MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902065684 · doi:10.1071/rdv31n1ab133

133 Test of minimum-intervention protocols for optimizing in vitro embryo production in bison

2018· article· en· W2902065684 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. L. Zwiefelhofer, E. M. Zwiefelhofer, S. X. Yang, Seishi Maeda, Jaswant Singh, Gregory P. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrologyBiologySpermAnimal scienceEmbryo cultureSalineFollicular phaseEmbryoEmbryogenesisEndocrinologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was done to determine whether minimal handling protocols for ovarian synchronization and ovarian superstimulation may be used to increase in vitro embryo production in bison. Ultrasound-guided cumulus-oocyte complex (COC) collection was done in a group of bison (n = 23; random start) during the anovulatory season to synchronize new follicular wave emergence. The COC were classified morphologically (compact-good and -regular, expanded, denuded, degenerate) but not processed further. At the time of COC collection (Day 0), bison were assigned randomly to 3 groups and given 5 mL of saline IM (non-superstimulated controls; n = 11), 10 Armour units of pFSH (Antrin R10, Kyoritsu Seiyaku Corp., Tokyo, Japan) in 5 mL of saline IM once per day from Day 0 to 2 (regular FSH; n = 5), or 30 armour units of a sustained-release form of pFSH (Antrin R10Al, Kyoritsu Seiyaku Corp.) in 5 mL of saline SC on Day 0 (long-acting FSH; n = 7). On Day 4, a second COC collection was performed. Only compact COC were processed. The COC were matured in vitro for 25 to 28 h at 38.8°C, fertilized (2 × 106 sperm mL-1) and co-incubated at 38.8°C in 5% CO2 for 18 h. Presumptive zygotes were denuded and cultured at 38.8°C in 5% O2, 5% CO2 and 90% N2. Nominal data were compared by t-test and analysis of variance. Binomial data were compared among groups by chi-squared. There was no difference between the first (random) COC collection (n = 23) and second collection (n = 11 non-superstimulated controls) in the total number of follicles detected, but the distribution among size categories (3-4, 4-8, and >8 mm) differed, i.e. fewer in the 3 to 4 mm category at the time of the second COC collection (12.2 ± 1.0 v. 8.1 ± 1.4; P < 0.05). In the nonstimulated control group, there were no differences between the first and second COC collections in the number of follicles aspirated (12.7 ± 1.0 v. 10.4 ± 1.5), number of COC collected (7.7 ± 0.9 v. 5.3 ± 1.3), or in the categorical distribution of COC. At the second COC collection, the number of follicles in the >8 mm category was greater in the regular FSH group than in the control or long-acting FSH groups (2.8 ± 0.5 v. 1.1 ± 0.3, and 1.9 ± 0.4, respectively; P < 0.05), but no differences were detected in the number of follicles aspirated, COC collected, or in the categorical distribution of COC. The cleavage rate (of total oocytes submitted to in vitro maturation), recorded 2 days after IVF, was higher in the control group than in either the regular FSH or long-acting FSH groups [25/35 (71.4%), 7/28 (25.0%), 8/35 (22.8%); P < 0.0001]. The freezable embryo production rate, recorded 7 days after IVF, was greater in the control group than in the regular FSH or long-acting FSH groups [19/35 (54.3%), 5/28 (17.9%), 5/35 (14.3%); P < 0.01]. In conclusion, minimal-handling interventions used in the present study to increase embryo production in bison were not effective, likely as a result of the timing, frequency, and duration of superstimulation. A random start resulted in greater COC collection than collection 4 days after ovarian synchronization, and embryo production rates were greater in non-superstimulated bison. This work was supported by Parks Canada and Saskatchewan ADF. Antrin products donated by Kyoritsu Seiyaku Corp., Japan.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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