MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2057903055 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab56

56 EFFECTS OF PHYLOGENIC GENERA OF RECIPIENT CYTOPLASTS ON DEVELOPMENT AND VIABILITY OF CANADA LYNX (LYNX CANADENSIS) CLONED EMBRYOS

2009· article· en· W2057903055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. C. Gómez, Justine Lyons, C. E. Pope, M. N. Biancardi, C. Dumas, J. Galiguis, G. Wang, B. L. Dresser

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytoplastBiologyEmbryoOocyteMitochondrial DNASomatic cell nuclear transferCloning (programming)Phylogenetic treeGeneticsAndrologyEmbryogenesisBlastocystGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis; CL) once occupied 16 states in the Unites States of America, but small populations remain in only 3 states. Interspecies-somatic cell nuclear transfer (Is-SCNT) offers the possibility of preventing their extinction; however, developmental constraints on Is-SCNT embryos are proportional to the phylogenetic distance between the donor cell and the recipient oocyte. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) heteroplasmy may be involved in nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibilities, thus inhibiting development of cloned embryos at the time of genomic activation. Minimizing the phylogenetic distance between the donor cell and recipient oocyte may enhance development of clone embryos. Caracal (Caracal caracal) may be suitable as an oocyte donor for SCNT and a recipient of CL cloned embryos because caracals hybridize with other felid species and share physical characteristics with the lynx family, marked by being previously classified in the lynx genera and having similar gestational length. To ensure compatibilities between the donor nuclei of the CL and the mitochondria of recipient oocytes, we (1) compared in vitro development of CL cloned embryos reconstructed with domestic cat (Felis catus; DSH) or caracal cytoplasts, (2) examined the mtDNA genotypes in CL cloned embryos, and (3) evaluated in vivo developmental competence of CL cloned embryos after transfer into caracal recipients. A total of 160 and 217 preovulatory oocytes were collected by laparoscopy from gonadotropin-treated caracals (n = 8) and DSH (n = 10) and used as recipient cytoplasts for reconstructing CL embryos. Results indicated that the phylogenetic genera of recipient cytoplasts did not affect embryo cleavage at Day 2 (caracal 50/55, 91% v. DSH 63/65, 97%), but development of CL cloned embryos to the blastocyst stage was higher when caracal oocytes were used as recipient cytoplasts (15/50; 30%) than with DSH cytoplasts (9/63, 14%; P < 0.05). The extent of mtDNA homoplasmy or heteroplasmy in CL cloned embryos was calculated by the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) derived from the DSH or caracal oocyte donors and from the somatic cell donor CL. DNA was isolated from 25 and 35 CL cloned embryos reconstructed with caracal or DSH cytoplasts, respectively. All amplified products after PCR were sequenced and SNP analyzed. All CL embryos reconstructed with DSH cytoplasts were homoplasmic, carrying mtDNA only from the DSH oocyte donor (n = 35; SNP DSH = 2-6). Embryos reconstructed with caracal cytoplasts were homoplasmic for CL mtDNA (n = 9; SNPCL = 10-12) or heteroplasmic (caracal × CL, n = 17; SNPCL = 7-9; SNP caracal = 2-3). A total of 69 (mean = 34.5 ± 4.9 per caracal) and 70 (mean = 35.0 ± 9.8 per caracal) CL cloned embryos reconstructed with caracal and DSH cytoplasts, respectively, were transferred into 4 caracal recipients; however, no pregnancies were established. In summary, Is-SCNT between 2 phylogenetically closer species favors retention of the donor’s mitochondria, which might lead to a better nucleo-cytoplasmic interaction for reprogramming of donor nucleus.

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)0.001
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and Development→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→