MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090559516 · doi:10.1071/rdv18n2ab173

173 THE EFFECT OF AMINO ACIDS AND HYALURONAN ON BOVINE EMBRYO <i>IN VITRO</i> DEVELOPMENT AND GENE EXPRESSION PATTERN

2005· article· en· W2090559516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.T. Palasz, J. Beltrán Breña, P. de la Fuente, M. F. Martínez, Alfonso Gutiérrez‐Adán

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoAndrologyEmbryo cultureReproductive technologyZygoteBiologyInseminationGene expressionIn vitroCleavage (geology)Embryo qualityEmbryogenesisGeneBiochemistrySpermGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously shown that bovine embryos cultured in SOFaa (BME + MEM amino acids) culture medium with hyaluronan (HA) + BSA are of better quality (Gutiérrez-Adán et al. 2005 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 17, 219). Our objective was to examine the effect of essential (BME) or non-essential (MEM) amino acids with or without HA (MAP-5; Bioniche, Inc., Belleville, Ontario, Canada) on bovine embryo in vitro development and mRNA transcription of five developmentally important genes; apoptosis (Bax), growth factor (IGF-II), glucose (Glut-1) and fructose (Glut-5) transport and metabolism, and cell to cell adhesion (Cx-43). A total of 1474 presumptive zygotes (5 replicates) were initially cultured in 40 µL drops in the following groups: Group 1, control, SOFaa; Group 2, SOF-1 (MEM only); and Group 3, SOF-2 (BME only). On Day 4 (~96 h post-insemination (pi) the number of zygotes that had developed to d8 cells was recorded and 10 µL of SOF-1 and SOF-2, each with 2.5 mg/mL HA, was added to half of the embryos from Groups 2 and 3, respectively; the other half of Groups 2 and 3 and control group received 10 µL of corresponding medium without HA. Embryos were cultured under paraffin oil at 39°C and 5% CO2 in humidified air. Cleavage rates were recorded on Day 2 and the number of blastocysts on Days 7, 8, and 9. Five blastocysts from each replicate from each treatment were frozen for determination of gene expression patterns later. Cleavage rates and embryo development 96 h pi were compared among groups by chi-square analysis. The effects of HA and medium on blastocyst rates were analyzed by logistic regression and the data on mRNA expression by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Cleavage rates were 81.1% in SOFaa and 79.3% in SOF-1 ( P = 0.48) and different from those in the SOF-2 group (72.4%; P &amp;lt; 0.02). The proportion of embryos that developed to d8 cells at Day 4 was higher in the control (46.7%) and SOF-1 (46.8%) groups than in the SOF-2 group (32.6%). The number of blastocysts that developed in SOFaa (37.0%), SOF-1 (37.7%), and SOF-1 + HA (37.8%) were higher ( P &amp;lt; 0.001) than those in SOF-2 (19.6%) and SOF-2 + HA (21.8%). The level of expression of Glut-5 was not different among the groups. However, SOF-2 was the only group that had significantly lower expression of Glut-5, Igf II, and Cx43, and higher expression of BAX ( P &amp;lt; 0.05) as compared to the control group and the SOF-1 groups with or without HA. Addition of HA to SOF-2 medium increased expression of Glut-1 and Igf II and decreased expression of BAX as compared to the SOF-1 only and control groups and the SOF-2 groups with or without HA ( P &amp;lt; 0.05). The level of expression of Cx43 was higher in the control than in four remaining groups, and lower in the SOF-2 than in the SOF-1 group ( P &amp;lt; 0.05). Addition of HA increased expression of Cx43 in both SOF-1 and SOF-2 groups but this level of expression was lower than in the control group; the level in the SOF-2 + HA group was lower ( P &amp;lt; 0.05) than in the SOF-1 + HA group. We conclude that, within our protocol, MEM amino acids only stimulate embryo development to the blastocyst stage and the addition of HA to the SOF-MEM and SOF-BME media on Day 4 of culture improved embryo quality.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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