MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543712879 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab75

75 HIGHLY EFFICIENT AND RELIABLE CHEMICALLY ASSISTED ENUCLEATION METHOD FOR HANDMADE CLONING IN CATTLE AND SWINE

2004· article· en· W1543712879 on OpenAlexafffund
Gábor Vajta, T.T. Peura, Liang‐Chuan Lai, C. N. Murphy, Randall S. Prather, P. M. Kragh, P. Holm, Henrik Callesen

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
KeywordsCytoplastEnucleationPronaseCloning (programming)BlastocystStainingBiologyAndrologyAnatomyTheriogenologyEmbryo cultureMolecular biologyEmbryoCryopreservationTrypsinCell biologyBiochemistryEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In bovine and porcine nuclear transfer, most traditional enucleation procedures require potentially harmful chromatin staining and UV illumination. The purpose of our work was to find an efficient and reliable chemically-assisted procedure for enucleation connected to the handmade cloning (HMC) technique without chromatin staining. Slaughterhouse-derived oocytes were collected and matured in vitro. At 21 (bovine) or 43 (porcine) h after the start of maturation, cumulus cells were removed with vortexing and oocytes were further incubated in the maturation medium supplemented with 0.5 µg mL-1 demecolcine for 2 h. Subsequently, zonae pellucidae were digested with 2 mg mL-1 pronase in the presence of 10% cattle serum (CS) for 6 to 8 min and washed in HEPES-buffered TCM-199 medium and 20% CS. Bisection was performed in the same medium by hand under a stereomicroscope by using a microblade. A small membrane protrusion observable on the surface of oocytes was used as an orientation point. One-third of the cytoplasm connected to this protrusion was removed, and the cytoplasts and karyoplasts were collected separately. Bovine cytoplasts were used as recipients for HMC experiments (Vajta et al., 2003, Biol. Reprod. 68, 571–578) with fetal fibroblasts as donors, and reconstructed embryos were cultured for 7 days. In Experiment 1 (3 replicates), the possibility of oriented bisection at different time points was determined on a total of 225 bovine oocytes. At 5, 15, 25, 35 and 55 min after the end of pronase digestion 64, 91, 93, 72 and 59% of oocytes had membrane protrusions (P < 0.05 between all groups, SAS Genmod) illustrating the time-dependent manner of the protrusion. In Experiment 2, the efficiency and reliability of enucleation was measured. Bisection was performed between 5 and 35 min after pronase digestion. Subsequently both supposed cytoplasts and karyoplasts were stained with Hoechst and investigated under UV light. In cattle (9 replicates), bisection was successfully performed in 94% (519/552) of oocytes, and 98% (507/517) of those bisected were enucleated, i.e. the chromatin was entirely in the presumptive karyoplast. In swine (3 replicates), 91% (302/331) of oocytes were successfully bisected and 95% (280/296) were enucleated. In Experiment 3 (cattle; 4 replicates), blastocyst per reconstructed embryo rates were 47% (139/293), illustrating the high developmental ability in vitro. Considering that no oocyte selection based on the presence of polar body was performed, the above system seems to be more efficient and reliable than other enucleation methods. Moreover, expensive equipment (inverted fluorescent microscope) and a potentially harmful step (staining and UV illumination) can be eliminated from the HMC without compromising the high in vitro efficiency.

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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