Strategies for oocyte collection and <i>in vitro</i> embryo production in free-roaming bison herds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study was conducted to test the feasibility of protocols for field collection of cumulus–oocyte complexes (COC) for in vitro embryo production (IVP) in wild bison. The study was done with captive wood bison during the anovulatory season. In Experiment 1, the efficiency of transvaginal ultrasound-guided COC collection was compared between bison restrained in a squeeze chute without sedation vs in lateral recumbency after chemical immobilization using a dart gun (n = 8/group). In Experiment 2, a 2 × 2 design was used to examine the effects of superstimulation treatment [single dose of equine chorionic gonodotrophin (eCG) vs multiple doses of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH)] and method of drug administration (manual injection vs field darting) on COC collection and IVP. In Experiment 1, no difference was detected between chute-restrained vs chemically immobilized groups in the time required to complete COC collections, the number of follicles aspirated (11.5 ± 1.9 vs 9.3 ± 1.8; P = 0.4) or the COC recovery rate [COC recovered/follicle aspirated; 58/92 (63%) vs 44/69 (64%); P = 0.9]. In Experiment 2, no differences were detected between superstimulation treatments (eCG vs FSH). The total number of follicles available for aspiration did not differ between manual injection and field darting (23.9 ± 2.7 vs 21.6 ± 1.9; P = 0.4). Compared with the random start unstimulated group, the embryo production rate was higher [18/132 (14%) vs 53/189 (28%); P = 0.04] after wave synchronization and superstimulation. Results suggest that COC collection is equally feasible in a recumbent position after chemical immobilization as those bison restrained in a standing position in a hydraulic chute. Ovarian superstimulation with a single-dose eCG protocol is as effective as a multiple-dose FSH protocol, and field darting is as effective as chute-side administration of superstimulation treatments. The strategies in the present study are ready to be incorporated into field collections in free-roaming bison herds.
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) | 0.000 | 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".