Turkey ovarian tissue transplantation: effects of surgical technique on graft attachment and immunological status of the grafts, 6 days post-surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biobanked poultry ovaries can be revived via transplantation into a recipient female, which upon maturity will produce donor-derived progeny. Previously, a large portion of these recipients also produced recipient-derived progeny, making them gonadal chimeras. These were potentially created when portions of the recipient's ovary were inadvertently left behind. Completely removing the recipient ovary would solve this problem; however, leaving a portion of the recipient's ovary may have inadvertently increased the transplant attachment rate by providing a damaged area for attachment. To test this hypothesis in the turkey, we removed various portions (33–100%) of recipient ovarian tissue and determined the transplant attachment rate. Furthermore, the use of the abdominal air sac membrane as an additional anchoring point was tested. The overall attachment rate of transplants was 91% (27/30), while the average size of the transplants was 4.2 ± 0.6 mm2, 6 d postsurgery. There was no difference (P > 0.05) in the attachment rates, or transplant size between groups with varying amounts of recipent tissue removed, or by using the abdominal air sac membrane as an anchor. Finally, the immunological status of the grafts were evaluated by analyzing the presences of CD3 and MUM-1 (T and B cell markers). This showed that all transplants were infiltrated by large numbers of T and B cells. Shown by a high (P ≤ 0.001) percentage of CD3-positive immunostained cytoplasmic area (49.78 ± 3.90%) in transplants compared to remnant recipient tissue (0.30 ± 0.10%), as well as a high (P ≤ 0.001) percentage of MUM-1-positive immunostained nuclear area (9.85 ± 1.95%) in transplants over remnant recipient tissues (0.39 ± 0.12%). From this study we would recommend removing the entire recipient ovary, and not covering the transplants with the abdominal air sac membrane, to prevent gonadal chimeras. The high levels of lymphocytes within the grafts indicate possible tissue rejection, which could be overcome via immunosuppression with or without histocompatibility matching between donors and recipients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".