MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407364082 · doi:10.1101/2025.02.10.637575

Mammalian oocytes receive maternal-effect RNAs from granulosa cells

2025· preprint· en· W4407364082 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline A. Doherty, Abdulfatai Tijjani, Steven C. Munger, Diana J. Laird

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthEcho FoundationW. M. Keck Foundation
KeywordsCell biologyOocyteChemistryAndrologyBiologyEmbryoMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is currently thought that growing mammalian oocytes receive only small molecules via gap junctions from surrounding support cells, the granulosa cells. From the study of chimeric preantral oocyte and granulosa cell reaggregations, we provide evidence that growing mouse oocytes receive mRNAs from granulosa cells. Among the >1,000 granulosa-transcribed RNAs we identified in the oocyte, those that contribute to proper oocyte maturation and early embryo development were highly enriched. Predicted motifs for two RNA-binding proteins that function in RNA trafficking, FMRP and TDP43, were abundant in the UTRs of the granulosa-derived transcripts. Immunostaining demonstrated that both FMRP and TDP43 co-localize with the actin-rich granulosa cell protrusions that span the zone pellucida and connect to the oocyte, suggesting their role in importing mRNAs. Our results offer the possibility that oocyte failure may not always reflect an intrinsic oocyte deficiency but could arise from insufficient supply of maternal transcripts by granulosa cells during oocyte growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207