MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055837368 · doi:10.1071/rdv18n2ab170

170 POST-THAW VIABILITY OF <i>IN VITRO</i> -PRODUCED BOVINE EMBRYOS CULTURED EITHER IN HOST CAPRINE REPRODUCTIVE TRACTS OR <i>IN VITRO</i>

2005· article· en· W2055837368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Menges, Charles L. Bormann, Brad Stroud, D.C. Kraemer, Mark Westhusin, Charles R. Long

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrologyCryopreservationBiologyHuman fertilizationEmbryoSemenIn vitroIn vivoIn vitro fertilisationOocyteEmbryo cultureEstrous cycleIn vitro maturationOvulationZygoteAnatomyEmbryogenesisAnimal sciencePregnancyMedicineBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro culture of bovine embryos is usually associated with poor pregnancy rate following cryopreservation. The objective of this study was to compare the post-thaw viability of in vitro -produced bovine zygotes, cultured in vitro or in the reproductive tract of a host goat. Cumulus-oocyte complexes were matured in vitro , and in vitro fertilization was carried out with frozen-thawed semen as per standard laboratory procedures. At 18-20 h post-fertilization, zygotes were stripped of remaining cumulus cells and randomly separated into culture treatments. In three replicates, a total of 606 embryos were surgically transferred 12 to 24 h post-ovulation to the oviducts of an estrous-synchronized goat (VIVO) and 550 embryos were cultured in G1.3 for 72 h and then moved to G2.3 medium for 96 h and in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2, 5% O2, and 90% N2 (IVC). On Day 7, embryos were flushed from the excised tract with a 69.5% recovery rate or removed from culture. Embryos were classified according to IETS criteria with grades and stages recorded. All data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance and means were compared using Student's t -test. No differences were seen in the percentage of freezable quality embryos per total recovered between the two groups (34.3% vs. 32.3% for IVC and VIVO, respectively). However, there was a significant difference in the pre-freezing stage between the two culture groups (Stage 5.5 ± 0.22 vs. Stage 4.8 ± 0.26 for IVC and VIVO, respectively; P < 0.05), but no difference in the quality grade. All embryos greater than Stage 4, Grade 2 were frozen in groups of 5-10 in ethylene glycol with sucrose (Vigro Ethylene Glycol Freeze Plus; Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) in 0.25-mL straws. After thawing, embryo groups were washed, rehydrated, and incubated in G2.3 as above. Morphology was assessed by assigning grade and stage objectively at 24 h and 48 h post-thaw. Post-thaw viability in vitro was not different between groups (73.4% vs. 72.7% for IVC and VIVO, respectively). The average changes in morphology post-thaw from pre-freezing to 24 h and from 24 h to 48 h within each freezing group were determined. There was no significant difference in the mean change in stage (0.67 ± 0.15 vs. 0.82 ± 0.17 at 24 h and 0.31 ± 0.09 vs. 0.37 ± 0.10 at 48 h for IVC and VIVO, respectively) or grade (0.60 ± 0.15 vs. 0.41 ± 0.17 at 24 h and 0.03 ± 0.06 vs. 0.14 ± 0.07 at 48 h for IVC and VIVO, respectively) at either observation point. These results suggest that culture of in vitro -fertilized bovine embryos in the caprine reproductive tract did not alter post-thaw development or improve post thaw viability compared to in vitro cultured controls. However, morphological evaluation is too subjective to successfully predict pregnancy rate after transfer; therefore, further study is needed to determine if there are differences in pregnancy rates between these culture methods.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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