NonSurgical Embryo Recovery from Estrus-Synchronized or Superovulated Morada Nova Ewes: A Feasible Strategy for Sheep Embryo Banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the feasibility of in vivo embryo production and nonsurgical embryo recovery (NSER) in Morada Nova ewes (an endangered native Brazilian breed of sheep) subjected to different estrus synchronization and/or superovulation protocols. Ewes received intravaginal sponges soaked with 60 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate (MAP), which were kept in place for six (G6; n = 12), nine (G9; n = 12), or 12 (G12; n = 12) days. Half of the ewes in each group remained estrus synchronized only ( SYNCH ) and the other half was superovulated ( SOV ) with 133 mg porcine follicle-stimulating hormone (pFSH). There were no differences ( p > 0.05) in antral follicle counts determined with ultrasonography 60 hours before MAP sponge removal (or at the time of the first pFSH dose) among G6 (6.4 ± 0.9), G9 (6.2 ± 0.7), and G12 (5.5 ± 0.6). Estrus responses and NSER success rates did not vary ( p > 0.05) among the three progestin-treatment groups of ewes for either estrus-induced or superovulated animals. The onset of estrus occurred 10–12 hours later ( p < 0.01) in G9 SYNCH ewes compared with G6 SYNCH and G12 SYNCH, and the duration of estrus was ∼19 hours greater ( p < 0.01) in G9 SOV than in G6 SOV . The average duration of the NSER procedure was 32.6 ± 1.3 minutes. At least one structure was recovered in 85.7% of synchronized and in 87.5% of superovulated ewes. Viable embryo recovery rates were also similar ( p > 0.05) for G6 (1.0 ± 0.3 and 2.5 ± 1.5), G9 (1.3 ± 0.5 and 4.8 ± 2.0), and G12 groups (1.0 ± 0.3 and 4.8 ± 2.3; estrus-synchronized and superovulated ewes, respectively). In conclusion, progestogen pretreatment of different durations and NSER can be employed in Morada Nova ewes, resulting in reasonable viable embryo recovery rates in both estrus-synchronized and superovulated animals. Therefore, both techniques are suitable for use in commercial settings as well as small ruminant conservation programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".