MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557203598 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab68

68 REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE OF CLONED BULLS

2004· article· en· W1557203598 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Tayfur Tecirlioglu, Melissa A. Cooney, Natasha A. Korfiatis, Renee Hodgson, Mark Williamson, Shara Downie, D. B. Galloway, Michael K. Holland, A. J. French

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsSemenAndrologyBiologyHuman fertilizationSpermIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferCloning (programming)Reproductive biologyEmbryoReproductive technologyCryopreservationGeneticsEmbryogenesisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation of cloned animals by somatic cell nuclear transfer has been reported in a number of countries worldwide. However, progress has been impeded by the extremely low efficiency of cloning and health of some of the cloned animals. Surprisingly, little is known of the reproductive performance of viable clones when compared to the original cell donor, given that a major motivation of cloning is dissemination of superior genotypes. The aim of this study was to compare semen collected from three cloned bulls (Clones A1, B1, and B2) to that of the original donor bulls (Donors A and B). Parameters examined included ejaculate volume, sperm concentration and the motility characteristics of frozen/thawed semen using computed-assisted semen analysis (Hamilton Thorne Biosciences, Inc., Beverly, MA, USA). The fertilization ability of each semen sample was examined using in vitro matured oocytes derived from abattoir-source ovaries. Frozen/thawed semen samples from donor and cloned bulls were prepared on a Percoll gradient and diluted with fertilization medium to a concentration of 1 million sperm/mL prior to fertilization (IVF). The number of blastocysts and total cell counts were analyzed on Day 7 of culture. Finally, in vitro-fertilized blastocysts (Day 7) were transfer to synchronized recipients (n = 49) to examine in vivo development. Proportional data for the in vitro development of embryos and subsequent pregnancy rates were analyzed by chi-square test, and embryo cell numbers were analyzed using Student's t-test. Progressive motility percentage between donor and cloned bull did not differ: Donor A (62.25 ± 3.89, n = 12); Donor B (66.69 ± 4.47, n = 13); Clone A1 (71.37 ± 8.57, n = 8); Clone B1 (73.75 ± 2.42, n = 12); Clone B2 (72.41 ± 3.26, n = 12). No obvious differences in kinetic motility parameters were evident between cloned and non-cloned donor animals. However, blastocyst rates were significantly higher in cloned bulls (Clone A1: 30.9%, 81/262; Clone B1: 34.4%, 98/285; and Clone B2: 42.9%, 120/280) compared to donor bulls (Donor A: 20.7%, 54/261; Donor B: 20.9%, 76/364). Total embryo cell numbers did not differ significantly between donor bulls (Donor A: 138.3 ± 5.3, n = 39; Donor B: 133.2 ± 5.2, n = 47) and cloned bulls (Clone A1; 126.3 ± 4.4, n = 45; Clone B1: 134.4 ± 7.1, n = 26; and Cloned B2: 140.1 ± 3.9, n = 46). Initial pregnancy rates on Day 30 were also not different between Donor A (42.3%, 11/26) and Clone A1 (47.8%, 11/23). Preliminary observations from the small data set on postpubertal cloned bulls indicate that semen production, semen morphology, and reproductive performance (in vitro and in vivo) were similar in terms of semen characteristics and reproductive performances when compared to their original donor bulls.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
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 topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207