Organelle reorganization in bovine oocytes during dominant follicle growth and regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that organelles in bovine oocytes undergo changes in number and spatial distribution in a manner specific for phase of follicle development. METHODS: Cumulus-oocyte-complexes were collected from Hereford heifers by ultrasound-guided follicle aspiration from dominant follicles in the growing phase (n = 5; Day 0 = ovulation), static phase (n = 5), regressing phase (n = 7) of Wave 1 and from preovulatory follicles (n = 5). Oocytes were processed and transmission electron micrographs of ooplasm representing peripheral, perinuclear and central regions were evaluated using standard stereological methods. RESULTS: The number of mitochondria and volume occupied by lipid droplets was higher (P < 0.03) in oocytes from regressing follicles (193.0 ± 10.4/1000 μm(3) and 3.5 ± 0.7 %) than growing and preovulatory stages (118.7 ± 14.4/1000 μm(3) and 1.1 ± 0.3 %; 150.5 ± 28.7/1000 μm(3) and 1.6 ± 0.2 %, respectively). Oocytes from growing, static and preovulatory follicles had >70 % mitochondria in the peripheral regions whereas oocytes from regressing follicles had an even distribution. Oocytes from growing follicles had more lipid droplets in peripheral region than in central region (86.9 vs. 13.1 %). Percent surface area of mitochondria in contact with lipid droplets increased from growing (2.3 %) to static, regressing or preovulatory follicle stage (8.9, 6.1 and 6.2 %). The amount, size and distribution of other organelles did not differ among phases (P > 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our hypothesis was supported in that mitochondrial number increased and translocation occurred from a peripheral to an even distribution as follicles entered the regressing phase. In addition, lipid droplets underwent spatial reorganization from a peripheral to an even distribution during the growing phase and mitochondria-lipid contact area increased with follicle maturation.
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".