Comparison of bulk enucleation methods for porcine oocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloning of mammalian oocytes requires that the recipient oocyte is enucleated to remove all genetic material associated with the chromosomes. The procedure currently used in most species requires careful micromanipulation of oocytes treated with cytochalasin B to prevent structural damage. Although functional, this procedure requires time and limits the number of oocytes available for cloning, and our ability to understand the mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming. Therefore, this study aimed at evaluating different procedures to enucleate large pools of oocytes in a time-efficient manner. Two different approaches were tested. The first approach involved centrifugation of zona-free oocytes through a percoll gradient to separate the portion containing the chromatin from the cytoplasmic portion. The second used etoposide to prevent chromatin segregation at first metaphase and resulting in the expulsion of all chromosomes in the polar body. Using the chemical approach an average enucleation rate of 39.4 +/- 7.5% was obtained, while the centrifugation approach resulted in an average enucleation rate of 66.9 +/- 6. In terms of time efficiency, the control manipulation method takes 0.11 min and the centrifugation took an average of 0.52 min per oocyte. The MPF activity at the end of procedure was estimated through the measurement of H1 activity and as expected, the etoposide-cycloheximide treated oocytes had lower H1 activity which was restored by further incubation in the maturation medium for 5 hr while the centrifugation gave a nonsignificant intermediary result. In conclusion, the results presented suggest that both the chemical and the mechanical methods are usable alternatives to micromanipulation of oocytes to generate a large number of chromosome free cytoplasm for biochemical analysis. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 67: 70-76, 2004.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".