MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153100713 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.111.098236

Outer Space and Oocyte Developmental Competence

2011· letter· en· W2153100713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew J. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOocyteBiologyMeiosisOogenesisFolliculogenesisGeneticsProphaseCell biologyAndrologyEmbryoEmbryogenesisMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammalian oocytes are quite special cells for many reasons, but one of their most amazing characteristics is that while in the ovary they remain blocked at diplotene of prophase one of the first meiotic division [1]. Because the oocyte can remain in this resting state in the ovary until menopause in women, the oocyte can retain this meiotic cell cycle block for more than 50 years [2]. A lot can happen in 50 years, and for that entire time in the ovary, the primordial follicle containing its primary oocyte is exposed to a wide variety of environmental conditions that have an impact on the health of the oocyte and affect its potential for fostering normal development and health of the offspring derived from it [1–4]. Our genome is constantly subject to modification by the environment [3, 4]. The environmental affect on the genome begins with gametogenesis and extends through preimplantation development, pregnancy, and postpartum development and throughout life [3, 4]. The study by Kujjo et al. entitled ‘‘RAD51 Plays a Crucial Role in Halting Cell Death Program Induced by Ionizing Radiation in Bovine Oocytes,’’ published in this issue of Biology of Reproduction, reveals to us an additional environmental factor that can influence oocyte health over time [5]. Uniquely, we have to look to outer space for the source of this environmental factor [6]. Kujjo et al. inform us that highenergy cosmic rays originating from supernovas, traveling at the speed of light, strike the earth at the rate of one cosmic ray per square centimeter per minute and can penetrate more than a mile into the earth’s crust [5]. To put this into clear terms, Kujjo et al. state that during every night’s sleep a human can expect to be bombarded with up to 1 million cosmic rays [5]. This occurrence poses a series of very interesting questions, such as: How do we prevent accumulating genomic damage from these cosmic rays? Does this type of environmental insult accumulate over time? Most importantly, are oocytes susceptible to this type of insult, and could it contribute to the decline in fertility women experience beyond the age of 35, normally well before menopause and before the absolute cessation of their reproductive function occurs? Although our exposure to cosmic rays may be increasing because of global warming and ozone depletion, all species on this planet, including humans, have nevertheless been exposed to cosmic rays for their entire history [6–8]. Therefore, what mechanisms have we evolved to minimize the damage caused by cosmic ray exposure on our reproductive cells? This is the unique and important question that Kujjo et al. explore [5]. Successful completion of this study required an international collaboration between investigators from Michigan State University; the United States National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory; Waseda University in Tokyo; the RIKEN Systems and Structural Biology Center, Yokohama, Japan; and the LARCel Programa Andaluz de Terapia Celular y Medicina Regenerativa, Sevillia, Spain [5]. The investigators contrasted the effects of radiation exposure between murine and bovine oocytes. They observed important species differences in their responses to radiation, with murine oocytes activating high levels of caspases as a prelude to necrotic death, whereas bovine oocytes activate annexin-V, cytochrome C release, and an incomplete cell death program [5]. Subsequent experiments focused on the mechanisms affecting these outcomes. It was discovered that inhibition of RAD51 or increasing caspase 3 levels before irradiation induced high levels of cytoplasmic fragmentation [5]. In contrast, microinjection of RAD51 before irradiation significantly decreased cytoplasmic fragmentation and DNA damage in oocytes [5]. The decision of the researchers to focus their studies on RAD51 was quite intuitive. Although DNA double-strand breaks (DDSBs) are detrimental to genome stability, they are events that commonly occur during both meiotic and mitotic cell division [9–11]. All cells have a capacity to repair DDSBs employing homologous recombination-based mechanisms that require the coordinated involvement of a number of protein families [9–11]. Among these protein families are the RAD proteins [9–11]. RAD51 displays DNA-stimulated ATPase activity, preferentially binds to single-stranded DNA, and mediates ATP-dependent strand exchange events with homologous duplex DNA [11]. A role for RAD51 in repairing DDSBs during early development was reported by Perez et al. [9], who microinjected RAD51 into fertilized oocytes and observed reduced DNA damage, reduced apoptosis, and improved embryo development in AKR/J mice, a mouse strain displaying a very poor DDSB repair mechanism. The same group of researchers also demonstrated that mouse embryos overexpressing RAD51 display reduced DNA damage and cytoplasmic fragmentation [10]. Deletion of RAD51 results in early embryonic lethality [12] and the RAD51C hypomorph displays meiotic failure in both males and females [13]. Therefore, Kujjo et al. [5] focused their studies on investigating the effects of radiation damage on oocyte health on an ideal candidate, i.e., RAD51. They have convincingly demonstrated Correspondence: Andrew J. Watson, OB/GYN and Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Western Ontario, Victoria Research Laboratories, Children’s Health Research Institute, 800 Commissioners Road, London, ON Canada N6A 4G5. E-mail: awatson@uwo.ca

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207