Transplanted Bone Marrow Cells Do Not Provide New Oocytes But Rescue Fertility in Female Mice Following Treatment With Chemotherapeutic Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally accepted that mammalian females are born with a finite pool of oocytes and that this is the sole source of ovules throughout the reproductive life of the adult. This dogma was shaken in 2003 when researchers showed that the oocyte stock might be renewable in adult mammals. It has been proposed that hematopoietic stem cells might be a source of new oocytes. These discoveries have puzzled many researchers and remain controversial. In our study, we attempted to determine if transplanted bone marrow cells could provide new oocytes in PU.1 mice and in severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice after treatment with chemotherapeutic agents. We also examined the possibility that grafted bovine embryonic ovarian cortex might provide an environment favoring such a response. We found no evidence that transplanted bone marrow cells provide new fertilizable oocytes in PU.1 mice, in SCID mice treated with chemotherapeutic agents, or with bovine embryonic ovarian tissue grafts. However, transplanted bone marrow cells have improved the fertility of SCID mice previously treated with chemotherapeutic agents. These data suggest that bone marrow cells cannot provide new oocytes but can positively influence ovarian physiology to improve the fertility of mice previously treated with chemotherapeutic agents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".