MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060672407 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab367

367 INCIDENCE OF CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES IN MALE AND FEMALE BOVINE EMBRYOS DERIVED FROM SEX-SORTED SPERM

2009· article· en· W2060672407 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel García‐Herreros, T. F. Carter, D.A.F. Villagómez, W.A. King, P. Lonergan

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGreo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpermBiologyBlastocystAndrologyZona pellucidaEmbryoPloidySemenReproductive biologyZygoteChromosomeGeneticsOocyteEmbryogenesisGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies from our laboratories have shown that developmental rates following IVF with frozen-thawed sex-sorted sperm are lower than with non-sorted sperm and that this may be related to a difference in the kinetics of development. In addition, it is known that the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro produced bovine blastocysts is significantly greater than that observed in blastocysts derived in vivo (Viuff D et al. 1999 Biol. Reprod. 60 123-128). In this study, FISH with X- and Y-chromosome-specific probes was used to assess the extent of chromosome abnormalities in bovine blastocysts derived from IVF with X-sorted, Y-sorted, or unsorted semen from the same bull (n = 15 blastocysts per group). Individual blastocysts were transferred to a small drop of spreading solution (0.01 N HCl, 0.1% Tween 20) on a glass slide. Following digestion of the zona pellucida and cytoplasm, the isolated nuclei were fixed in 3:1 methanol:glacial acetic acid at 4°C for 24 h. Slides were then air dried, incubated at 60°C overnight and stored at -80°C until FISH analysis. The StarFISH X-Y FISH bovine sex test kit was used following minor modification and optimization of manufacturer protocols for use with blastocyst preparations. Slides were examined with standard fluorescence microscopy. Overall, 80% (36/45) of blastocysts were considered to be mixoploid i.e. were a mixture of normal diploid and aneuploid and/or non-diploid cells (10/15 for X-sorted, 14/15 for Y-sorted, and 12/15 for unsorted; P > 0.05). The severity of the chromosomal aberration was relatively low in all groups, however; in other words, only a small fraction of the total number of cells per embryo were chromosomally abnormal (1.64%, 5.62%, and 7.93% for X-sorted, Y-sorted, and unsorted, respectively). The most common chromosome abnormalities observed were diploid-triploid-tetraploid mixoploidies. Interestingly, 20% (3/15) of blastocysts derived from unsorted sperm were chimeric (XX/XY). If such chimeric embryos had been sexed by PCR they would have been ascribed as males. In addition, FISH with probes for non-sex chromosomes would not have revealed such chimerism. In conclusion, the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities was not different between blastocysts derived from sorted and unsorted sperm. The occurrence of mixed sex chimeras amongst blastocysts derived from unsorted sperm is interesting and requires further study. Whether it represents a previously undetected abnormality of IVF is as yet unknown. MGHwas supported by a Posdoctoral Research Grant (2008-0198) from the Spanish Government.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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