MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976569531 · doi:10.1071/rdv18n2ab112

112 LLAMA LAMA GLAMA PREGNANCIES FROM VITRIFIED/WARMED BLASTOCYSTS USING A NOVEL COAXIAL CRYOPROTECTANT MICROINJECTION SYSTEM

2005· article· en· W1976569531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Paul Taylor, Sally A. Taylor, M. Sansineña, R.A. Godke

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoprotectantPipetteMicroinjectionVitrificationCryopreservationAndrologyEmbryoPolyethylene glycolIn vivoBiomedical engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceChromatographyAnatomyBiologyMedicineBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been only limited progress in efforts to cryopreserve llama embryos, and no live offspring have been reported to date. The main obstacle is the large diameter of in vivo-recovered llama embryos that results in high embryo volume to surface ratio. First, a novel coaxial microinjection device was designed and constructed to allow the injection of a cryoprotectant (CPA) solution directly into the cavity of hatched llama blastocysts in an effort to reduce the exposure time to toxic CPAs. The coaxial device consisted of a holding borosilicate pipette (120-µm OD; 60-µm ID) and an injection pipette (20-µm OD; 17-µm ID) placed inside the holding pipette for injection of CPAs and for aspiration of aqueous fluids from the blastocele cavity. In this preliminary study, two methods of cryopreservation were evaluated. Treatment (Trt) A consisted of injection of a CPA solution using the coaxial microinjection system followed by a vitrification (VITC) protocol. Day 7 in vivo-derived, hatched llama blastocysts (>500-µm diameter) were held in PBS during injection with an equilibration solution (EQUL) consisting of 15% glycerol, 10% butanediol, 1% polyethylene glycol, 20% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 0.5 m sucrose in ViGro Holding Plus medium (Bioniche Animal Health, Melleville, Ontario, Canada). Embryos were immobilized with the holding pipette and EQUL solution was injected until the embryos were hyperinflated. The contents of the blastocele cavity were then aspirated and the embryos were released and held in EQUL solution for 8 min. After equilibration, embryos were transferred to a 3 step VITC solution (20% glycerol, 20% ethylene glycol, 0.3 m sucrose, 0.375 m glucose, 3% polyethylene glycol in three steps; Aller et al. 2002 Anim. Reprod. Sci. 73, 121–127), loaded into 0.25-mL plastic straws, and plunged into LN2. Trt B consisted of VITC only, without microinjection of CPAs. After 60 days, the straws containing the vitrified embryos in Trt A were removed from the LN2 and placed in a water bath at 32°C for 10 s. Embryos were injected with diluent medium (0.3 m sucrose in ViGro Holding Plus) into the blastocele cavity using the coaxial system until re-inflated to their original spherical shape. The warming of embryos in Trt B was performed without injection of diluent medium. Embryos from both treatments were held in diluent medium for 7 min and then placed in ViGro culture medium. Randomly chosen, VITC-thawed hatched blastocysts were nonsurgically transferred (1 or 2/female) to GnRH-treated llama recipients. Two pregnancies resulted from the transfer of three embryos (67%) from Trt A, with normal heart beats confirmed by ultrasonography 24 days post-transfer (Table 1). No pregnancies resulted from the transfer of embryos from Trt B. The pregnancies remain ongoing (60 and 210 days) at the time of this submission. These preliminary results demonstrate the successful use of a novel microinjection system in the cryopreservation of llama embryos. Research is now underway to determine the optimal VITC solutions and embryo exposure time. Table 1. Comparison of two vitrification methods for hatched llama blastocysts

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207