Effect of blastomere sex and fluorescent labelling on the development of bovine chimeric embryos reconstituted at the four‐cell stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development rate of bovine chimeric embryos reconstituted at the 4-cell stage is relatively low. If chimerism is to be used as an approach in producing transgenic livestock, it is important to investigate whether this rate is affected by the sex of the blastomeres being combined and if all blastomeres survive equally well. In Experiment 1, blastomeres from 4-cell stage embryos were inserted into surrogate zonae pellucidae either in pairs to reconstitute 4-cell chimeras, or as the original sets of four to make handled controls. The development of chimeras with one pair of blastomeres labelled with PKH26-GL was also investigated. The rate of development into blastocysts was similar in chimeras with unlabelled blastomeres (23%) and in those in which one pair of blastomeres was labelled (26%) and was lower (P < 0.001) than in the handled and IVF control groups (43 and 58%, respectively). Labelled cells were distributed approximately evenly between ICM and trophoblast. In Experiment 2, the effect of sex differences between pairs of blastomeres in chimeras was investigated; chimeras were reconstituted from pairs of blastomeres taken from 4-cell embryos in which the remaining pair was sexed by PCR. No significant differences according to the sex of constituent blastomeres were detectable (mixed sex, 27%; males, 24%; females, 21%; P > 0.05). These results suggest that, in addition to the negative effects of micromanipulation, factors other than the sex of the blastomeres are involved in the reduced rate of development of chimeric bovine embryos. They also confirm the usefulness of PKH26-GL labelling for tracking the progeny of cleaving bovine blastomeres at least to the blastocyst stage.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".