FSH in vitro versus LH in vivo: similar genomic effects on the cumulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of gonadotropins to trigger oocyte maturation both in vivo and in vitro has provided precious and powerful knowledge that has significantly increased our understanding of the ovarian function. Moreover, the efficacy of most assisted reproductive technologies (ART) used in both humans and livestock species relies on gonadotropin input, mainly FSH and LH. Despite the significant progress achieved and the huge impact of gonadotropins, the exact molecular pathways of the two pituitary hormones, FSH and LH, still remain poorly understood. Moreover, these pathways may not be the same when moving from the in vivo to the in vitro context. This misunderstanding of the intricate synergy between these two hormones leads to a lack of consensus about their use mainly in vitro or in ovulation induction schedules in vivo. In order to optimize their use, additional work is thus required with a special focus on comparing the in vitro versus the in vivo effects. In this context, this overview will briefly summarize the downstream gene expression pathways induced by both FSH in vitro and LH in vivo in the cumulus compartment. Based on recent microarray comparative analysis, we are reporting that in vitro FSH stimulation on cumulus cells appears to achieve at least part of the gene expression activity after in vivo LH stimulation. We are then proposing that the in vitro FSH-response of cumulus cells have similitudes with the in vivo LH-response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".