MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1896510936 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab72

72 EFFECT OF CELL CYCLE PHASE OF GENE-MANIPULATED FETAL FIBROBLASTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLONED BOVINE EMBRYOS

2004· article· en· W1896510936 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Urakawa, T Sawada, Yutaka Sendai, Yoichi Shinkai, Atsushi Ideta, Kazuo Kubota, H. Hoshi, Y. Aoyagi

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsBiologyBlastocystSomatic cell nuclear transferAndrologyMolecular biologyEmbryoTransfectionFetusCell cycleSomatic cellEmbryo cultureFetal bovine serumReproductive technologyCell biologyCell cultureImmunologyCellGeneEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgenic bovine fetuses and offspring can be produced by using gene-modified somatic cells and clones of these cells. In this study, we examined the effects of specific cell cycle (early G1 phase) of donor cell (gene-manipulated fibroblasts) on the development of the nuclear transfer (NT) embryos into blastocysts and on the fetus production after embryo transfer. The gene-manipulated (tg; targeting of one or both alleles of gene encoding a-1,3-galactosyltransferase) or non-manipulated (control) bovine fetal fibroblasts were used for NT. The fibroblasts transfected with the targeting vector were selected with 0.4 mg mL-1 G418. The G418-resistant cells were monitored by PCR and Southern blot analysis. The cells (tg cells) in which homologous recombination occurred were used for NT. For NT, both tg cells and control cells were cultured in DMEM with 10% FCS. Early G1 cells were prepared by choosing pairs of bridged cells derived from mitotic phase cells (Urakawa M et al. 2004 Theriogenology 62, 714–728), and non-synchronized cells were obtained from a culture plate that had reached 60–80% confluence. Each donor cell was inserted into an enucleated, in vitro-matured (19 h) oocyte. Oocyte-cell couples were electrofused and activated with calcium ionophore and cycloheximide. The NT embryos were then co-cultured with bovine oviduct epithelial cells in CR1aa with 5% CS. The blastocyst rates were determined at 6 days after NT. The blastocysts were nonsurgically transferred to recipient heifers, and the developmental rate to the normal fetus was examined by the recovery of fetus or by using ultrasonography at Days 35–42. Data were analyzed by ANOVA. The developmental rate to the blastocyst stage did not differ significantly between tg (28.4%, 128/425) and control (25.4%, 181/739) cell groups. In the control group, the blastocyst rate of embryos constructed from early G1 phase fibroblasts (25.7%, 80/311) was not significantly different from that of embryos constructed with non-synchronized fibroblasts (23.6%, 101/428). In contrast, the blastocyst rate of tg cell derived-embryos was lower (P < 0.05) in early G1 phase (23.5%, 71/302) than in non-synchronized cell phase (46.3%, 57/123). The rate of development to a normal fetus in the tg group (15.4%, 4/26) was significant lower than that in the control group (62.5%, 25/40). For both the tg group and the control group, the rate of development to fetus tended to be higher (P > 0.05) for blastocysts derived from cells at the early G1 phase than for blastocysts derived from non-synchronized cells (tg group, 25.0%, 3/12 v. 7.1%, 1/14; control group, 90.0%, 9/10 v. 53.3%, 16/30). These results demonstrate that gene modification of fetal fibroblasts affects the development of NT embryos to fetuses. In addition, the synchronization of genetically modified donor cells to the early G1 phase may increase the potential to develop to a normal fetus.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207