MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1468829814 · doi:10.1089/cell.2011.0076

Roscovitine Treatment Improves Synchronization of Donor Cell Cycle in G0/G1 Stage and <i>In Vitro</i> Development of Handmade Cloned Buffalo ( <i>Bubalus bubalis</i> ) Embryos

2012· article· en· W1468829814 on OpenAlexaff
Naresh L. Selokar, Monika Saini, M. Muzaffer, G. Krishnakanth, Ambika P. Saha, Manmohan Singh Chauhan, Radheysham Manik, P. Palta, Pavneesh Madan, S. K. Singla

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular Reprogramming · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEmbryoBlastocystAndrologyCell cycleMolecular biologyBubalusIn vitroCellInternal medicineEmbryogenesisBiochemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effects of serum-starvation, total confluence, and roscovitine treatment on cell-cycle synchronization of buffalo ear skin fibroblasts to the G0/G1 stage and on the developmental competence of cloned embryos. Serum starvation of total confluence cultures for 24 h had a higher (p<0.05) proportion of cells at G0/G1 stage (94.4%) compared with serum starved cyclic and nonstarved confluent cultures (76.8 and 86.0%, respectively), whereas differences between cyclic cells with or without serum starvation were not significant. The proportion of cells at G0/G1 was higher (p<0.05) with 20 and 30 μM roscovitine treatment than that with 10 μM (94.4, 96.4, and 86.6%, respectively), which was similar to that for total confluence (86.0%). MTT assay showed that cell viability decreased as dose of roscovitine increased. The blastocyst rate was significantly higher (p<0.05) when nuclear transfer embryos were reconstructed using donors cells from total confluence, confluence serum starved, and roscovitine-treated (20 and 30 μM) groups (48.8, 48.9, 57.9, and 62.9%, respectively) compared to nontreated cyclic cells (20.2%). However, the cleavage rate and total cell number of cloned embryos were similar for all the groups. The number of ICM cells was improved by 30 μM roscovitine treatment (45.25 ± 2.34). The cryosurvival rate of blastocysts derived from cells synchronized with 20 or 30 μM roscovitine was higher compared to that for total confluence group (33.6, 37.8 vs. 23.8%). In conclusion, treatment with 30 μM roscovitine is optimal for harvesting G0/G1 stage cells for producing high quality cloned buffalo embryos, and that it is better than serum-starvation or total confluence for cell synchronization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular ReprogrammingSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207