Coculture with porcine luteal cells during in vitro porcine oocyte maturation affects lipid content, cortical reaction and zona pellucida ultrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In pigs, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is associated with high polyspermy rates, and for this reason, in vitro embryo production (IVP) is still an inefficient biotechnology. Coculture with somatic cells is an alternative to improve suboptimal in vitro maturation (IVM) conditions. AIM: This study was conducted to test a coculture system of porcine luteal cells (PLC) and cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) to improve oocyte metabolism. METHODS: COC were matured in vitro with PLC. Oocyte lipid content, mitochondrial activity, zona pellucida (ZP) digestibility and pore size, cortical reaction and in vitro embryo development were assessed. KEY RESULTS: Coculture reduced cytoplasmic lipid content in the oocyte cytoplasm without increasing mitochondrial activity. Although ZP digestibility and ZP pore number were not different between culture systems, ZP pores were smaller in the coculture. Coculture impacted the distribution of cortical granules as they were found immediately under the oolemma, and more of them had released their content in the ZP. Coculture with porcine luteal cells during IVM increased monospermic penetration and embryo development after IVF. CONCLUSIONS: The coculture of COC with PLC affects the metabolism of the oocyte and benefits monospermic penetration and embryo development. IMPLICATIONS: The coculture system with PLC could be an alternative for the conventional maturation medium in pigs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".