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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".