MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1661584264 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab76

76 PRODUCTION OF CLONED BOVINE TRANSGENIC EMBRYOS WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF MONO-COLONY CELLS AND OVUM PICKUP

2004· article· en· W1661584264 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jianglin Zhao, Xingbo Yang, Yaping Huang, H.F. Liu, H. Li, H.W. Li, Suihua Huang, Yaqiong Zeng

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
KeywordsBiologySomatic cell nuclear transferAndrologyPopulationEmbryoMolecular biologyTransfectionOocyteGametogenesisEmbryo cultureReproductive technologyOviductCell cultureCell biologyGeneticsEmbryogenesisBlastocystEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of genetic manipulation, cell type, and culture conditions on developmental potential of bovine nuclear transfer (NT) embryos. Ovum pickup (OPU) technology was developed to obtain the oocytes for NT. A total 4044 cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) were obtained during 492 OPU sessions, with an average of 8.2 COCs recovered each session. Cultured granulosa cells (CGC), bovine fetal (150 days) oviduct epidermic cells (FOEC), and adult ear skin fibroblasts (ASFC) were used as donor cells for NT and were transfected with the expression vector including human FIX coding sequence directed by goat ß-casein promoter and neomycin gene. The cells were screened under 800 µg mL-1 G418 for 10–14 days until the apperance of a “mono-colony” of cells which were then picked. Each cell population was expanded by consecutive passage culture under 300 µg mL-1 G418 until used for NT, ensuring that the majority of cells were transgenic. Oocytes were enucleated at 20 h post-maturation and a single donor cell was transferred into the perivitelline space of a recipient oocyte. After fusion and activation, the reconstructed embryos were co-cultured with vero cells in B2 medium for 7 days. NT efficiency between primary granulosa cells (PGC) without in vitro culture and CGC, as well as among CGC, FOEC and ASFC that were transfected with exogenous DNA (named TCGC, TFOEC, TASFC, respectively), were compared (Table 1). Differences between groups were verified by chi-square test using SAS 6.12 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) program. CGCs presented a higher fusion rate (P < 0.01) for reconstructed embryos and higher development to the blastocyst stage for NT embryos than did PGC (67% vs. 54% and 41% vs. 21%, respectively). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in cleavage rate (65%, 71%, and 69%, respectively) and development to the blastocyst stage for NT embryos (36%, 30% and 40%, respectively) for TCGC, TFOEC, and TASFC. A total of 86 blastocysts were selected for transfer into uteri of 86 cows, resulting in 26 pregnancies (30%) at 60 days by ultrasound scanning. Among these, 12 cows remain pregnant and 14 have aborted. The results indicated that oocytes recovered from OPU can be successfully used for NT with development to the blasocyst stage. PGC, CGC, FOEC, and ASFC can all be used for generating transgenic cattle by NT, although this needs to be verified by the birth of live calves. Table 1. Nuclear transfer efficiency with various cell types This work was supported by the Chinese “863” High-Tech Plan Program (Grant No. 2002AA206201).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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