MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593965669 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab73

73 EFFECT OF CALF RECLONING ON EMBRYO AND FETAL SURVIVAL

2004· article· en· W1593965669 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D. Salamone, Claudio B. Santos, J. Lino Barañao, J.L. Bussmann, J. Artuso, I. Mújica, C.J. Munar, Guillermo Berra

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsTransgeneBiologyTransfectionAndrologyTransgenesisReproductive technologyCloning (programming)Genetically modified organismFetusUmbilical cordEmbryoSomatic cell nuclear transferMolecular biologyCell cultureCell biologyCryopreservationGeneImmunologyGeneticsBlastocystEmbryogenesisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a large-scale cloning program destined to produce transgenic animals, it is very important to incorporate well-characterized transgene integration and gene expression. However, after non-homologous transfection, a wide variety of transgene copies are introduced, and these occur in different chromosome locations. Recloning a selected first-generation transgenic calf offers the opportunity to increase the homogeneity among transgenic animals. Calf recloning was performed in an experiment in which the survival rate was evaluated after a second round of cloning from transgenic umbilical cord and ear calf fibroblasts. The original genetically modified fetal cell line that produced the clones was used as control. Oocytes were aspirated from slaughterhouse ovaries and matured in TCM-199 + 5% FCS at 39°C for 24 h. Matured oocytes were denuded by vortexing for 3 min in TL HEPES with 1 mg mL-1 bovine testis hyaluronidase. Metaphases were assessed and oocytes were enucleated by visualization with Hoechst 33342 (5 µg mL-1) under UV light (<6 s). A fetal fibroblast cell line was initially established from a 75-day old Jersey female fetus. Genetically modified cells were isolated after selection with geneticin for 10–15 days following liposome transfection with a DNA construct containing a selectable neomycin resistance gene. Following nuclear transfer with these transgenic cells, new cell lines were isolated from umbilical cord and ear fibroblasts obtained from one of the cloned-transgenic calves so-produced. Donor cells from all three sources were used for nuclear transfer at G0/G1 cell cycle stages and were fused to enucleated oocytes by an electrical pulse. After 3 h, activation was induced by incubation in TL-HEPES with 5 µM ionomycin for 4 min and then 2 mM 6-DMAP for 3 h. The oocytes were then washed with TL- HEPES and cultured in SOF medium with an atmosphere of 5% CO2 + 5% O2 + 90% N2. Development to blastocyst stage (Days 7 to 9) was recorded. One or two blastocysts were transferred non-surgically per recipient cow, and pregnancies at 30 days or 60 days were determined by ultrasonography. All data were analyzed by chi-square test. Seven births were obtained from the original fetal cell line, one birth was obtained from recloned umbilical cord and four pregnancies are in the last third of gestation from recloned ear fibroblasts. Development to blastocyst stage was significantly different between transfected fetal fibroblast and both recloned treatment groups. Differences were observed in pregnancy rates between blastocysts generated by the different sources of donor cells. In spite of the lower blastocyst production, our results suggest that recloning provides an additional method to obtain transgenic animals, and that fibroblasts from umbilical cord could give better results for recloning than those obtained from young calf ear. Effect of different sources of donor cells for calf recloning on embryo and fetal survival

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)0.000
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 score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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