Influence of different warming temperatures on the vitrified testicular fragments from pre‐pubertal cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testicular vitrification is an alternative to preserve the genetic material of pre-pubertal animals. However, there are few studies on post-vitrification warming. Hence, the aim was to compare the influence of different warming temperatures on vitrified testicular fragments from pre-pubertal cats. The testicles were fragmented and divided into a control group (non-vitrified) and vitrified, using an association between dimethylsulphoxide and glycerol. The vitrified fragments were warmed at 50, 55 and 60°C/5 s. Morphological and morphometric evaluations were carried out using classical histology. Afterwards, the mitochondrial activity was evaluated using Rhodamine 123. The data were expressed in mean and standard error. The differences were considered significant when p < .05. In the histomorphological analysis, the testicular fragment presented seminiferous tubules with poorly developed germinal epithelium, compatible with pre-pubertal animals. The group warmed at 50°C presented similar to the control regarding the maintenance of the integrity of the tubules and cells, without stromal rupture and lamina propria alteration, as well as regarding the maintenance of the junctions between the cells. The group warmed at 55°C showed reduction of the cell junctions, and the one warmed at 60°C had increased detachment of the basement membrane (p < .05). The warming caused a reduction in the tubular diameter inversely proportional and progressive to the increase in temperature, with the highest diameter in the control group and the lowest in the 60°C group. The control group showed a lower incidence of Rhodamine 123, followed in ascending order of the warmings at 55 and 60°C. The higher mitochondrial activity was obtained with 50°C, showing an increase of the metabolic cell function at this temperature. It was concluded that the testicular fragment of pre-pubertal cats presents a better preserved morphology, morphometry and viability when warmed at 50°C.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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".