MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405189751 · doi:10.3390/ani14233538

Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Granulosa Cell Biomarkers to Predict Oocyte In Vitro Maturation Outcome in the Southern White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)

2024· article· en· W4405189751 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Ruggeri, Kristin Klohonatz, Barbara Durrant, Marc‐André Sirard

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOocyteBiologyIn vitro maturationIn vitro fertilisationAndrologyTranscriptomeEmbryoCell biologyGeneticsGeneGene expressionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, biomarkers in granulosa cells (GC) have been determined and associated in several species with oocyte maturation, in vitro fertilization success, and embryo development outcomes. The identification of biomarkers of oocyte competence can aid in improving assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in the southern white rhino (SWR). This study aimed to identify biomarkers present in SWR GC associated with oocytes that either did or did not mature in vitro. We evaluated follicle development (FD), meiotic competence (MC), cell death and atresia (CDA), and embryonic genome activation (EGA). Our objective was to design biomarkers to predict oocyte in vitro maturation results in the SWR. RNA was isolated from GC obtained during ovum pick up (OPU) for qPCR analysis. Overall, 22 genes were assessed, and nine were differentially expressed between GC from oocytes that did or did not mature in vitro (FD-GDF9 and mTOR; MC-GGPS1, JMY, and NPR2; CDA-COL4A1, MACIR, and TMPO; EGA-NFYA). From these data, we determined that GC can be used as a predictor for oocyte in vitro maturation outcome in the SWR. Our results provide crucial information needed to improve in vitro maturation and ARTs in this species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207