Morphological survival and subsequent in vitro maturation of denuded and cumulus compact Bubaline oocytes cryopreserved by ultra rapid cooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culturable grade oocytes (n=380) recovered by aspiration of surface follicles from buffalo ovaries (n=97) were either mechanically denuded (DN) or kept cumulus compact (CC) and were vitrified in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline + 0.4% sucrose, 0.4% bovine serum albumin and 6 M concentrations of either ethylene glycol (EG) or propylene glycol (PG). Oocytes were randomly allocated to four groups of vitrification (EGCC, EGDN, PGCC and PGDN) and cryostorage for 7-10 days in liquid nitrogen. They were then warmed to record morphological survival and morphologically normal oocytes were matured in vitro along with fresh oocytes (control) for 24 h in TCM-199 containing hormones (LH + FSH + estradiol) at 38.5 0C and 5% CO2 in humidified air in a CO2 incubator. The arcsine transformed data of the proportion of morphologic survival of oocytes and in vitro maturation of oocytes was compared by DNMR-test. The morphologically normal oocytes were significantly higher (P<0.05) for cumulus compact oocytes compared with denuded oocytes for both cryoprotectants EG and PG. The in vitro maturation was significantly higher (P<0.05) for non-vitrified oocytes (control) compared to vitrified oocytes. Significantly higher (P<0.05) proportion of cumulus compact oocytes matured in vitro compared to denuded oocytes for both cryoprotectants EG and PG. The differences between the cryoprotectants were non-significant. It was concluded that cryo-damage to the oocytes during vitrification can be minimized by the presence of cumulus cells with the oocyte, whereas the two cryoprotectants EG and PG are equally effective in preventing cryodamage to oocytes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".