MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495322983 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab156

156 INFLUENCE OF SERUM AND BSA ON BLASTOCYST DEVELOPMENT AND HATCHING IN IVF AND NUCLEAR TRANSFER BOVINE EMBRYOS

2004· article· en· W1495322983 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela F. Mastromonaco, E. Semple, Claude Robert, Jeong Ok Rho, Dean H. Betts, W.A. King

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystEmbryo cultureAndrologyFollicular fluidEmbryo transferBovine serum albuminChemistryEmbryoOocyteBiologyEmbryogenesisMedicineBiochemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important differences exist between in vivo- and in vitro-produced bovine embryos. Studies have shown that various components in culture media affect embryo development, with serum producing some of the more detrimental effects. Efforts to develop a serum-free culture system have included looking at the effects of BSA, polyvinyl pyrrolidone and polyvinyl alcohol on embryo development. In this study, we compare serum and BSA during oocyte maturation and embryo culture of IVF and nuclear transfer (NT) embryos. Experiment A: Oocytes were aspirated from follicles and matured in either collection medium (Hams F-10 + 2% steer serum (SS); F-10) or in follicular fluid alone (FF). They were subjected to IVM-IVF-IVC as follows: 20–22 h maturation in synthetic oviductal fluid +8 mg mL-1 fatty acid-free BSA (SOF + BSA-FAF) supplemented with hormones, 18 h co-incubation with sperm in IVF-TALP, and culture for 9 days in SOF + BSA-FAF. Experiment B: Oocytes were randomly distributed for IVM-IVF-IVC into the following treatment groups: (i) IVM and IVC in SOF + 2% SS (SER), (ii) IVM in SOF + 2% SS and IVC in SOF + BSA-FAF (SER-FAF), (iii) IVM and IVC in SOF + BSA-FAF (FAF), and (iv) IVM and IVC in SOF + BSA-FrV (FrV). Experiment C: Oocytes were matured for 18 h in either SOF + 2% SS (SER) or SOF + BSA-FAF (FAF). Couplets were constructed with adult skin fibroblasts, exposed to a single pulse of 1.5 kV cm-1 for 40 s and activated using ionomycin and cycloheximide. Embryos were cultured in SOF + BSA-FAF. Three replicates with 100–120 oocytes per treatment group were carried out. Results: Cleavage rates were similar among all treatments in experiments A and B. No differences were observed between oocytes collected in F-10 or FF indicating that short-term exposure to serum does not have long-term effects on embryo development. Although a higher number of blastocysts was observed in the SER group on Day 6 (3.2% v. <0.5%; P < 0.05), no differences were seen in blastocyst development among the IVF treatment groups from Day 8 onwards (SER: 29.7%, SER-FAF: 21.1%, FAF: 20.4%, FrV: 19.9%). However, hatching rates on Days 8 and 9 were significantly greater (P < 0.05) in groups with serum, with the exception of FAF on Day 9 (SER: 31.1%, 57.2%; SER-FAF: 29.4%, 50.6%; FAF: 23.1%, 46.4%; FrV: 18.5%, 34.2%). In the NT treatment groups, the presence of serum during IVM resulted in a higher proportion of MII oocytes at 18 h, better oocyte quality for manipulation, and increased blastocyst development and hatching rates (SER: 31.4%, 18.2%; FAF: 21.7%, 4.8%). These results indicate that both serum and fatty acid-free BSA provide comparable embryo development during IVF. However, development in serum occurs at an accelerated rate as indicated by the shorter nuclear maturation times and blastocyst development on Day 6, which has been associated with adverse outcomes. Despite this, serum may provide the oocyte with factors that are important for membrane flexibility and repair, enabling greater survival after manipulation. Funding from NSERC and OMAFRA. Sperm provided by Gencor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207