MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540710577 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab58

58 ESTRUS SYNCHRONIZATION OF DAIRY GOATS UTILIZED AS RECIPIENTS FOR CAPRINE NUCLEAR TRANSFER EMBRYOS

2004· article· en· W1540710577 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. Melican, Robin Butler, N. Hawkins, S. Nims, N. Buzzel, Teru Jellerette, W. Gavin

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
KeywordsEstrous cycleIntramuscular injectionImplantEmbryo transferAndrologyMedicineAnimal scienceGynecologyEmbryoInternal medicineBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of estrus synchrony between donor and recipient does is an important consideration in an embryo transfer program. Experiments were conducted to determine the optimal time of estrus synchrony between donor and recipient dairy goats used in a commercial nuclear transfer (NT) program. Donor and recipient synchronization was achieved by implanting either a 3-mg norgestomet ear implant (Crestar®, Intervet Int. B.V., Boxmeer, Holland) or a 300-mg progesterone vaginal implant (CIDR-G®, Pharmacia and Upjohn Ltd. Co., Auckland, NZ) on Day 0. A single 5 mg intramuscular injection of prostaglandin (Lutalyse®, Pharmacia and Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) was administered on Day 7. Recipients received a single 200–500 IU intramuscular injection of PMSG (Calbiochem, LaJolla, CA, USA) on Day 13. Alternatively, starting on Day 12 donors received twice daily intramuscular injection (64 mg/day) of FSH (Folltropin®, Vetrepharm, Ontario, Canada) over four consecutive days. On Day 15 the implants were removed from both donors and recipients and the animals were mated several times daily to vasectomized bucks over two consecutive days. In Experiment 1, estrus synchrony or asynchrony was achieved by removing the implant from recipients at the same time or 12 h later than donors, respectively. In Experiment 2, only estrus asynchrony was utilized and was achieved by removing the implant from recipients either 12 or 18 h later than donors. In vivo-ovulated MII oocytes surgically recovered from superovulated donors on Day 17 were enucleated and reconstructed with transfected caprine fetal or adult skin cells or transgenic adult skin cells. Couplets were simultaneously fused, activated, and then cultured in SOF/BSA for 48 h at 38°C. Two-to-eight-cell NT embryos at 48 h post-fusion and activation were surgically transferred to the oviducts of surrogate recipients with similar implant types and PMSG doses. Pregnancies were determined by ultrasonography starting at approximately Day 28 post-fusion and activation and then monitored weekly. In Experiment 1, there were significantly more pregnant asynchronous recipients compared with synchronous recipients (6 of 24 v. 12 of 124 does, respectively). While there were no significant differences, more offspring were produced per embryo transferred to asynchronous recipients compared with synchronous recipients (5 of 135 v. 11 of 690 offspring per embryo transferred, respectively). In Experiment 2, while not significant, there were more pregnant +12-h asynchronous recipients compared with +18-h asynchronous recipients (16 of 72 v. 5 of 36 does, respectively). Again, while there were no significant differences, more offspring were produced per embryo transferred to +12 h compared with +18 h asynchronous recipients (11 of 424 v. 3 of 224 offspring per embryo transferred, respectively). These results suggest that asynchrony of estrus between recipients and donors is more beneficial in a commercial caprine NT program, and that +12 h may be a more optimal period of asynchrony for recipient does receiving NT embryos. Table 1 Summary of recipient estrus 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)0.001
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 score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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