Stress for Stress Tolerance? A Fundamentally New Approach in Mammalian Embryology1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro culture, storage, and manipulation of gametes and embryos require meticulously adjusted conditions to avoid or minimize the harmful effects of uncontrolled stress. However, recent work indicates that a well-defined and properly applied stress may induce general adaptation and increase tolerance to various in vitro procedures. The aim of this review is to summarize reports on the effects of stress on gametes and embryos of several species. Treatment with sublethal doses of high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), or osmotic, heat, or oxidative stress resulted in increased morphological survival, fertilizing ability, or developmental potential after various in vitro or in vivo procedures. HHP treatment of spermatozoa, oocytes, embryos, and embryonic stem cells increased fertilizing ability, developmental competence, and differentiation and improved results after cryopreservation, parthenogenetic activation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Osmotic stress of oocytes resulted in higher developmental rates after cryopreservation, parthenogenetic activation, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Heat shock was reported to increase developmental competence of parthenogenetically activated oocytes. Although cellular and subcellular mechanisms supposedly contributing to these processes require further research, the new principle, i.e., to improve the stress tolerance by a defined sublethal stress, may outline a completely new strategy in mammalian embryology, as well as cryopreservation of other cells and tissues with remarkable theoretical and practical consequences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".