MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022780278 · doi:10.1071/rdv20n1ab138

138 CELL INTEGRITY OF HOLSTEIN AND JERSEY EMBRYOS: COMPARISON OF TWO FREEZING METHODS

2007· article· en· W2022780278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Dupras, J. Dupras, Younès Chorfi

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropidium iodideVitrificationLiquid nitrogenEthylene glycolEmbryoCryoprotectantChemistryCryopreservationStainingAndrologyBiologyBiochemistryApoptosisProgrammed cell deathGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to compare cell integrity of Holstein and Jersey embryos using the standard method of freezing and vitrification. Embryos were harvested and processed following standard procedures approved by IETS (International Embryo Transfer Society), and then underwent two methods of freezing. (1) Standard method: embryos were put into 1.5 m ethylene glycol (EG) for 5 min at room temperature, and then at –6.5°C for 10 min for stabilization. After seeding, the temperature was lowered by 0.5°C until it reached –32°C, and then straws containing embryos were plunged into liquid nitrogen. (2) Vitrification: embryos were put for 3 min into vitrification solutions V1: 5 m EG in EmCare (ICPbio, Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand) and V2: 7 m EG, 0.5 m galactose (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA), and 18% Ficoll70 (Sigma) in EmCare for 45 s. Embryos were loaded into straws and then plunged into liquid nitrogen. De-freezing was done as follows: 5 s at room temperature, and then 30 s in water at 25°C. Vitrified embryos were de-frozen for 10 s at room temperature followed by 30 s in water at 25°C. All embryos were subjected to a combined staining, Hoechst 33342 and propidium iodide (Sigma-Aldrich Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The combined staining with these dyes makes analysis of cell death possible. Propidium iodide is specific to dead cells, whereas Hoechst stains all of the cells. Embryos were put in a PBS solution containing 20 µg mL–1 of Hoechst 33342 and propidium iodide for 15 min at 37°C and placed between a slide and coverslip. Fluorescence microscopy was then used to assess blue nuclei (live cells) and red nuclei (dead cells) of the cow embryos. For this experiment, a total of 51 grade 1 embryos (IETS classification) at early blastocyst or blastocyst stages were used (25 Holstein embryos from 4 donor cows and 26 Jersey embryos from 3 donor cows). The standard method of freezing was performed on 26 embryos (13 from Holstein cows and 13 from Jersey cows) and vitrification was performed on 25 embryos (12 from Holstein cows and 13 from Jersey cows). Embryos from a given cow (Holstein or Jersey) were evenly allocated to the standard and vitrification methods. The GLM procedure of SAS (SAS statistical software version 8; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to compare numbers of dead and live cells between vitrification and the standard method of freezing in Holstein and Jersey embryos. The mean numbers (±SE) of live cells of Holstein embryos were, respectively, 87.92 ± 8.48 and 85.5 ± 6.46 for standard method and vitrification. For Jersey embryos, means (±SE) of live cells were 94.42 ± 2.6 and 73.93 ± 7.39, respectively, for the standard method and vitrification. Means (±SE) of dead cells of Holstein embryos were, respectively, 5.58 ± 1.37 and 13.67 ± 2.91 for the standard method and vitrification. For Jersey embryos, means (±SE) of dead cells were 8.08 ± 1.01 and 27.6 ± 7.06, respectively, for the standard method and vitrification. In conclusion, vitrification significantly increased ( P = 0.05) the number of dead cells of embryos over the standard method of freezing. This effect was more evident ( P = 0.05) in Jersey than in Holstein embryos. The authors thank Dr. Vincent Girard for his help with statistics .

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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