MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108750082 · doi:10.1017/s0967199409990360

Effect of donor cell age on development of ovine nuclear transfer embryos <i>in vitro</i>

2010· article· en· W2108750082 on OpenAlexaff
Banafsheh Heidari, Abolfazl Shirazi, P. Tajic, Ebrahim Ahmadi, Hassan Nazari, Naser Shams‐Esfandabadi, Hamid Ghasemzadeh‐Nava

Bibliographic record

VenueZygote · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersShahrekord University
KeywordsBlastocystSomatic cell nuclear transferCleavage (geology)AndrologyIn vitroEmbryoSomatic cellFibroblastChemistryCell fusionIn vitro maturationFetusCellEmbryogenesisCell biologyBiologyMedicineGeneticsBiochemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of the age of cell donor animal on in vitro development of ovine nuclear transfer (NT) embryos were investigated. Somatic donor cells were obtained from two different sources: (1) adult cells (adult fibroblast cells; AFC and adult cumulus cells; ACC); and (2) fetal fibroblasts (40-day-old; FFC-40 and 65-day-old; FFC-65). The fibroblast cell lines were used for NT procedures within 4-13 subpassages. While the cumulus cells were used as non-cultured (fresh) cells. The in vitro matured abattoir-derived oocytes were considered as recipients. No differences in the rates of fusion (75.7, 77.7, 76.3 and 86.7%) and cleavage (80.1, 84.3, 77.8 and 74%) were detected among couplets reconstructed with FFC-40, FFC-65, AFC and ACC, respectively. Blastocyst formation rate of those oocytes reconstructed with FFC-40 was higher (18%; p < 0.001) than those reconstructed with FFC-65 (13%) and AFC (10.9) and comparable with those reconstructed with ACC (17.5%). When the effect of passage number was analysed within groups (FFC-40, FFC-65 and AFC) there were no significant differences in fusion, cleavage and blastocyst rates between reconstructed oocytes. The present study demonstrates that the fetal and adult fibroblasts as well as fresh cumulus cells are comparable in their ability to attain cell fusion and embryonic cleavage. Moreover, the blastocyst formation rate is influenced by the age of the donor animal and the fresh cumulus cells have similar remodelling potential to that of fetal fibroblasts in term of blastocyst formation rate.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
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 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZygoteSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207