MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993735530 · doi:10.1071/rdv25n1ab75

75 ADDITION OF HYALURONAN TO A VITRIFICATION SOLUTION FOR IMMATURE BOVINE OOCYTES SELECTED BY BRILLIANT CRESYL BLUE

2012· article· en· W1993735530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Rodríguez-Villamil, Felipe Ledur Ongaratto, M. Fernandez Taranco, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheriogenologyVitrificationOocyteAndrologyEmbryo cultureOogenesisCryopreservationEthylene glycolReproductive technologyOocyte cryopreservationBiologyChemistryEmbryoMedicinePopulationFertility preservation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was designed to evaluate the effect of brilliant cresyl blue (BCB) selection of immature oocytes and the addition of sodium hyaluronate (HA) to the vitrification solution on survival rates of bovine oocytes vitrified using solid-phase vitrification. Bovine cumulus–oocyte complexes (COC; n = 716) obtained from slaughterhouse ovaries were used in 6 replicates. Cumulus–oocyte complexes were washed in tissue culture medium 199 (TCM-199) and randomly allocated to 2 groups to be exposed to BCB stain (Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) for 90 min as described by Alm et al. (2005 Theriogenology 63, 2194–2205) or (control) maintained in Vigro holding medium (Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Canada) for 90 min (n = 220). Cumulus–oocyte complexes in the BCB group were selected based on their response to BCB as BCB+ (colored, n = 248) or BCB– (colorless, n = 248), whereas those in the control group were selected morphologically as described by Rodríguez-González et al. (2002 Theriogenology 57, 1397–1409). Oocytes from both BCB groups and 100 oocytes in the control group were vitrified by solid-phase vitrification as previously described by Rodriguez et al. (2012 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 24, 132). The remaining 120 oocytes in the control group were not vitrified and were matured, fertilized, and cultured in vitro (in SOFaa in a controlled atmosphere) for 7 days. Vitrified oocytes were exposed to 10% ethylene glycol for 10 min, and 20% ethylene glycol + 0.2-M trehalose for 30 s, and then were subdivided to be exposed to 30% ethylene glycol + 0.5-M trehalose with or without 0.1 mg mL–1 HA (MAP 5, Bioniche Animal Health). Vitrified oocytes were stored in liquid nitrogen for at least one week and then placed directly into a 0.5-M sucrose solution (in TCM 199) at 37°C for 5 min, 0.25 M of sucrose for another 5 min, and finally TCM-199 and matured, fertilized, and cultured. Development rates (i.e. proportion of blastocysts) were examined on Day 7 after fertilization. Proportional data were first transformed by square root and then analyzed by ANOVA to detect the effect of replicate, type of oocyte (BCB+, BCB–, controls), and vitrified with or without HA or not vitrified as main effects, using the software Infostat (UNC, Argentina, 2010). There was a significant effect of oocyte type on blastocyst rate (P < 0.01) following vitrification (BCB+, 6.4 ± 0.4%. v. BCB–, 1.6 ± 0.6%). Control oocytes (not exposed to BCB) resulted in 3.0 ± 2.0% blastocysts following vitrification, which was lower to that obtained with the BCB+ oocytes. Vitrification also influenced development rates (3.0 ± 2.0 v. 32.0 ± 1.3%) for blastocysts produced from vitrified v. nonvitrified oocytes, respectively (P < 0.01). Furthermore, the use of HA in the vitrification solutions did not have a significant effect on development rates (4.7 ± 0.9 v. 3.3 ± 0.9%, for blastocysts obtained from vitrified oocytes with or without HA, respectively). In conclusion, the selection of oocytes by BCB increased the in vitro development rates of vitrified immature oocytes, whereas the use of HA in the vitrification solution did not improve the survival rates of vitrified oocytes.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207