Synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction to Detect Glass or Ice Formation in the Vitrified Bovine Cumulus-Oocyte Complexes and Morulae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitrification of bovine cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) is not as successful as bovine embryos, due to oocyte's complex structure and chilling sensitivity. Synchrotron X-ray diffraction (SXRD), a powerful method to study crystal structure and phase changes, was used to detect the glass or ice formation in water, tissue culture medium (TCM)-199, vitrification solution 2 (VS2), and vitrified bovine COCs and morulae. Data revealed Debye's rings and peaks associated with the hexagonal ice crystals at 3.897, 3.635, 3.427, 2.610, 2.241, 1.912 and 1.878 Å in both water and TCM-199, whereas VS2 showed amorphous (glassy) appearance, at 102K (-171°C). An additional peak of sodium phosphate monobasic hydrate (NaH2PO4.H2O) crystals was observed at 2.064 Å in TCM-199 only. All ice and NaH2PO4.H2O peaks were detected in the non-vitrified (control) and vitrified COCs, except two ice peaks (3.145 and 2.655 Å) were absent in the vitrified COCs. The intensities of majority of ice peaks did not differ between the non-vitrified and vitrified COCs. The non-vitrified bovine morulae in TCM-199 demonstrated all ice- and NaH2PO4.H2O-associated Debye's rings and peaks, found in TCM-199 alone. There was no Debye's ring present in the vitrified morulae. In conclusion, SXRD is a powerful method to confirm the vitrifiability of a solution and to detect the glass or ice formation in vitrified cells and tissues. The vitrified bovine COCs exhibited the hexagonal ice crystals instead of glass formation whereas the bovine morulae underwent a typical vitrification.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".