MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061306670 · doi:10.1071/rdv23n1ab201

201 SUPPRESSION OF Suz12 IN BOVINE PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYOS VIA CYTOPLASMIC SMALL INTERFERING RNA INJECTION

2010· article· en· W2061306670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. L. Williamson, J. H. Pryor, K. Tessanne, Michael C. Golding, C. R. Long

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystMolecular biologyBiologyEmbryoEmbryo cultureAndrologyCell biologyEmbryogenesisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proper removal of gametic epigenetic marks and coordinated reestablishment of the epigenome are critical to mammalian embryonic development. Suz12 is a member of Polycomb repressive complex 2, known to catalyse trimethylation of lysine 27 on histone 3 (H3K27me3; Pasini et al. 2004); Suz12 has also been shown to interact with Suv39h1 for proper trimethylation of H3K9 (de la Cruz et al. 2007). Our objective in this study was to suppress expression of Suz12 via cytoplasmic injection of small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeted at this gene, and to evaluate the effect on embryo development rates. Bovine zygotes were produced in vitro via standard laboratory procedures. Nineteen hours post-fertilization, presumptive zygotes (n = 3979) were divided into 3 treatment groups: noninjected control (CTL), or injected with a fluorescent dextran marker combined with either a nontargeting siRNA (NULL) or an Suz12-targeting siRNA (SUZ). Embryos were cultured in Bovine Evolve (Zenith Biotech, Canada) with 4 mg mL–1 of BSA (Probumin, Millipore, Billerica, MA) and collected at the 4-cell, 8-cell, morula, and blastocyst stages. Ribonucleic acid was isolated with an RNeasy® Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) from 3 replicates of pooled embryos at each stage (4-cell, n = 15; 8-cell, n = 20; morula, n = 10), except for the blastocyst stage [2 samples (n = 10) collected from the CTL and NULL groups, and 1 sample (n = 3) from the SUZ group]. Each RNA sample was reverse-transcribed into cDNA and diluted for use by quantitative real-time PCR. Relative gene expression levels from each sample were calculated in triplicate using the SYBR Green comparative Ct method (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), adjusted according to individual PCR efficiencies for each primer pair (R2 > 0.95) and normalized to the geometric mean Ct of 3 endogenous controls (GAPDH, YWHAZ, and SDHA), to account for differences in both cell number and amount of total mRNA present in each sample (Goossens et al. 2005). Our data indicate that Suz12 expression was suppressed to undetectable levels in SUZ-treated zygotes at all embryo stages analysed. The blastocyst rate of the SUZ group was extremely low (0.88 ± 0.16% SEM) compared with the CTL (19.87 ± 0.36% SEM) and NULL (5.09 ± 0.36% SEM) groups. Morphologically, SUZ morulae appeared fragmented with fewer larger cells than expected, whereas the NULL and CTL morulae seemed to develop normally. We presume the loss of Suz12 expression during this important developmental time is detrimental to embryo morphology and results in a decreased rate of blastocyst formation. Because of this decrease, we were able to collect only 3 SUZ blastocysts from a total of 227 injected. The microinjection procedure also contributed to significant (P < 0.05) decreases in blastocyst rates of the injected groups as compared with the CTL. Future experiments will explore potential alterations in histone methylation, as well as other epigenetic modifiers in bovine preimplantation embryos, to further elucidate the role of the epigenome in early embryonic development.

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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207