Recovery and Cryopreservation of Epididymal Sperm of Plains Bison (<i>Bison bison bison</i>) as a Model for Salvaging the Genetics of Wood Bison (<i>Bison bison athabascae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to optimize recovery and cryopreservation of epididymal sperm from plains bison, as a model for wood bison. In Phase 1, cauda epididymides were recovered from bison (n = 14) immediately after slaughter, minced and incubated in Sp-TALPH buffer for 3 h at 36 degrees C. The resulting sperm suspensions were cryopreserved in Triladyl, using a protocol for bovine semen. In Phase 2, epididymal sperm were cryopreserved in either Triladyl or Andromed. The mean (+/-SD) estimated number of sperm recovered was 468 +/- 207 x 10(6). There was an increase (p < 0.05) in the proportion of sperm with normal morphology between initial recovery and after extension (52.4 +/- 4.6 vs 69.7 +/- 2.4%), with a concurrent decrease (p < 0.05) in the proportion of sperm with distal droplets. Median values for progressively motile sperm in post-thaw samples (60%) were lower (p < 0.05) than that after extension or after chilling (70% for both). The mean percentages of viable sperm and of sperm with an intact acrosome were lower (p < 0.05) for frozen-thawed samples (38.7 +/- 2.8 and 85.2 +/- 1.1) compared with extended (66.2 +/- 2.2 and 92.4 +/- 0.9) or chilled (63.7 +/- 2.5 and 90.0 +/- 1.0) samples. Rates of cleavage, morulae and blastocyst production were not significantly different for chilled (70.9, 38.7 and 8.0%) vs post-thaw sperm (73.0, 46.0 and 6.3%). There was no significant difference between extenders for most sperm characteristics. In conclusion, we developed a functional protocol for the recovery and cryopreservation of epididymal sperm from plains bison, which may have implications for the genetic preservation of wood bison.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".