MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976378275 · doi:10.1071/rdv26n1ab97

97 IN VIVO AND IN VITRO EMBRYO PRODUCTION WITH Y-SEXED SORTED OR CONVENTIONAL SEMEN IN BEEF CATTLE

2013· article· en· W1976378275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Tríbulo, J. Carcedo, R. Tríbulo, Jorge R. Menajovsky, Berenice Bernal, Cristina Álvarez, A. Tríbulo, Juan Pablo Garzón, L. Clausen, Juan Mauricio Pardo Oviedo, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenSpermAnimal scienceAndrologyBiologyEmbryoBeef cattleEmbryo transferStrawHuman fertilizationEmbryo cultureCryopreservationAnatomyMedicineAgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was designed to evaluate in vivo and in vitro embryo production following the use of frozen–thawed conventional or Y-sexed semen from a Brangus bull with known high fertility. For in vivo embryo production, Brangus heifers (n = 12) were superovulated twice in a crossover design and inseminated with sexed or conventional semen. On Day 0, all heifers received an intravaginal progesterone device (DIB 1 g, Syntex S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina) and 2.5 mg oestradiol benzoate and 50 mg progesterone (Progestar, Syntex S.A.) by intramuscular injection (IM). On Day 4, heifers were superstimulated with 200 mg of NIH-FSH-P1 Folltropin-V (Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) in twice-daily decreasing doses over 4 days. In the a.m. and p.m. of Day 6, all heifers received PGF2a (Ciclase, Syntex) and DIBs were removed in the p.m.. In the a.m. of Day 8, heifers received 100 µg de Gonadolerin (Gonasyn, Syntex S.A.) and were randomly allocated to receive either one straw of conventional semen (24 × 106 sperm per dose) 12 and 24 h later or two straws of sexed semen (2.4 × 106 sperm per dose) 18 and 24 h after GnRH. Ova/embryos were collected nonsurgically on Day 15 and evaluated following IETS recommendations. Means were compared by t-test. Mean ( ± s.e.m.) number of ova/embryos, fertilized ova, and transferable embryos were 14.8 ± 2.7, 9.4 ± 1.8, and 7.1 ± 1.7 v. 16.8 ± 3.1, 9.9 ± 2.5, and 8.1 ± 2.0 for donors inseminated with conventional or sexed semen, respectively (P > 0.6). For in vitro production, oocytes were obtained from 50 ultrasound-guided follicle aspiration (OPU) sessions that was performed at random stages of the oestrous cycle and without superstimulation in 22 Brangus cows and heifers. Oocytes were classified and matured in TCM-199 medium with NaHCO3 and supplemented with 1% fetal bovine serum. Semen samples from the same bull used for in vivo embryo production were selected using Percoll and capacitated in Fert medium and used at a final concentration of sperm/mL for nonsexed semen and 2 × 106 sperm mL–1 for sexed semen. After 16 h (sexed) or 18 h (conventional) in Fert medium, zygotes were denuded and cultured in SOF supplemented with 0.4% BSA under oil at 37°C, 5% CO2 and saturated humidity for 7 days. The total number of oocytes matured and fertilized was 528 and 318 for conventional and sexed semen, respectively. Means were compared by t-test and proportions by chi-squared test. Mean (± s.e.m.) number of cleaved zygotes and blastocysts produced per OPU session did not differ between conventional (11.0 ± 1.4 and 7.1 ± 1.0) and sexed (8.7 ± 0.8 and 4.9 ± 0.7; P > 0.2) semen. However, the proportion of cleaved zygotes and blastocysts produced were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with conventional semen (61.2%; 329/538 and 39.4%; 212/538) than with sexed semen (54.4%; 173/318 and 30.8%; 98/318), respectively. In conclusion, comparable number of embryos can be obtained in vivo with sexed or conventional semen from a bull with proven high fertility. However, the proportion of blastocysts produced in vitro is likely to be reduced following the use of sexed as compared with conventional semen from the same bull.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207