MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation into Developmental Potential and Nuclear/Mitochondrial Function in Early Wood and Plains Bison Hybrid Embryos*

2011· article· en· W1818702349 on OpenAlexaff
RP Seaby, Paula M. Mackie, WA King, GF Mastromonaco

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction in Domestic Animals · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystBison bisonEmbryoBiologyAndrologyEmbryogenesisOffspringHuman fertilizationBotanyGeneticsPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies to date have shown that bison embryo development in vitro is compromised with few embryos developing to the blastocyst stage. The aim of this study was to use bison-cattle hybrid embryos, an interspecific cross that is known to result in live offspring in vivo, as a model for assessing species-specific differences in embryo development in vitro. Cattle oocytes fertilized with cattle, plains bison and wood bison sperm were assessed for various developmental parameters associated with embryo quality, including cell number, apoptosis and ATP content. Decreased development to the blastocyst stage was observed in hybrid wood bison embryos compared with the other treatment groups. Although both wood bison and plains bison hybrid blastocysts had significantly lower cell numbers than cattle blastocysts, only wood bison hybrid blastocysts had a greater incidence of apoptosis than cattle blastocysts. Among the treatment groups, ATP levels and expression profiles of NRF1, TFAM, MT-CYB, BAX and BCL2 were not significantly different in both 8- to 16-cell stage and blastocyst stage embryos. These data provide evidence of decreased developmental competence in the wood bison hybrid embryos, owing to inadequate culture conditions that have increased apoptotic events.

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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction in Domestic AnimalsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207