Gene expression profile of cumulus cells derived from cumulus–oocyte complexes matured either in vivo or in vitro
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is well established that maturation conditions have a clear influence on oocyte developmental competence, it is not known whether this could be due to downstream effects of perturbation of the transcript profile of the oocyte's adjacent cumulus cells. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the transcript profiles of cumulus cells derived from cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) matured in vitro or in vivo. Using a previously validated combined synchronisation and superstimulation protocol, COCs were recovered from beef heifer ovaries just before the expected time of the LH surge and matured in vitro, while in vivo-matured COCs were recovered just before ovulation (20 h after the LH surge). A custom-made cDNA microarray containing 2278 granulosa/cumulus transcripts was used for target and dye-swap hybridisations. In all, 64 genes were differentially expressed between the two groups. Transcript abundance of key genes associated with cumulus expansion (TNFAIP6) and regulation of oocyte maturation (INHBA and FST) were upregulated in in vivo-derived cumulus cells. However, cumulus cells derived from IVM COCs were enriched with genes involved in response to stress (HSPA5 and HSP90AB1). Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction confirmed the array results for eight of 10 genes selected for validation. The data presented here reveal that differences in oocyte developmental capacity after maturation in vitro or in vivo are accompanied by distinct differences in transcript abundance of the surrounding cumulus cells.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it