Tolerance of lamb and mouse oocytes to cryoprotectants during vitrification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryMouse and lamb oocytes were vitrified with, or exposed to, different cryoprotectants and evaluated for their effects on their survival and developmental competence after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and activation treatments. Control oocytes remained untreated, whilst the remainder were exposed to three different combinations of vitrification solutions [dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) + ethylene glycol (EG), EG only, or propanediol (PROH) + EG] and either vitrified or left unfrozen (exposed groups). Oocytes in the control and vitrified groups underwent IVF and developmental competence was assessed to the blastocyst stage. In lambs, survival rate in vitrified oocytes was significantly lower than for oocytes in the exposed groups (P <0.05). Blastocyst development was low in vitrified oocytes compared with controls (<6% vs 38.9%, P <0.01). Parthenogenetic activation was more prevalent in vitrified lamb oocytes compared with controls (P <0.05). No evidence of zona pellucida hardening or cortical granule exocytosis could account for reduced fertilization rates in vitrified lamb oocytes. Mouse oocytes demonstrated a completely different response to lamb oocytes, with survival and parthenogenetic activation rates unaffected by the vitrification process. Treatment of mouse oocytes with DMSO + EG yielded significantly higher survival and cleavage rates than treatment with PROH + EG (87.8% and 51.7% vs 32.7% and 16.7% respectively, P <0.01), however cleavage rate for vitrified oocytes remained lower than for the controls (51.7% vs 91.7%, P <0.01) as did mean blastocyst cell number (33 ± 3.1 vs 42 ± 1.5, P <0.05). From this study, it is clear that lamb and mouse show different tolerances to cryoprotectants commonly used in vitrification procedures, and careful selection and testing of species-compatible cryoprotectants is required when vitrifying oocytes to optimize survival and embryo development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".