MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025524656 · doi:10.1071/rdv18n2ab54

54 ESTABLISHMENT OF PREGNANCY BY OVINE NUCLEAR TRANSFER EMBRYOS RECONSTRUCTED USING CAFFEINE-TREATED <i>IN VITRO</i> -MATURED OOCYTES AS CYTOPLAST RECIPIENTS

2005· article· en· W2025524656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.-H. Lee, M. Marfil, M. Panarace, Mariano Medina, Keith Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytoplastSomatic cell nuclear transferBiologyBlastocystAndrologyOocyteReproductive technologyEmbryo cultureIn vitro maturationEmbryoCryopreservationEmbryogenesisCell biologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In embryos reconstructed by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), components of the oocyte cytoplasm are capable of reprogramming the somatic genome to control subsequent development. Although the mechanisms that control nuclear reprogramming are unknown, we have previously hypothesized that the occurrence of nuclear envelope breakdown (NEBD) and premature chromosome condensation (PCC) in the donor nucleus are beneficial. In previous studies we have demonstrated that treatment of ovine oocytes with caffeine (10 mM), a protein phosphatase inhibitor, increased the activities of both MPF and MAPK in enucleated oocytes (Lee and Campbell 2004 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 16, 125) and additionally resulted in a significant increase in the occurrence of NEBD and PCC in donor nuclei. Furthermore, SCNT embryos reconstructed following caffeine treatment had significantly increased cell numbers at the blastocyst stage. More recently we have demonstrated that the use of caffeine treated ovine oocytes as cytoplast recipients can regulate the expression of several developmentally important genes in SCNT embryos, including Oct-4 and interferon-tau (Choi et al . 2006 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 18, in press). This study was designed to establish the developmental potential of NT embryos reconstructed using caffeine treated oocytes as cytoplast recipients. Ear skin fibroblast cells established from a Merino ram were quiesced in DMEM containing 0.1% fetal bovine serum (FBS) for 3 days. Oocyte maturation and embryo reconstruction and culture were performed as previously described (Lee and Campbell 2004 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 16, 125) with the exception that ovaries from Merino × Romney Marsh cross ewes were stimulated with FSH sponge (Folltropin®-V; Bioniche Animal Health, Beltsville, Ontario, Canada) and were collected at slaughter on Day 13 following sponging. Blastocyst stage embryos were surgically transferred to the uterine horn of synchronized Merino × Romney Marsh cross recipients (three blastocysts per recipient). Recipient ewes were scanned by ultrasonography at Days 30, 60, and 90 following embryo transfer. All data were analyzed by chi-square test. There were no differences in fusion (145/167; 86.8% vs. 174/205; 84.9%), cleavage (123/145; 84.8% vs. 135/174; 77.6%), or the development to blastocyst (33/145; 22.8% vs. 34/174; 19.5%) between control SCNT embryos and caffeine treated SCNT embryos. However, although the frequency of pregnancy between control and caffeine-treated NT groups (5/15; 33.3% vs. 7/14; 50.0%) at 30 days was not significantly different, control SCNT embryos showed significantly lower pregnancies (1/15; 6.7%) than caffeine treated SCNT embryos (4/14; 28.6%) at both 60 and 90 days. In conclusion, embryos reconstructed using caffeine-treated cytoplasts can induce pregnancy at the same frequency as untreated controls; furthermore, the results suggest that SCNT embryos produced in this way are more able to maintain pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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