MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608678787 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab70

70 RECONSTRUCTED BOVINE BLASTOCYSTS COMPRISING NUCLEAR TRANSFER-DERIVED INNER CELL MASS AND TROPHECTODERM FROM IVF EMBRYOS DO NOT IMPROVE IN VIVO DEVELOPMENT OF CLONES

2004· article· en· W1608678787 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H.E. Troskie, F.C. Tucker, Martin C. Berg, Björn Oback, David N. Wells, R.S.F. Lee

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
KeywordsBlastocystBiologyAndrologyEmbryoInner cell massSomatic cell nuclear transferEmbryo transferReproductive technologyEmbryo cultureEmbryogenesisGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cloning of cattle by somatic cell nuclear transfer (NT) is associated with a high incidence of abnormal placentation, excessive fluid accumulation in the fetal sacs (hydrops syndrome) and fetal overgrowth (Lee RSF et al. 2004 Biol. Reprod. 70, 1–11). Early embryonic loss in bovine NT pregnancies may also be due to immunological rejection (Hill JR et al. 2002 Biol. Reprod. 67, 55–63). As a means of overcoming placental abnormalities and improving pregnancy outcome in bovine NT, reconstructed blastocysts were produced by combining immunosurgically isolated inner cell masses (ICM) from Day 7 NT embryos with the trophectoderm (TE) of Day 7 IVF embryos. Oocytes for the production of NT and IVF embryos were obtained from abattoir-collected ovaries of dairy cows. The semen used for IVF was from the bull from which the cell line for NT was derived. The NT blastocysts were produced as described previously (Oback B et al. 2003 Cloning Stem Cells 5, 3–12) except that two one-cell embryos were aggregated together after NT (2NT). Blastocyst reconstruction was achieved using a modified procedure (Rorie RW et al. 1994 Vet. Record 135, 186–187). Embryos from four experimental groups were transferred individually to synchronized recipient heifers on Day 8 of culture: (1) ICM from 2NT embryos reconstructed with IVF TE (R-2NT, n = 15); (2) ICM from IVF embryos reconstructed with IVF TE (R-IVF, n = 15); (3) control 2NT (n = 10); and (4) control IVF (n = 10). Pregnancy rates were recorded and treatments compared using Fisher's exact test. After slaughter between Days 149 and 161 of gestation, morphometric measurements were determined for the fetuses, fetal organ weights, fluid volumes, and placentomes. Data were rank transformed; treatments were compared using Student's t-test with standard errors calculated from the pooled variation. Pregnancy rates on Day 35 were R-2NT (60%), R-IVF (47%), 2NT (90%), and IVF (10%). Pregnancy rates on Day 150 were R-2NT (40%), R-IVF (40%), 2NT (70%), and IVF (10%). The reason for the low IVF pregnancy rate was unknown. Previously, pregnancy rates using the same sire and cell line (but using Day 7 embryo transfer) on Day 35 were 63% (n = 40) and 69% (n = 42) for IVF and single, non-aggregated NT, respectively, and 50% and 33% for IVF and NT on Day 150. The single NT pregnancy rate was not significantly different from that for the 2NT embryos. There was no significant difference in pregnancy rates on Day 35 and Day 150 between R-2NT v. 2NT, R-2NT v. R-IVF, or 2NT v. R-IVF. The blastocyst reconstruction procedure did not have any impact on fetal development or influence pregnancy rates. All fetuses recovered were male. No significant differences were found between R-2NT and 2NT fetuses in terms of fetal weight, fluid volume, total placentome weight, and placentome numbers or in the relative and absolute weights of the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys. Thus, replacement of the TE in NT embryos with TE from IVF embryos did not overcome placental abnormalities or decrease fetal overgrowth prevalence.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

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 topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207