MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089135977 · doi:10.1071/rdv26n1ab207

207 EFFECT OF REPEAT HORMONE STIMULATION ON THE YIELD AND IN VITRO DEVELOPMENT OF JUVENILE CALF OOCYTES

2013· article· en· W2089135977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiangyang Lv, Jianhua Xue, Yimin Zhu, Hui-hong Liang, Baihua Xuan

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstradiol benzoateInternal medicineBiologyAnimal scienceEndocrinologyOvulationEstrogenHormoneMedicineOvariectomized rat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Juvenile in vitro embryo transfer can markedly reduce animal generation intervals. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ovarian response of juvenile calves and in vitro oocyte developmental capacity after superstimulation. Experiments on calves were performed in accordance with the Animal Welfare Regulations. A total of 36 donor juvenile calves on standard nutrition and in a disease-free environment, were selected from the breeding farm of the Beijing Dairy Cattle Center. At 60 days of age, calves were randomly assigned into three groups of four calves each, replicated three times. On day 1, Group 1 received a progesterone vaginal insert (CIDR, 300 mg per device); Group 2 received a CIDR and 0.5 mg oestrogen benzoate (China); Group 3 received a CIDR, 0.5 mg oestrogen benzoate, and 50 mg progesterone (China). Then, calves were injected with FSH (Folltropin-V, Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, ON, Canada) twice daily on days 5 (40 mg/40 mg) and 6 (30 mg/30 mg) at 12 h intervals. Cumulus–oocyte complexes (COCs) were recovered from the superstimulated calves 12 to 14 h after the final FSH treatment. COCs were considered usable unless they were damaged or had expanded cumulus layers. Usable COCs were matured in vitro for 24 h in maturation medium consisting of TCM199, 10% FBS, 10 µg mL–1 FSH, 1 µg mL–1 LH, 1 µg mL–1 E2–17ß, 100 IU mL–1 penicillin, 100 µg mL–1 streptomycin, with (+Cys) or without (–Cys) 100 µM Cysteamine. Each calf oocyte was cultured in one well. The final concentration added to each fertilization drop was 5 × 106 sperm mL–1. Sperm and oocytes were co-cultured in IVF-100 medium (BO liquid+10 µg mL–1 heparin, Japan) at 38.5°C, 5% CO2 and a saturated humidity for 6 to 8 h. Blastocyst production rates were determined after 7 and 8 d of in vitro culture in CR1aa medium without the addition of cysteamine. Differences among treatments in each experiment were determined by one-way ANOVA and a multiple range test. Superstimulatory results indicated that more follicles were aspirated (63.2 per calf) and more usable oocytes were recovered (48.0 per calf) in Group 1 than in the other two groups (Group 2–45.2 and 31.8, respectively; Group 3–35.4 and 28.3, respectively; P < 0.05). No difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3. Superstimulation of calves twice at 30 day intervals in Group 2 (n = 12) did not affect the number of follicles or usable oocytes (overall, 44.2 and 28.0 per calf). Maturation rates (86.5% v. 85.0%, respectively) and cleavage rates (84.4% v. 80.0%, respectively) did not differ whether cysteamine was not (–Cys; n = 318) or was (+Cys; n = 330) added to the maturation medium. However, the blastocyst rate differed significantly (12.9% v. 35.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). This study established a protocol for the superstimulation of juvenile calves with an average of 48 oocytes obtained per calf. Superstimulation and surgical oocyte recovery twice at an interval of 30 days had no adverse effect on follicle development or oocyte recovery. The novelty of this research is that the blastocyst production rate of calf oocytes (35.2%) in maturation medium supplemented with cysteamine was similar to that reported in the cow.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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