A diet enriched in linoleic acid compromises the cryotolerance of embryos from superovulated beef heifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary rumen-protected fat rich in linoleic acid may affect the superovulatory response and embryo yield; however, its effects on in vivo embryo cryotolerance are unknown in zebu cattle. The present study evaluated the production and cryotolerance after freezing or vitrification of embryos from Nelore heifers supplemented with rumen-protected polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Forty heifers kept in pasture were randomly distributed into two groups according to the type of feed supplement (F, supplement with rumen-protected PUFA, predominantly linoleic; C, control fat-free supplement with additional corn). Supplements were formulated to be isocaloric and isonitrogenous. Each heifer underwent both treatments in a crossover design with 70 days between replicates. After 50 days feeding, heifers were superovulated. Embryos were evaluated morphologically and vitrified or frozen. After thawing or warming, embryo development was evaluated in vitro. There was no difference between the F and C groups (P>0.10) in terms of embryo production. Regardless of the cryopreservation method used, Group C embryos had a greater hatching rate after 72h in vitro culture than Group F embryos (44.3±4.2% (n=148) vs 30.9±4.0% (n=137), respectively; P=0.04). Moreover, vitrified and frozen embryos had similar hatching rates (P>0.10). In conclusion, dietary rumen-protected PUFA rich in linoleic acid did not improve embryo production and compromised the cryotolerance of conventionally frozen or vitrified embryos from Nelore heifers.
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".