Embryo collection induces transient activation of XBP1 arm of the ER stress response while embryo vitrification does not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryo cryopreservation has become a standard procedure in the practice of assisted reproduction. While routinely performed in IVF labs, the effects of embryo vitrification on the molecular mechanisms governing preimplantation development remain largely unknown. The endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress) response is an evolutionary conserved mechanism that cells employ to manage ER stress. ER stress can be defined as an imbalance between protein synthesis and secretion within the ER. The primary focus of this study was to investigate whether standard embryo manipulations, including embryo collection, culture and vitrification, result in activation of the ER stress pathway in vitro and to determine whether the embryo utilizes the unfolded protein response as an adaptive response. Our results indicate that the major ER stress pathway constituents are present at all stages of preimplantation development and that the activation of ER stress pathways can be induced at the 8-cell, morula and blastocyst stages. Additionally, we have demonstrated that the IRE1α arm of the ER Stress pathway is activated in freshly collected embryos but contrastingly, this ER Stress arm is not activated following embryo vitrification. It is important to understand the possible stresses that Assisted Reproductive Technologies place on the embryo and the mechanisms the embryo employs to adapt to these stresses. This study indicates that among the adaptive pathways available, cultured mammalian embryos can employ the ER stress pathway. Assisted reproduction techniques should be aware that their activities may induce the ER stress pathway in their patients' early embryos.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".