MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962822962 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab61

61 CLONED MOUSE PRODUCED USING A ZONA FREE METHOD OF NUCLEAR TRANSFER

2004· article· en· W1962822962 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ricardo Ribas, Björn Oback, Jane Taylor, Ana Colette Maurício, Mário Sousa, I. Wilmut

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsZona pellucidaCytoplastPipetteMicroinjectionAndrologyMolecular biologyBiologyPronaseEnucleationStainingCloning (programming)EmbryoChemistryAnatomyOocyteCell biologyBiochemistryTrypsinGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mice have been cloned from somatic and embryonic cells; however, only 0–3% of the reconstructed embryos develop into viable offspring. In addition, the piezo microinjection method widely used for mouse nuclear transfer (NT) is difficult to master. Our objective was to compare cumulus and ES cells as nuclear donors using a simplified method of zona-free NT. In cattle, zona-free NT is simpler, faster, easier to learn and more reproducible than zona-intact NT (Oback et al. 2003 Cloning Stem Cells 5, 3–12). Oocytes were recovered at metaphase II stage (13 h after hCG injection) from the oviducts of C57BL/6J × DBA/2 F1 females (8–10 weeks of age). Cumulus cells were removed with hyaluronidase (300 units/mL) and the zona pellucida digested with pronase (0.5%) at 37°C for 3 min. Oocytes were then enucleated under UV light in cytochalasin B (5 µg/mL) after a 5-min staining with Hoechst (5 µL/mL). The metaphase DNA was removed in an enucleation pipette (16–20 µm, perpendicular break) by separating karyoplast and cytoplast with a simple separation pipette (60–80 µm, perpendicular break, closed round tip). Embryonic stem (ES) cells were cultured for 3 days and serum-starved for 16 h before use. Cells from this line had yielded offspring by the piezo procedure. Cumulus cells were used freshly. Donor cells were attached to the cytoplasts with phytohemagglutinin (10 µg/mL) and couplets were electrically fused in 0.2 mM mannitol buffer. Reconstructed embryos were activated 1–2 h after fusion for 5–6 h in CZB medium containing 10 mM strontium chloride and 5 µg/mL of cytochalasin B. Embryos were cultured individually in 5-µL droplets in CZB. Morulae and blastocysts were transferred into the uteri (Day 2.5) of pseudopregnant surrogate mothers (C57BL/6J × CBA/2J). Recipient mothers were sacrificed at 19.5 days postcoitum and pups removed. Airways were cleaned to remove fluid and the pups were held in a warm box before being fostered by a lactating mother. During development of the technique, we assessed the frequency of fusion, cleavage of reconstructed embryos, and development to morula/blastocyst stage. Fusion (58.1 ± 6.7% vs. 24.2 ± 1.7%, P < 0.001) and cleavage (66.4 ± 4.2% vs. 50.5 ± 5.4%, P < 0.05), all respectively, were higher when cumulus cells were used as donors, as compared with ES cells. However, the percentage of embryos developing to morula/blastocyst stage was greater when ES cells were used (22.2 ± 4.2% vs. 5.3 ± 2.7%, P < 0.01). Using ES cells as donors, 19/94 (20.2%) reconstructed embryos reached compacted morula/blastocyst stage. After transfer to five recipients, one pup was born (5.2%). It was larger and heavier than uncloned pups of the same age. The pup is healthy and now 12 weeks old. Genotype was confirmed by microsatellite analysis. The birth of a healthy cloned mouse pup from zona-free NT provides “proof of principle” of a technology that promises to increase throughput, ease of operation, and reproducibility of mouse cloning.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207