MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536435567 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab64

64 COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL OF IN VIVO AND IN VITRO RECIPIENT OOCYTES AFTER NUCLEAR TRANSFER IN GOAT

2004· article· en· W1536435567 on OpenAlexafffundabout
H.S. Park, M.Y. Lee, S.P. Hong, Jiamin Jin, J.K. Park, J.S. Lee, Sea Hwan Sohn, Jin‐Young Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsSomatic cell nuclear transferIn vivoAndrologyTheriogenologyBiologyEndangered speciesGametogenesisBlastocystEmbryoCell biologyMedicineBiotechnologyCryopreservationEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent techniques in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) have been widely used for animal research. In addition, SCNT techniques may allow for the rescue of endangered species. Despite efforts for wildlife preservation, however, some threatened or endangered wild animal species will likely become extinct. As a preliminary experiment of a series in wildlife research, we tried to identify an improved method for the production of more transferable NT embryos in goats. Mature donor animals of Korean native goats (20–25 kg) were synchronized with a CIDR (type G; InterAg, New Zealand) vaginal implant for 10 days followed by a total of 8 twice daily injections of 70 mg of FSH (Folltropine, London, Ontario, Canada) and 400 IU of hCG (Chorulon, Intervet, Moxmeer, The Netherlands). Oocytes were then collected surgically by retograde oviduct flush or direct aspiration from ovarian follicles in vivo at 29–34 h after hCG. Oocytes collected from follicles were matured in TCM-199 containing 10% FBS and hormones. Prepared ear skin cells from the goat were cultured in TCM-199 containing 10% FBS at 39°C, 5% CO2 in air, and confluent monolayers were obtained. Oocytes were enucleated and donor cells from serum starvation (0.5%) culture were fused through a single electric pulse (DC 2.36 kv cm-1, 17 µs), and then activated by a single electric pulse (AC 5 v mm-1, 5s + DC 1.56 kv cm-1, 30 µs) or chemical treatment (5 µg mL-1 ionomycin 5 min-1, 1.9 mM 6-DMAP/4h). Reconstructed oocytes were cultured in M16 medium with 10% goat serum (GS) for 6–7 days. Data were analyzed by chi-square test. In in vitro development, significantly (P < 0.05) more oocytes were cleaved (24/30, 80.0%) and developed (7/24, 29.2%) to morula or blastocyst stage, respectively, in NT oocytes activated by Iono + DMAP compared to electric stimulated oocytes (2/21, 40.0%; 0/2, 0%). There was a significant difference in in vitro development of NT embryos by the method of oocyte collection. Cleavage rate was higher (P < 0.05) in NT embryos from in vivo oocytes (23/28, 82.1%) than in in vitro matured oocytes (19/35, 54.3%), and further development to morula or blastocyst was also significantly (P < 0.05%) higher in NT embryos from in vivo oocytes (7/23, 30.4%) than in NT embryos from in vitro matured oocytes (0/19, 0%). When we compared NT embryos to parthenotes, developmental rate was not significantly different between NT embryos and parthenotes. These results strongly suggest that the in vivo oocytes will have superior developmental potential to oocytes matured in vitro. Table 1 Effect of different oocyte source on in vitro development following caprine SCNT

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.260
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 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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