In Vitro Maturation with Leukemia Inhibitory Factor Prior to the Vitrification of Bovine Oocytes Improves Their Embryo Developmental Potential and Gene Expression in Oocytes and Embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oocyte cryopreservation has a significant impact on subsequent embryonic development. Herein, we investigated whether supplementing in vitro maturation medium with Leukemia Inhibitory Factor (LIF) prior to vitrification affects embryo development and gene expression at different embryo developmental stages. A panel of genes including maternal effect, epigenetics, apoptosis and heat stress was relatively quantified. The results show reduced cleavage rates after vitrification, regardless of the LIF treatment. Although not statistically different from control-vitrified oocytes, oocyte apoptosis and the blastocyst yield of LIF-vitrified oocytes were similar to their non-vitrified counterparts. Vitrification increased oocyte ZAR1, NPM2 and DPPA3 gene expression while its expression decreased in LIF-vitrified oocytes to similar or close levels to those of non-vitrified oocytes. With a few gene-specific exceptions, vitrification significantly increased the expression of DNMT3A, HDAC1, KAT2A, BAX and BCL2L1 in oocytes and most stages of embryo development, while comparable expression patterns for these genes were observed between LIF-vitrified and non-vitrified groups. Vitrification increased HSPA1A expression in oocytes and HSP90AA1 in 2-cell embryos. Our data suggest that vitrification triggers stage-specific changes in gene expression throughout embryonic development. However, the inclusion of LIF in the IVM medium prior to vitrification stimulates blastocyst development and several other developmental parameters and induces oocytes and embryos to demonstrate gene expression patterns similar to those derived from non-vitrified oocytes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".