MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1488188839 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab60

60 HISTOLOGICAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN NUCLEAR TRANSFER AND IN VIVO PORCINE EMBRYOS

2004· article· en· W1488188839 sur OpenAlexafffund
Lynne M. Overman, L. Lai, Hee-Tae Cheong, Gi-Sun Im, K.-W. Park, Cynthia Besch‐Williford, C. N. Murphy, J. Green, Randall S. Prather

Notice bibliographique

RevueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Guelph
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Mots-clésEmbryoEmbryo transferAndrologyBiologyEstrous cycleUterine hornsPregnancyEmbryogenesisIn vivoEmbryo cultureAnatomyAnimal scienceMedicineGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Due to the high rate of embryonic loss during a nuclear transfer pregnancy, cloning is considered a relatively inefficient process. However, as the only method of producing knockout domestic animals it is considered an invaluable tool for the biotechnical industry. By histologically comparing embryos at significant stages in the porcine pregnancy (Days 10, 12, and 14), factors contributing to embryonic loss may be revealed. Many consider the period between days 10 and 14 to be critical for determining survivability as the embryos must undergo rapid changes to signal for maternal recognition of pregnancy as well as adapt to a changing environment. This study included three gilts per stage of pregnancy and four different experimental groups for each stage studied: nonpregnant animals, in vivo-pregnant animals, nuclear transfer (NT) recipients, and in vitro-manipulated recipients (IVM). IVM embryos were in vitro-produced embryos upon which a mock nuclear transfer has been performed in an effort to account for the variability introduced by the actual technique. Animals either were bred or underwent a surgical embryo transfer on Day 1 of the estrous cycle according to their assigned experimental group. Fifty embryos were transferred per embryo transfer. Embryos were flushed from the uterine horns at time of collection (Day 10, 12, or 14) and preserved in 10% neutral buffered formalin. All embryonic disc diameters and gross morphology were evaluated as parameters for normal development. Embryos were then dehydrated in ethanol, paraffin-imbedded, sectioned, stained with hemotoxylin and eosin, and Day 14 embryos were evaluated for abnormalities such as higher-than-normal nucleoli numbers, increased cytoplasmic vacuoles, and higher than normal numbers of mitotic figures. All results were analyzed using ANOVA. There were significant differences (P < .0001) between diameters of the embryonic disks, with the diameters of the NT embryonic disks being smaller than those of the in vivo controls at all stages studied. Morphologically, the in vivo controls were more developmentally competent than their NT counterparts by the time they reached Day 14 (P = 0.0002) in that most had achieved the more advanced elongated form of growth as opposed to remaining spherical in shape. Significant histological differences in the number of nucleoli per nuclei were also found between in vivo and NT embryos (P = 0.05) as well as between MNT and NT embryos (P = 0.05). Therefore, nuclear transfer embryos develop at a much slower rate than their in vivo counterparts and often exhibit histological abnormalities that could contribute to this slow growth. Due to the apparent increase in nucleoli, it is possible that NT embryos are being arrested at a specific stage in the cell cycle. The authors would like to acknowledge the Research Animal Diagnostic Laboratory for their help in imbedding, sectioning, and staining the embryos; Dr. Duane Keisler for running the hormone assays; and Kristin Whitworth, Melissa Samuel, Aaron Bonk, Jin-Geol Kim, Emily Fergason, David Wax, Tom Cantley, August Rieke, Randy Farrell, and Lacey Griesbaum for all their help.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,712
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,464

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,245
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentMême sujetAnimal Genetics and ReproductionTravaux en français237 207