MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093748870 · doi:10.1071/rdv23n1ab86

86 EFFECT OF CRYOPROTECTANT EXPOSURE, VITRIFICATION, AND WARMING TIME OF BOVINE CUMULUS OOCYTE COMPLEXES ON IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT

2010· article· en· W2093748870 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. R. Prentice, Jaswant Singh, R.J. Mapletoft, M. Anzar

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoprotectantVitrificationOocyteHuman fertilizationAndrologyDimethyl sulfoxideChemistryCryopreservationEthylene glycolBiologyEmbryoAnatomyMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the importance of cryoprotectants for avoiding ice crystal formation, the high concentrations required for vitrification may be toxic to bovine oocytes. During warming (thawing), the removal of permeating cryoprotectants from cells can lead to osmotic injury, and the most appropriate time interval for warming and cryoprotectant removal from vitrified oocytes is currently uncertain. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of cryoprotectant exposure, vitrification, and warming time of bovine cumulus oocyte complexes (COC) on fertilization and ability to develop as embryos in vitro. Follicles <8 mm in diameter were aspirated from slaughterhouse-derived bovine ovaries. Cumulus oocyte complexes with =3 layers of cumulus cells and a uniform cytoplasm were selected, washed 3 times in Dulbecco’s PBS + 5% newborn calf serum (CS), and randomly divided into 4 groups: 1) control group: no treatment; 2) VS1 group: COC were exposed to vitrification solution 1 [VS1: 7.5% ethylene glycol (EG) and 7.5% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in TCM-199 + 20% CS] for 5 min; 3) VS1+VS2 group: COC were exposed to VS1 for 5 min followed by vitrification solution 2 (VS2: 15% EG, 15% DMSO, and 0.5 M sucrose in TCM-199 + 20% CS) for 30 s; and 4) vitrified group: COC were exposed to VS1 and VS2, and then vitrified in liquid nitrogen using cryotops. The COC in VS1, VS1+VS2, and vitrified groups were exposed to a warming solution (0.5 M sucrose in TCM-199) for 1 or 5 min. The COC from all groups were in vitro matured (IVM) for 22 h in TCM-199 containing 5% CS, 5 µg mL–1 LH, 0.5 µg mL–1 FSH, and 0.05 µg mL–1 gentamicin at 38.5°C, 5% CO2, and high humidity, incubated with frozen–thawed sperm in Brackett-Oliphant capacitating medium for 18 h, and the presumptive zygotes were cultured in Charles Rosenkrans 1 amino acids (CR1aa) + 5% CS for 9 days. Data were analysed using Proc Glimmix in SAS® 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Cleavage and blastocyst rates in the vitrified group (25 and 2%, respectively) were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in control (75 and 27%), VS1 (68 and 19%), or VS1+VS2 (63 and 22%) groups. Cleavage and blastocyst rates did not differ among non-vitrified groups (P > 0.05). In VS1, VS1+VS2, and vitrified groups, warming time had no effect on cleavage or blastocyst rates (P > 0.05). In conclusion, although cryoprotectant exposure and warming times had no apparent adverse effect, vitrification of bovine COC drastically reduced cleavage and blastocyst rates. Further studies are required to understand how vitrification of bovine COC affects subsequent fertilization and embryo development. This study was supported by the Canadian Animal Genetic Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

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 score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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