MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092643337 · doi:10.6000/1927-520x.2020.09.16

Effect of Polyvinylpyrrolidone on Vitrification of Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Oocytes

2020· article· en· W3092643337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jannatul Bari, Md. Nazrul Islam, Md Hasanur Alam, Asma Khatun, MA Hashem, Mohammad Moniruzzaman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubalusVitrificationAndrologyPolyvinylpyrrolidoneBiologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitrification, a method of rapid cooling, is an alternate cryopreservation method of oocytes and embryos. The present study was aimed to examine the effect of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) on vitrification of buffalo oocytes. Cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) with fully grown oocytes (120-130 µm in diameter) were aspirated from slaughtered buffalo ovaries for vitrification. COCs were treated with equilibration solution at room temperature for 5 min and then transferred to a vitrification solution for 1 min. Then the COCs were submerged into liquid nitrogen (-196̊C) for a while using cryotops. The COCs were thawed, diluted, and washed in a washing solution for 5 min, respectively. Vitrified oocytes were incubated for in vitro maturation (IVM) at 38.5̊C under an atmosphere of 5% CO2 in the air for 24 hrs. Cumulus cells surrounding the oocytes were removed mechanically, oocytes were fixed in acetic acid and ethanol, and stained with aceto-orcein to examine the meiotic stages of oocytes. The numbers of morphologically normal oocytes after vitrification were higher in 5% PVP than 0 and 10% PVP groups. A proportion of oocytes treated with 5% PVP reached the metaphase II (MII) stage while none of the oocytes from 0% and 10% PVP groupsdeveloped beyond anaphase I and metaphase I (MI) stages, respectively. These results show that PVP can be used as a cryoprotectant for the vitrification of buffalo 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207