<i>In vitro</i> development of mouse somatic nuclear transfer embryos: effects of donor cell passages and electrofusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, C57BL/6 adult male mouse ear fibroblast cells and Kunming mouse M2 oocytes were used as donors and recipients, respectively, to investigate the effect of passage number on donor cells and electrofusion times on the in vitro development of nuclear transfer (NT) embryos. The results demonstrated firstly that when the ear fibroblast cells from either 2-4, 5-7 or 8-10 passages were used as donors, respectively, to produce NT embryos, the number of passages undergone by the donor cells had no significant effect on the in vitro development of NT embryos. The developmental rates for morula/blastocyst were 15.2, 13.3 and 14.0%, respectively, which were not significantly difference (p>0.05). Secondly, when the NT embryos were electrofused, there was no significant difference between the fusion ratio for the first electrofusion and the second electrofusion (p>0.05). The developmental rates of the 2-cell and 4-cell stages that had undergone only one electrofusion, however, were significantly higher than those that had had two electrofusions (65.7% compared with 18.4% and 36.4% compared with 6.1%; p<0.01), furthermore the NT embryos with two electrofusions could not develop beyond the 4-cell stage. This study suggests that this protocol might be an alternative method for mouse somatic cloning, even though electrofusion can exert negative effects on the development of NT embryos.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".