The development of a sperm cryopreservation protocol for winter flounder <i>Pseudopleuronectes americanus</i> (Walbaum): evaluation of cryoprotectants and diluents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three cryoprotectants (dimethyl sulphoxide, propylene glycol and glycerol) and two diluents (sucrose based and saline based) were mixed (9 parts diluent–1 part cryoprotectant) factorially to produce six extenders that were tested to develop an effective sperm cryopreservation protocol for winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum). Sperm were diluted 1:3 with each extender and frozen by flotation on liquid nitrogen before being submerged and stored for 30 days. Sperm left unfrozen in each extender for 20 min showed no toxic effects on motility. Extenders containing propylene glycol (PG) as cryoprotectant yielded higher post-thaw sperm motilities than those containing dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) or glycerol. The sucrose-based diluent performed better than the saline-based diluent when DMSO was used as cryoprotectant, but there were no differences in post-thaw motility between diluents for the other cryoprotectants. Activating sperm with ovarian fluid and sea water instead of sea water alone had no effect on post-thaw motility. In fertilization trials, no differences were observed between any of the extenders and fresh milt when milt, eggs and sea water were left in contact for 1 h. When sperm were forced to compete for eggs by reducing contact time to 20 s, fertilization results followed those of sperm motility rates. Percentage hatch and morphology of larvae at hatching did not differ for eggs fertilized by cryopreserved and fresh sperm. This study represents the first reported successful attempt at cryopreserving winter flounder sperm and should improve gamete and broodstock management protocols for this species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".