MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555699136 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab60

60 EPIGENETIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BOVINE AND CAPRINE EMBRYOS AND DONOR CELLS USED FOR NUCLEAR TRANSFER

2004· article· en· W1555699136 on OpenAlexafffund
Erdoğan Memili, E. Behboodi, Harry Meade, Yann Echelard

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
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
KeywordsTheriogenologyAndrologyBiologyDNA methylationReprogrammingReproductive technologyEmbryo cultureEpigeneticsMolecular biologyEmbryoBlastocystEmbryo transferImmunologyCryopreservationGeneticsCellEmbryogenesisGene expressionMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The molecular aspects of epigenetic events taking place in nuclear transfer (NT)-derived embryos are not well defined, but DNA methylation is known to be involved. One leading hypothesis is that the significant losses that occur during both pre- and post-implantation development are in great part due to improper epigenetic reprogramming. Aims of this study were to perform comparative quantitative analyses of the overall DNA methylation of bovine (both IVF- and NT-derived) and caprine IVF-derived preimplantation embryos as well as of donor cells used for NT. Caprine IVF was performed according to Blash S et al. (2001 Theriogenology 54, 899–905). Bovine and caprine 8- to 16-cell embryos were harvested on Day 4 post-insemination (dpi). Caprine donor cells (two adult fibroblast cell lines, T75-514 and F638) at the G1 phase of the cell cycle were prepared as previously described (Memili E et al. 2003 Theriogenology 59, 274 abst). Bovine cumulus cells were serum starved for four days prior to use and NT were performed as previously described (Echelard Y et al. 2002 Theriogenology 57, 779 abst). Embryos and the donor cells were vacuum-fixed onto 10-µm filters, and DNA methylation was determined by immunoassaying with a well-defined anti-5-methyl-cytosine antibody (Dean W et al. 2001 Prod Natl Acad Sci 98(24), 13734–13738) and fluorescent labeled anti-mouse IgG as secondary antibody following the protocol of Shi and Haaf (2002 Mol Reprod Dev 63, 329–334). Fluorescent imaging was performed by epifluorescence microscopy. The methylation-specific signal was recorded digitally with a high-resolution charge-coupled devise camera, followed by analysis with the MetaMorph™ imaging software (Universal Imaging Corporation, Downingtown, PA, USA). These experiments showed a high level of heterogeneity in the methylation levels of bovine and caprine donor cells. However, caprine 8- to 16-cell IVF embryos exhibited similar levels of DNA methylation to their bovine IVF counterparts. Conversely, when the DNA methylation level of 97 bovine IVF nuclei was compared to that of 55 bovine NT embryonic nuclei, significant differences were found. Levels of signal intensities per nucleus were almost 9-fold greater for NT embryos (133 v. 15), a significant difference (P < 0.01). In conclusion, donor cell populations with heterogeneous DNA methylation and incomplete reprogramming of DNA methylation in NT embryos are likely to be the underlying reasons for low level of successful NT embryonic and fetal development. Thus, designing NT protocols supporting better reprogramming may result in improvement since, in order for a successful embryonic development after NT, DNA methylation needs to be reprogrammed from a somatic cell pattern to an early embryonic pattern. Furthermore, similar levels of DNA methylation between caprine and bovine IVF embryos may be an indication of a similar pattern of embryonic gene expression between these species.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207