MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216310546 · doi:10.1071/rdv28n2ab248

248 SUPERSTIMULATION STRATEGIES FOR OVUM PICKUP IN HOLSTEIN DONORS

2015· article· en· W2216310546 on OpenAlexaff
Leandro M. Vieira, G. A. Bó, R.J. Mapletoft

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystPickupOocyteFollicular phaseBiologyEmbryoInternal medicineEndocrinologyAndrologyEmbryogenesisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro embryo production (IVP) is an important tool to enhance genetic gain in cattle. However, oocyte quality is a limiting factor for the success of IVP programs in high-producing donors. A series of studies using protocols for follicular wave synchronization and superstimulation before ovum pickup were performed to improve the efficiency of ovum pickup and in vitro production in dairy cattle. The first study evaluated superstimulation with FSH (Folltropin-V®) before ovum pickup in lactating (n = 15) and non-lactating (n = 15) Holstein donors in a crossover design. Cows underwent synchronization of follicle wave emergence (FWE) and at the expected time of FWE, the FSH group received a total dosage of 200 mg of FSH in 4 decreasing doses 12 h apart; controls received no FSH, and ovum pickup was conducted 72 h after the expected FWE in all cows. The FSH-treated cows had a higher (P < 0.01) percentage of medium-sized follicles (6 to 10 mm) at the time of ovum pickup (55.1%) than control cows (20.8%) as well as lower cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) recovery rates (60.0 v. 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.002). However, FSH-treated cows had a higher blastocyst production rate (34.5 v. 19.8%; P < 0.01) and more transferable embryos per ovum pickup session (3.0 ± 0.5 v. 1.8 ± 0.4; P = 0.02). Subsequent trials evaluated plasma FSH profiles in 23 heifers and in vitro production following ovum pickup in 90 non-lactating Holstein donors superstimulated with a single IM injection of FSH in 0.5% hyaluronan (HA; MAP-5®, 50 mg). Controls received no treatment, while the F200 group received 200 mg of FSH in 4 decreasing doses 12 h apart. The F200HA and F300HA groups received 200 or 300 mg of FSH in 5 or 7.5 mL, respectively, of 0.5% HA by a single IM injection. Circulating FSH area under curve (AUC) in FSH-treated animals was greater than in the control group (P = 0.02). Although the AUC for F200 group did not differ from HA groups (P = 0.56), the total period of time plasma FSH levels were elevated was greater than in the HA groups (P < 0.01). In the IVP trial, FSH-treated cows had a greater proportion of medium-sized (6–10 mm) follicles than controls (P < 0.001). Also, numbers of follicles (P = 0.01) retrieved (control: 13.1 ± 1.0; F200: 16.5 ± 1.2; F200HA: 19.5 ± 2.1; F300HA: 15.4 ± 1.4; P = 0.01) and blastocysts produced per ovum pickup session (control: 2.4 ± 0.5; F200: 3.7 ± 0.7; F200HA: 4.7 ± 0.7; F300HA: 3.1 ± 0.6; P = 0.06) were greater in cows receiving FSH, regardless of treatment. Cows in the F200HA group had a greater recovery rate (P = 0.009), number of COC cultured (P = 0.04), and blastocysts per ovum pickup session (P = 0.06) than cows in the F300HA group. In conclusion, superstimulation of Holstein donors before ovum pickup increased the efficiency of in vitro production. Additionally, a single IM dose of FSH in 0.5% HA resulted in similar plasma FSH profiles to twice-daily FSH treatment. Non-lactating donors treated with FSH produced more embryos per ovum pickup session regardless of FSH treatment. Lastly, all in vitro-produced endpoints were greater following a single dose of 200 mg of FSH in 0.5% HA than 300 mg of FSH in 0.5% HA.

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)0.002
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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