MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535137917 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab268

268 GERM CELL DEVELOPMENT IN EQUINE TESTIS TISSUE XENOGRAFTED INTO MICE

2004· article· en· W1535137917 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Turner, Rahul Rathi, Ali Honaramooz, Wenxian Zeng, Ina Dobrinski

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesCanada Research ChairsSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education
KeywordsSpermatogenesisBiologySertoli cellAndrologyTransplantationTestosterone (patch)Germ cellSeminal vesicleCATSInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineProstate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grafting of testis tissue from immature animals under the back skin of immunodeficient mice results in complete spermatogenesis, albeit with different levels of efficiency in different species. While spermatogenesis develops comparably to that in the donor species in xenografts from pigs, sheep and goats, spermatogenic differentiation is less efficient in testis tissue from cats and bulls. Testicular maturation was significantly accelerated in rhesus monkey testis grafts whereas timing was similar to that in the donor species in cats and bulls. The objective of this study was to investigate if grafting of immature horse testis tissue would result in spermatogenesis in a mouse host. Small fragments of testis tissue (about 1 mm3) from four sexually immature colts (2-week-old Standardbred, 5- and 8-month-old ponies, 10-month-old Warmblood) were grafted under the back skin of castrated male immunodeficient mice (n = 5, 5, 10 and 5 recipient mice, respectively). Histological examination of the testis xenografts was performed between 14 and 50 week post-transplantation. Weight of the seminal vesicles in the host mouse was recorded as an indicator of bioactive testosterone produced by the xenografts. At the time of grafting, the seminiferous cords of the donor testis tissue form 2-week-, 5-month- and 8-month-old colts contained only immature Sertoli cells and gonocytes. No spermatogenic differentiation occurred in xenografts from the 2-week-old colt and testosterone production was minimal. Pachytene spermatocytes were observed in testis grafts from the 5- and 8-month-old donors from 14 weeks onward. Spermatogenesis did not proceed through meiosis in grafts from the 5-month-old donor. Recipient mice carrying xenografts from the 8-month-old donor received exogenous gonadotropins (equine chorionic gonadotropin and human chorionic gonadotropin, 10 I.U./day for 2 months, beginning 14 weeks after grafting) and condensing spermatids were observed by 35 weeks after grafting. In donor tissue from the 10-month-old colt, pachytene spermatocytes were present in about 50% of tubules at the time of grafting. After 14 weeks, xenografts showed fewer differentiated germ cells than the donor tissue. However, at 35 weeks after grafting, condensing spermatids were observed, indicating that differentiated germ cells were initially lost and spermatogenesis was subsequently reinitiated. In all castrated host mice where spermatogenic differentiation occurred, the weight of the seminal vesicles was restored to pre-castration values showing that xenografts were releasing bioactive testosterone. These results indicate that horse spermatogenesis can occur in a mouse host albeit with low efficiency. Testicular maturation was not accelerated. In most cases, spermatogenesis appeared to become arrested at meiosis. The underlying mechanisms of this spermatogenic arrest require further investigation. Although equine testis xenografts produced testosterone, supplementation of exogenous gonadotropins might support post-meiotic differentiation. This work was supported by USDA 03-35203-13486.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207