Improvement of a twice collection method of mouse oocytes by surgical operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mouse oocytes are generally collected after euthanasia. However, if oocytes were collected without euthanasia, then mice could be used to collect oocytes again after recovery. This condition is especially useful for mice that are genotypically rare. In this study, we examined the reusability of mice after collecting oocytes via a surgical operation. When oocytes were collected using medetomidine/midazolam/butorphanol combination anesthesia and examined for the quality of oocytes after in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), they could develop to full term at the same rate as controls. When oocytes were collected from those mice a second time, the average number of oocytes was reduced by nearly 1/3. However, the blastocyst and offspring rates of those oocytes after IVF or ICSI were the same as those of the control regardless of the recovery day period. Although germinal vesicle (GV) oocytes can be collected from all reused mice, the final number of offspring did not increase. Interestingly, when oocytes were collected from the front position of the ampulla, 76% of the oviducts possessed oocytes after reuse, and the average number of oocytes significantly increased to a level comparable to that of the control. Finally, we examined whether reused mice can be used as recipient females, and then healthy offspring were obtained similarly as the control recipients. In conclusion, we provide a new method to collect a sufficient number of oocytes from reused mice without concern.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".