Effect of Pre‐Treatment of Ovine Sperm on Male Pronuclear Formation and Subsequent Embryo Development Following Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of various methods of sperm pre-treatment on male pronuclear (MPN) formation and subsequent development of ovine embryos derived from in vitro-matured oocytes and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The effect of treatment of injected oocytes with dithiothreitol (DTT) on embryo development was also assessed. In Exp. 1, the injected oocytes with non-treated sperm were activated with three different procedures. The cleavage and blastocyst rates in those activated with DTT was lower (p<0.05) than those activated with either ionomycin (Io) +6-dimethylaminopurine (6-DMAP) or DTT + I + 6-DMAP. In Exp. 2, the effects of sperm pre-incubated with DTT, sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) or DTT + SDS as well as two-time frozen/thawed sperm (without cryoprotectant) on MPN formation and oocyte activation were examined. The non-treated sperm served as controls. The MPN formation in DTT + SDS group was higher (p<0.05) than other groups except for freeze-thaw group. No difference in the rate of activated ICSI oocytes was observed among groups. In Exp. 3, the effect of pre-treatment of sperm on subsequent development of ICSI embryos and blastocyst cell numbers were examined. The rates of cleavage and blastocyst formation as well as the blastocyst cell numbers were similar among the pre-treated and control groups. In conclusion, pre-treatment of sperm with DTT + SDS positively affected MPN formation, although the subsequent development capacity of the resulting embryos remained limited. Moreover, DTT was not effective on oocyte activation compared with Io + 6-DMAP after ICSI.
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 | 0.000 |
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 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".