MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597097924 · doi:10.1093/biolreprod/87.s1.556

Sperm Sexing in the Dog by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization.

2012· article· en· W2597097924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroshi Suzuki, Maya Oi

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexingBiologySpermAndrologyFluorescence in situ hybridizationSemenInseminationY chromosomeArtificial inseminationAnatomyChromosomeZoologyGeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specific production of male or female offspring by separation of X- or Y-bearing spermatozoa and artificial insemination is a long standing goal in breeding of domestic and other animals. For dogs, higher percentages of female puppies are desired in breeding of guide dogs for the blind as well as companion animals. Effective preselection of sex has been accomplished in several livestock and humans using flow-cytometric sperm sorting. Since a guaranteed high sorting accuracy is a key prerequisite for the widespread use of sperm sexing, to be able to apply the specific production of male or female in dog, direct visualization of sex chromosomes in single sperm using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was developed in this study. The second fraction of ejaculates was collected from Labrador Retrievers (n=3). After washing with PBS, the sperms were fixed with methanol: acetic acid fixative and placed on a defatted glass slide. These preparations were dried and dehydrated on a hot plate at 70°C. For decondensation of sperm nuclei, the specimen was treated with 1M NaOH for 3, 4 or 5 min at room temperature, rinsed with PBS, and then washed with distilled water. After air-drying, the specimen was placed on a hot plate at 70°C. For a double staining of canine X- and Y-chromosome of sperm, sex chromosome probe: X-labelled with SpecrumGreen and Y-labelled with Cy3 were used. Hybridization was carried out in a moist chamber at 37°C overnight. FISH signals were analyzed by eye using an ocular grid counting random microscope fields and scoring 500-600 spermatozoa per sample. Spermatozoa were scored only if they were intact, non-overlapped, had a clearly defined border, and had not decondensed to more than twice the size of a non-decondensed sperm head. There were no significant difference at the P>0.05 level between the theoretical ratio (50:50) and the observed ratio in X- and Y-chromosome-bearing spermatozoa from all three dogs, when samples were treated with 1 M NaOH for 4 min. Hybridization efficiency was 98-99%. The established FISH protocol in this study might be suitable for reliable routine validation of sorted canine spermatozoa.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207