Cryopreservation of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) embryos using different cryoprotectant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports that common carp (Cyprinus carpio) embryos were successfully frozen and preserved by vitrification. The modified Haga solution was tested by using two different cryoprotectants and three different concentrations at 4°C to obtain appropriate vitrified solutions ((dimethylsulfoxide 5, 10, 15% (DMSO) and glycerol 5, 10, 15% (gly)) in the study. The hatching rates of embryos exposed to cryoprotectants were also evaluated. The results showed that when 2-hour stage embryos were incubated with 10 and 15% DMSO levels, no hatching was observed, while 36% rate was obtained in the 5% DMSO group. The percentage of embryos was incubated in Hank's solution (HBSS) showed a highly significant difference (p<0.05) compared to those were incubated in the hatchery water (Hw). The hatching rate of embryos was incubated in HBSS with 5% gly also showed a highly significant difference (p<0.05) than those embryos were incubated in Hw only, Hw with 5% gly, 10% gly and 15% gly and those incubated in HBSS with 15% gly. For the cryopreservation results of 49-h stage carp embryos, four embryos (8%) were recovered from 100 frozen embryos after thawing of 49-h stage embryos using extender (Haga solution) in LN2 (liquid nitrogen). At the end of the study, it was revealed that DMSO with the concenteration 10% - 15% showed lethal effect on carp embryos. The study suggests that cryopreservation of carp embryos is possible and the results showed that the best cryoprotectant which was used for cryopreservation is 5% DMSO. The results of this investigation establish that cryopreservation of carp embryos is possible by vitrification. However, more studies are needed in the future to increase the carp embryos survival rate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".