MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chronological Appearance of Apoptosis in Bovine Embryos Reconstructed by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer from Quiescent Granulosa Cells

2005· article· en· W2021900087 on OpenAlexafffund
J. O. Gjørret, James Wengle, P. Maddox‐Hyttel, WA King

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction in Domestic Animals · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Food and AgricultureCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBlastocystEmbryoBiologySomatic cell nuclear transferTUNEL assaySomatic cellApoptosisAndrologyEmbryonic stem cellProgrammed cell deathEmbryogenesisCell biologyMolecular biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficiency of cloning has remained low and in spite of attempts to improve this technology, many reconstructed embryos do not implant or are lost during early pregnancy. Chromosomal aberrations, deviant gene expression patterns and abnormal regulation of cell death may be involved in this increased early embryonic loss. Here, we investigate the chronological onset of both apoptotic changes in nuclear morphology and DNA degradation [detected by transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labelling (TUNEL) reaction] in bovine two-cell- to blastocyst-stage embryos. Such embryos were generated either by reconstruction with nuclear transfer from quiescent granulosa cells or by regular in vitro embryo production. Nuclear condensation was observed from the two-cell stage and TUNEL labelling was observed from the six-cell stage in reconstructed embryos, whereas nuclear condensation was evident from the eight-cell stage and TUNEL labelling from the 13-cell stage in embryos derived in vitro. Furthermore, reconstructed embryos displayed elevated ratios of embryos containing apoptotic nuclei at pre-compaction stages and higher indices of apoptotic nuclei in morula and blastocyst stages when compared with in vitro-produced 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction in Domestic AnimalsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207