Metabolism-epigenetic interactions on in vitro produced embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolism and epigenetics, which reciprocally regulate each other in different cell types, are fundamental aspects of cellular adaptation to the environment. Evidence in cancer and stem cells has shown that the metabolic status modifies the epigenome while epigenetic mechanisms regulate the expression of genes involved in metabolic processes, thereby altering the metabolome. This crosstalk occurs as many metabolites serve as substrates or cofactors of chromatin-modifying enzymes. If we consider the intense metabolic dynamic and the epigenetic remodelling of the embryo, the comprehension of these regulatory networks will be important not only for understanding early embryonic development, but also to determine in vitro culture conditions that support embryo development and may insert positive regulatory marks that may persist until adult life. In this review, we focus on how metabolism may affect epigenetic reprogramming of the early stages of development, in particular acetylation and methylation of histone and DNA. We also present other metabolic modifications in bovine embryos, such as lactylation, highlighting the promising epigenetic and metabolic targets to improve conditions for in vitro embryo development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".