MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179211820 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab68

68 EFFECT OF ROSCOVITINE ON FIBROBLASTS’ ABILITY TO FORM BLASTOCYSTS AND ESTABLISH PREGNANCIES AFTER BOVINE NUCLEAR TRANSFER

2004· article· en· W2179211820 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne M. Powell, P. Graininger, Neil C. Talbot, R.J. Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersInternational Council for Canadian StudiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsBlastocystAndrologyMaturation promoting factorBiologySomatic cell nuclear transferFetusEmbryoChromatinFetal bovine serumImmunologyCell biologyCell cycleEmbryogenesisCellCyclin-dependent kinase 1BiochemistryGeneticsPregnancyMedicineDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloning efficiency of fibroblast nuclear transfer is dependent on donor cell chromatin status. Chromatin status is commonly regulated by serum starvation or contact inhibition. We have tested 3 methods of synchronizing chromatin activity, roscovitine exposure (in MEM + 10% serum) for 24 h, with serum starvation (0.5% serum) for 5 days or growth to confluence in 10% serum prior to nuclear transfer. Roscovitine, a specific cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)2 inhibitor, provides a means of precisely synchronizing bovine fetal fibroblasts (BFF) at G0/G1 cell cycle stage. Fibroblasts were from 100-day-old Jersey fetuses. Cells, frozen at passage 2, from fetus 10 are known to produce calves. Fetus 13 cells, frozen at passages 1 and 2, were compared for their ability to serve as nuclear donor cells. Oocytes, either purchased from Bomed or harvested from ovaries obtained from a local slaughterhouse and matured in Ham’s F10, were enucleated between 18–21 h post-maturation initiation. Couplets were produced and fused by standard techniques. Embryos were activated 2 to 4 hours after fusion by exposure to ionomycin for 4 min and DMAP for 4 h. Embryos were then held in CR1aa for 12 h before being cultured in G1 media for 3 days and then G2 media for another 3 days (38.5°C and 5% O2 + 5% CO2 + 90% N). On Day 7, good quality blastocysts were transferred to synchronized recipient heifers. The remaining embryos were evaluated after another day in culture. Blastocyst development [(100) X (total blastocysts/fused couplets)] was not influenced by fetus (BFF10, 31 ± 3%; BFF13, 26 ± 2%, P = 0.126). However, a higher proportion of blastocysts were produced when fibroblasts were cultured in 0.5% serum (38 ± 3%) compared to culture in 10% serum (29 ± 3%) or in roscovitine (23 ± 2%, P = 0.001). Time in culture, as measured by passage, had a variable effect on the fibroblast’s ability to product blastocysts from the three fibroblast culture conditions tested. Passage 1 and 2 fibroblasts responded similarly to the 0.5% and 10% serum treatments (P > 0.80). When cultured in roscovitine, passage 1 fibroblasts performed better then passage 2 fibroblasts (29 ± 4% v. 16 ± 3% blastocysts, P = 0.010). Embryos have been transferred to 51 recipients to date. Ten recipients have given birth or are still pregnant. The 60-day non-return rate for those animals was 29%, 50%, and 31% for serum starvation, 10% serum, and roscovitine treatments, respectively. BFF10 and BFF13 cells have generated the same non-return rates (33%). In this study, of the 3 methods of synchronizing fibroblast chromatin, serum-starvation had an in vitro advantage. Cells cultured for different lengths of time (passages) responded differently to synchronization treatments. This may reflect a heterogeneous population of cells at early passages. Current non-return rates seem to favor synchronization by contact inhibition. Any advantage roscovitine offers may not be revealed until calving.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207