Assessment of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Bovine Nuclear Transfer Embryos and in Their Donor Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomal anomalies were assessed in nuclear transfer (NT) embryos (n = 148) at 1-4-cell stage (n = 88), and morula (n = 60), as well as in donor cells (n = 97) derived from two different cell lines. Two different cytogenetic approaches were used: conventional karyotyping and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with painting probes, specific for bovine X and Y chromosomes. The total rate of NT embryos with abnormal nuclei was 43%. These anomalies were mainly nuclear fragmentation (30%), hypoploidy/hypoploidy-mixoploidy (9%, n = 14) and hyperploidy/hyperploidy-mixoploidy (3%, n = 5). The incidence at which these anomalies occurred in NT embryos varied according to the donor cell culture and paralleled the frequency of anomalies in donor cells. A higher frequency of total anomalies was observed in NT embryos (55%) derived from the donor cell cultures with the highest incidence of anomalies (23%). An increase in the rate of total anomalies of the cell, after transfer to recipient cytoplasm, was also observed. These results suggest that proper screening of donor cells for chromosomal anomalies must be performed prior to NT procedure. They also suggest that the NT procedure itself might have a detrimental effect on some mechanism of chromosome segregation and distribution during cell division.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".