Different Culture Media Requirements of IVF and Nuclear Transfer Bovine Embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Important differences exist between in vitro fertilized (IVF) and nuclear transfer (NT) bovine embryos. Studies have shown that although in vitro development is comparable, post-implantation survival is greatly reduced in NT embryos. In this study, we compare serum and bovine serum albumin (BSA) supplementation during oocyte maturation and embryo culture of IVF and NT embryos. In experiment 1, oocytes and embryos were randomly distributed into different treatment groups consisting of synthetic oviductal fluid (SOF) medium supplemented with either serum, fatty acid-free BSA (FAF) or fraction V BSA during maturation and/or culture to assess IVF embryo development. In experiment 2, oocytes were matured in SOF + serum or SOF + FAF and reconstructed embryos were cultured in SOF + FAF to assess NT embryo development. Among the IVF treatment groups, a greater number of blastocysts were observed in the steer serum (SER) group (IVM and IVC in SOF + serum) on day 6; however, no significant differences were seen in blastocyst development from day 8 onwards. Hatching frequencies on days 8 and 9 were significantly greater in groups with serum, with the exception of FAF (IVM and IVC in SOF + FAF) on day 9. For the NT treatment groups, the presence of serum during IVM resulted in a higher proportion of MII oocytes and increased blastocyst development and hatching rates were compared with supplementation of FAF. These results indicate that both serum and FAF provide comparable embryo development for IVF but not for NT bovine 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".