MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763249819 · doi:10.1089/bio.2017.0074

Oocyte Cryopreservation Based in Sheep: The Current Status and Future Perspective

2017· review· en· W2763249819 on OpenAlexaff
Guobo Quan, Guoquan Wu, Qionghua Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopreservation and Biobanking · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryopreservationOocyte cryopreservationCryoprotectantVitrificationOocyteBiologyCryobiologyAndrologyTrehaloseHydrostatic pressureFertility preservationCell biologyEmbryoFertilityBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of a cryopreservation procedure for sheep oocytes will enhance the development of long-term conservation of sheep female genetic resources and the advancement of sheep embryonic biotechnology. However, higher cytoplasmic lipid content and complex subcellular structures affect the relatively higher sensitivity of oocytes to chilling and freezing stresses. Currently, the reports related to sheep oocyte cryopreservation lag behind bovine or pig studies. A standardized freezing procedure has not been established. The present mainstream viewpoint favors the superiority of vitrification over conventional slow-freezing methods. The combination of permeable and impermeable cryoprotectants plus vitrification at a fast cooling/warming velocity benefits the cryosurvival of sheep oocytes. In this review, the research status and the cryoinjury mechanism of sheep oocyte cryopreservation will be reviewed in detail. Moreover, some technological highlights potentially influencing survival of cryopreserved sheep oocytes, such as delipidation, high hydrostatic pressure, or loading trehalose into cytoplasm, are summarized. Meanwhile, the future perspectives in the field of sheep oocyte cryopreservation will be discussed.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiopreservation and BiobankingSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207