptance given the already widespread use of pigs in agriculture.
Pigs offer many exciting applications, including stem cell research, tissue engineering and xenotransplantation. Although incredible advances in transgenic pigs harboring various engineered alterations designed to minimize graft versus host rejection, much work remains to be accomplished since multiple genes need to be manipulated given the various types of tissue rejection reactions. Porcine induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have been produced and chimeric pigs were generated using iPSC. This is highly relevant since study of porcine iPSCs have eventual human applications, such as cell-based therapies. However, the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming, directed cell differentiation and species-specific cell culture requirements necessitate further investigation. The International Society for Stem Cell Research has indicated in their guidelines for translational use that validation must occur in both small and large animal models. Tissue repair is another potential application of engineered pig models. Cartilage tissue grafts have been created using chondrocytes isolated from infant minipigs, and mandibular condyle grafts have been generated from Yucatan minipig adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. There has also been successful regeneration of bone defects using engineered bone graft tissues in minipig models. If custom donor transgenic minipig strains can be created, this could open the doors to other engineered tissue replacements for human uses. For example, the use of blastocyst complementation and pluripotent stem cells has been applied to direct the development of otherwise missing organs in pigs. This has increased the hope that it may one day be possible to create non-immunogenic donor organs in pigs using human iPSCs. Finally, similarities in the porcine and human immune system have sparked interest in vaccine development and efficacy testing in pigs.
The completion of the porcine genome project in 2012 has further facilitated the use of pigs in research. Data from this project has enabled the comparative analysis of genetic sequences and development of the necessary tools to create and validate targeted genetic alterations in the porcine genome. In addition, the development of RNASeq technology has facilitated transcriptome analysis, which further improves our ability to identify important targets related to certain phenotypic traits. Other recent achievements in the pig include the use of inducible or conditional systems to control transgene expression, and tissue-specific expression of the Cre recombinase. These advances will ensure the continued development of various pig strains for research, similar to what has already been accomplished in mice.
Summary
It is clear that the use of the pig as a biomedical model is increasingly gaining approval due to physiopathological similarities with humans. However, some obstacles remain to be overcome in order to realize the full potential of the porcine species in developing new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Despite the sequencing of the porcine genome, full annotation has yet to be completed. This is essential to facilitate interrogation of the pig genome and investigation of less characterized genes. Efforts to develop a complete porcine proteome map as well as epigenome map are currently underway. These databases are necessary to understand disease pathogenesis. Moreover, the availability of both inbred and outbred breeds of minipigs extends the utility of these species as a viable large animal model. Continuing refinements and adaptation of technologies for genome editing, cell/tissue-specific gene targeting strategies, stem cells and somatic cell cloning will further facilitate the creation of specialized pig strains for biomedical research.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References 121
- 1.
Abukawa H. Terai H. Hannouche D. Vacanti J. P. Kaban L. B. Troulis M. J. (2003 ). Formation of a mandibular condyle in vitro by tissue engineering. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 61 94–100.
Not in our library10.1053/joms.2003.50015
- 2.
Aigner B. Renner S. Kessler B. Klymiuk N. Kurome M. Wunsch A. (2010 ). Transgenic pigs as models for translational biomedical research. J. Mol. Med. (Berl.) 88 653–664.
Not in our library10.1007/s00109-010-0610-9
- 3.
Amills M. Clop A. Ramírez O. Pérez-Enciso M. (2010 ). “Origin and genetic diversity of pig breeds,” in Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (eLS) (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd).
Not in our library10.1002/9780470015902.a0022884
- 4.
Amin Z. Woo R. Danford D. A. Froemming S. E. Reddy V. M. Lof J. (2006 ). Robotically assisted perventricular closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects: preliminary results in Yucatan pigs. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 131 427–432.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.10.034
- 5.
Bjarkam C. R. Nielsen M. S. Glud A. N. Rosendal F. Mogensen P. Bender D. (2008 ). Neuromodulation in a minipig MPTP model of Parkinson disease. Br. J. Neurosurg. 22(Suppl. 1) S9–S12.
Not in our library10.1080/02688690802448285
- 6.
Bollen P. Ellegaard L. (1997 ). The Gottingen minipig in pharmacology and toxicology. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 80(Suppl. 2) 3–4.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0773.1997.tb01980.x
- 7.
Bosse M. Madsen O. Megens H. J. Frantz L. A. Paudel Y. Crooijmans R. P. (2014a ). Hybrid origin of European commercial pigs examined by an in-depth haplotype analysis on chromosome 1. Front. Genet. 5:442
Not in our library10.3389/fgene.2014.00442
- 8.
Bosse M. Megens H.-J. Frantz L. A. F. Madsen O. Larson G. Paudel Y. (2014b ). Genomic analysis reveals selection for Asian genes in European pigs following human-mediated introgression. Nat. Commun. 5:4392
Not in our library10.1038/ncomms5392
- 9.
Brevini T. A. Antonini S. Cillo F. Crestan M. Gandolfi F. (2007a ). Porcine embryonic stem cells: facts, challenges and hopes. Theriogenology 68(Suppl. 1) S206–S213.
Not in our library10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.05.043
- 10.
Brevini T. A. Tosetti V. Crestan M. Antonini S. Gandolfi F. (2007b ). Derivation and characterization of pluripotent cell lines from pig embryos of different origins. Theriogenology 67 54–63.
Not in our library10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.019
- 11.
Buchanan D. S. Stalder K. (2011 ). “Breeds of pigs,” in The Genetics of the Pig eds Rothschild M. F. Ruvinsky A. (Cambridge, MA: CAB International).
Not in our library
- 12.
Burchett K. M. Yan Y. Ouellette M. M. (2014 ). Telomerase inhibitor Imetelstat (GRN163L) limits the lifespan of human pancreatic cancer cells. PLoS ONE 9:e85155
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0085155
- 13.
Carlson D. F. Tan W. Lillico S. G. Stverakova D. Proudfoot C. Christian M. (2012 ). Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockout in livestock. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 17382–17387.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1211446109
- 14.
Chia R. Achilli F. Festing M. F. Fisher E. M. (2005 ). The origins and uses of mouse outbred stocks. Nat. Genet. 37 1181–1186.
Not in our library10.1038/ng1665
- 15.
Christoffersen B. Golozoubova V. Pacini G. Svendsen O. Raun K. (2013 ). The young Gottingen minipig as a model of childhood and adolescent obesity: influence of diet and gender. Obesity (Silver Spring) 21 149–158.
Not in our library10.1002/oby.20249
- 16.
Cong L. Ran F. A. Cox D. Lin S. Barretto R. Habib N. (2013 ). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339 819–823.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1231143
- 17.
Cooper D. K. Gollackner B. Sachs D. H. (2002 ). Will the pig solve the transplantation backlog? Annu. Rev. Med. 53 133–147.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.med.53.082901.103900
- 18.
Dalgaard L. (2014 ). Comparison of minipig, dog, monkey and human drug metabolism and disposition. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 74 80–92.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vascn.2014.12.005
- 19.
Deponti D. Di Giancamillo A. Gervaso F. Domenicucci M. Domeneghini C. Sannino A. (2014 ). Collagen scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering: the benefit of fibrin glue and the proper culture time in an infant cartilage model. Tissue Eng. Part A 20 1113–1126.
Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0171
- 20.
Dexter J. D. Tumbleson M. E. Hutcheson D. P. Middleton C. C. (1976 ). Sinclair(S-1) miniature swine as a model for the study of human alcoholism. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 273 188–193.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb52881.x
- 21.
Dicks N. (2015 ). “Somatic cell nuclear transfer and the creation of transgenic large animal models,” in Somatic Genome Manipulation: Advances, Methods and Applications eds Donnelly D. J. Li X.-Q. Jensen T. G. (New York: Springer) 123–143.
Not in our library
- 22.
Do M. Jang W. G. Hwang J. H. Jang H. Kim E. J. Jeong E. J. (2012 ). Inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in serially recloned pigs by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 424 765–770.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.07.031
- 23.
Eggleston T. A. Roach W. P. Mitchell M. A. Smith K. Oler D. Johnson T. E. (2000 ). Comparison of two porcine (Sus scrofa domestica) skin models for in vivo near-infrared laser exposure. Comp. Med. 50 391–397.
Not in our library
- 24.
England D. C. Panepinto L. M. (1986 ). “Conceptual and operational history of the development of miniature swine,” in Swine in Biomedical Research ed. Tumbleson M. E. (New York, NY: Plenum Press).
Not in our library
- 25.
Esteban M. A. Xu J. Yang J. Peng M. Qin D. Li W. (2009 ). Generation of induced pluripotent stem cell lines from Tibetan miniature pig. J. Biol. Chem. 284 17634–17640.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.008938
- 26.
Estrada J. L. Collins B. York A. Bischoff S. Sommer J. Tsai S. (2008 ). Successful cloning of the Yucatan minipig using commercial/occidental breeds as oocyte donors and embryo recipients. Cloning Stem Cells 10 287–296.
Not in our library10.1089/clo.2008.0005
- 27.
Ezashi T. Telugu B. P. Alexenko A. P. Sachdev S. Sinha S. Roberts R. M. (2009 ). Derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from pig somatic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 10993–10998.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0905284106
- 28.
Ezashi T. Telugu B. P. Roberts R. M. (2012 ). Induced pluripotent stem cells from pigs and other ungulate species: an alternative to embryonic stem cells? Reprod. Domest. Anim. 47(Suppl. 4) 92–97.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02061.x
- 29.
Feng W. Dai Y. Mou L. Cooper D. K. Shi D. Cai Z. (2015 ). The Potential of the Combination of CRISPR/Cas9 and Pluripotent Stem Cells to Provide Human Organs from Chimaeric Pigs. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16 6545–6556.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms16036545
- 30.
Festing M. F. (2014 ). Evidence should trump intuition by preferring inbred strains to outbred stocks in preclinical research. ILAR J. 55 399–404.
Not in our library10.1093/ilar/ilu036
- 31.
Flisikowska T. Merkl C. Landmann M. Eser S. Rezaei N. Cui X. (2012 ). A porcine model of familial adenomatous polyposis. Gastroenterology 143 e1171–e1177.
Not in our library10.1053/j.gastro.2012.07.110
- 32.
Giuffra E. Kijas J. M. Amarger V. Carlborg O. Jeon J. T. Andersson L. (2000 ). The origin of the domestic pig: independent domestication and subsequent introgression. Genetics 154 1785–1791.
Not in our library10.1093/genetics/154.4.1785
- 33.
Gonzalez K. D. Noltner K. A. Buzin C. H. Gu D. Wen-Fong C. Y. Nguyen V. Q. (2009 ). Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J. Clin. Oncol. 27 1250–1256.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.16.6959
- 34.
Gröger A. Kläring S. Merten H.-A. Holste J. Kaps C. Sittinger M. (2003 ). Tissue engineering of bone for mandibular augmentation in immunocompetent minipigs: preliminary study. Scand. J. Plastic Reconstruct. Surg. Hand Surg. 37 129–133.
Not in our library10.1080/02844310310007728
- 35.
Gun G. Kues W. A. (2014 ). Current progress of genetically engineered pig models for biomedical research. Biores. Open. Access. 3 255–264.
Not in our library10.1089/biores.2014.0039
- 36.
Hai T. Teng F. Guo R. Li W. Zhou Q. (2014 ). One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res. 24 372–375.
Not in our library10.1038/cr.2014.11
- 37.
Hauschild J. Petersen B. Santiago Y. Queisser A. L. Carnwath J. W. Lucas-Hahn A. (2011 ). Efficient generation of a biallelic knockout in pigs using zinc-finger nucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 12013–12017.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1106422108
- 38.
Hedley P. L. Jorgensen P. Schlamowitz S. Moolman-Smook J. Kanters J. K. Corfield V. A. (2009 ). The genetic basis of Brugada syndrome: a mutation update. Hum. Mutat. 30 1256–1266.
Not in our library10.1002/humu.21066
- 39.
Huppertz N. Tolba R. Grosse J. (2015 ). Micturition in Gottingen minipigs: first reference in vivo data for urological research and review of literature. Lab. Anim. [Epub ahead of print].
Not in our library10.1177/0023677215570993
- 40.
Jeong Y. H. Park C. H. Jang G. H. Jeong Y. I. Hwang I. S. Jeong Y. W. (2013 ). Production of multiple transgenic Yucatan miniature pigs expressing human complement regulatory factors, human CD55. CD59, and H-transferase genes. PLoS ONE 8:e63241
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0063241
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.