Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40643476›Full record

ReviewCells2025

Biological Aging and Uterine Fibrosis in Cattle: Reproductive Trade-Offs from Enhanced Productivity.

Yuta Matsuno, Kazuhiko Imakawa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuta MatsunoResearch Institute of Agriculture, Tokai University, Kumamoto 862-8652, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9927-1756
Kazuhiko ImakawaResearch Institute of Agriculture, Tokai University, Kumamoto 862-8652, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3798-3560

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI 21K14965Livestock Promotional Funds of Japan Racing Association (JRA) 2024-30
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproductive efficiency in cattle remains sub-optimal, with pregnancy rates often below 50%, despite fertilization rates approaching 100%, indicating that implantation failure and/or early embryonic loss are major limiting factors. This disparity highlights the need to understand the biological and physiological mechanisms underlying implantation failure. This review elucidates the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying reduced pregnancy rates, with a particular focus on biological aging and fibrosis in the reproductive organs as emerging contributors to uterine dysfunction. Accumulated evidence suggests that metabolic demands associated with intensive breeding strategies aimed at maximizing meat and milk productivity may induce multiple forms of stress, including oxidative stress, metabolic stress, and inflammation, which accelerate biological aging and fibrosis in the female reproductive tract. However, the direct molecular mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We hypothesize that biological aging and fibrosis are interconnected mechanisms contributing to impaired uterine function, resulting in reduced implantation rates. By summarizing recent findings and adopting a comparative perspective, this review explores the extent to which insights from human and mouse models can be applied to cattle, considering species-specific reproductive physiology and metabolic adaptations. It explores their relevance to reproductive inefficiencies and discusses potential strategies to enhance fertility and extend bovine reproductive longevity.

Indexed as

AgingReproductionUterusAnimalsCattleFemaleFibrosisHumansPregnancybiological agingcattlefibrosisreproductive tractruminantssenescencesenescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP)uterus

Identifiers

PMID40643476
PMCPMC12249078

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.