Manipulations of mouse embryos prior to implantation result in aberrant expression of imprinted genes on day 9.5 of development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro culture of mouse embryos results in loss of imprinting. The aim of the present study was to examine how two of the techniques commonly used during assisted reproduction, namely embryo culture and embryo transfer, affect genomic imprinting after implantation in the mouse. F1 hybrid mouse embryos were subjected to three experimental conditions: control (unmanipulated), embryo transfer and in-vitro-culture followed by embryo transfer. Concepti were collected on d9.5 of development and allelic expression determination of ten imprinted genes (H19, Snrpn, Igf2, Kcnq1ot1, Cdkn1c, Kcnq1, Mknr3, Ascl2, Zim1, Peg3) was performed. Although control concepti had monoallelic imprinted gene expression in all tissues, both manipulated groups had aberrant expression of one or more imprinted genes in the yolk sac and placenta. Culture further exacerbated the effects of transfer by increasing the number of genes with aberrant allelic expression in extraembryonic, as well as embryonic tissues. Additionally, placentae of both groups of manipulated concepti exhibited reduced levels of Igf2 mRNA and increased levels of Ascl2 mRNA when compared with their unmanipulated counterparts. Furthermore, we show that biallelic expression of Kcnq1ot1 coincided with loss of methylation on the maternal allele of the KvDMR1 locus, a phenotype often associated with the human syndrome Beckwith-Wiedemann. In conclusion, our results show that even the most basic manipulation used during human-assisted reproduction, namely, embryo transfer, can lead to misexpression of several imprinted genes during post-implantation development. Additionally, our results serve as a cautionary tale for gene expression studies in which embryo transfer is used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".