Side-by-Side Comparison of Five Commercial Media Systems in a Mouse Model: Suboptimal In Vitro Culture Interferes with Imprint Maintenance1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are becoming increasingly prevalent and are generally considered to be safe medical procedures. However, evidence indicates that embryo culture may adversely affect the developmental potential and overall health of the embryo. One of the least studied but most important areas in this regard is the effects of embryo culture on epigenetic phenomena, and on genomic imprinting in particular, because assisted reproduction has been linked to development of the human imprinting disorders Angelman and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndromes. In this study, we performed side-by-side comparisons of five commercial embryo culture systems (KSOMaa, Global, Human Tubal Fluid, Preimplantation 1/Multiblast, and G1v5PLUS/G2v5PLUS) in relation to a best-case (in vivo-derived embryos) and a worst-case (Whitten culture) scenario. Imprinted DNA methylation and expression were examined at three well-studied loci, H19, Peg3, and Snrpn, in mouse embryos cultured from the 2-cell to the blastocyst stage. We show that embryo culture in all commercial media systems resulted in imprinted methylation loss compared to in vivo-derived embryos, although some media systems were able to maintain imprinted methylation levels more similar to those of in vivo-derived embryos in comparison to embryos cultured in Whitten medium. However, all media systems exhibited loss of imprinted H19 expression comparable to that using Whitten medium. Combined treatment of superovulation and embryo culture resulted in increased perturbation of genomic imprinting, above that from culture alone, indicating that multiple ART procedures further disrupt genomic imprinting. These results suggest that time in culture and number of ART procedures should be minimized to ensure fidelity of genomic imprinting during preimplantation development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".