O-234 The guinea pig embryo: a potential new model for human development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study question Is the guinea pig a good model for human preimplantation embryo development? Summary answer Preimplantation guinea pig embryos better recapitulate the human embryo compared to the mouse, offering a promising new model to study preimplantation, naive pluripotency and infertility. What is known already Mouse embryos have historically been used to model reproduction, but caution is warranted as several discrepancies with the human exist during preimplantation. Guinea pigs have been a long standing model of human development and are known to better recapitulate placentation and brain development compared to the mouse. We now speculate that guinea pigs may also represent a superior animal model to study preimplantation development. However, to date, guinea pig preimplantation embryos remain to be investigated in great detail. We now aim to assess the developmental dynamics of the guinea pig preimplantation embryo with cross-species comparisons to both human and mouse. Study design, size, duration In vivo guinea pig embryos were flushed 3-6 days post-fertilization (N = 10-12/ time point). Embryos (embryonic day (E)3-6 were collected and processed for downstream experiments. Participants/materials, setting, methods Immunofluorescence of Sox2 (epiblast (EPI) marker), Sox17 and Gata6 (primitive endoderm (PE) marker) and Cdx2 and Gata3 (trophectoderm (TE)) was performed. Cells were counted and the dynamics of lineage marker expression and blastocyst formation were determined. In parallel, scRNA-seq (Smartseq2) of guinea pig embryos was performed. Main results and the role of chance At the compacted morula stage (late E4.25-E4.75), similar to the human and in contrast to the mouse, we observe co-expression Sox2, Gata6 and Gata3, with no detection of Sox17 and Cdx2. Similar to the human, blastocyst formation begins between E5.0-E5.25. By mid-blastocysts (E5.25-E5.5), cells are poised for lineage specification with a high number of cells co-expressing Sox2/Sox17, and no cells co-expressing markers of all three lineages. By late blastocyst, E5.5-E5.75, specification of all three lineages is achieved and no co-expression Sox2/Sox17/Cdx2 or Sox2/Gata6/Gata3 is observed. Further, similar to the human and in contrast to the mouse, there is a disconnect between morphology and lineage specification in the early blastocyst. These data suggest that signaling pathways governing lineage specification in the human and guinea pig differ compared to the mouse. Finally, cross-species analysis of scRNA-seq revealed conserved pluripotency gene signatures between the human and guinea pig embryos, suggesting that the guinea pig may also contain naive stem cells and that plasticity of these lineages may be more similar to the human compared to the mouse. Limitations, reasons for caution Our model only explores similarities/differences between the human and guinea pig preimplantation embryo with regards to timing of development and lineage segregation. Wider implications of the findings In addition to helping us understand human preimplantation development, this new model may serve to examine the longer-term consequences of preimplantation exposures. Further, insights from this study have broad application in the fields of Reproduction, Development, ART and Stem cell biology. Trial registration number NA
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".