MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059399056 · doi:10.1017/s0967199407004431

Effects of sucrose treatment on the development of mouse nuclear transfer embryos with morula blastomeres as donors

2008· article· en· W2059399056 on OpenAlexafffund
Gang Zhang, Qing‐Yuan Sun, Da‐Yuan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueZygote · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsBlastomereEmbryoChemistryAndrologySucroseEmbryo transferEmbryogenesisCell biologyBiologyBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, nuclear transfer (NT) embryos were produced by using C57Bl/6 mouse morula blastomeres and Kunming mouse metaphase II (MII) oocytes as donors and recipients, respectively, to investigate the effects of sucrose treatment of MII oocytes with different concentrations on the manipulation time of NT, electrofusion and the in vitro and in vivo development of reconstructed embryos. The results demonstrated that: (i) when the oocytes were enucleated with 1, 2 and 3% sucrose treatment, respectively, the enucleating rates were not affected by the different sucrose concentrations, but the manipulation time had significant difference and the mean nuclear transfer manipulation times of every oocyte were 180+/-10 s, 130+/-10 s and 120+/-10 s, respectively; (ii) different sucrose concentrations had no significant effects on the fusion rate and the in vitro developmental potential of the NT embryos (p>0.05). Furthermore, 59 embryos were transplanted into the oviducts of two recipients. In the end, three dead full-term developed fetuses were obtained on 21 days post coitus (dpc). These results suggested that the mouse MII oocytes enucleated via sucrose treatment might be an alternative source for mouse cloning and could support the embryonic NT embryos developed to term in vivo.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZygoteSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207