Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:9728813rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0007452lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1281743lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0282547lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0038952lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2936610lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1533691lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1516048lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:issue1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:dateCreated1998-11-19lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:abstractTextThe ability of bovine blastocysts to recover after cryopreservation and thawing procedures is often assessed by evaluating their re-expansion during in vitro co-culture. However, the influence of factors such as feeder cell type and gas atmosphere on blastocyst survival and evolution have never been considered. This study therefore compared two cell co-culture systems and two different gas atmospheres to assess survival of in vitro produced bovine blastocysts after vitrification. Day-7 blastocysts (n = 181) were vitrified in a mixture of 25% glycerol/25% ethylene glycol. After warming and dilution, they were co-cultured either on Buffalo rat liver cells (BRL CC cell line) or on granulosa cells (GR CC primary culture) in TCM 199 supplemented with 10% FCS and under an atmosphere of 5% or 20% O2. Surviving and hatching rates were recorded at 24 h intervals for 3 days. After 72 h of culture, surviving blastocysts were treated for differential counting of inner cell mass (ICM) and trophectoderm cells. Blastocyst survival rates were higher when BRL and granulosa co-culture were performed under 20% oxygen as compared to 5% oxygen (20% O2: 62% vs. 5% O2: 25%, P < 0.0001). However, the quality of blastocysts surviving in the granulosa co-culture condition was lower under 20% O2 than under 5% O2 as indicated by lower total and trophectoderm cell numbers (respectively 79 +/- 6 and 56 +/- 6 at 20% O2 vs. 100 +/- 10 and 74 +/- 10 at 5% O2, P < 0.05), by an altered ICM/trophectoderm ratio (20% O2: 28% vs. 5% O2: 23%, P < 0.05), by a higher total nuclear fragmentation (20% O2: 3.7% vs. 5% O2: 1.5%, P < 0.05) and a trend to decreased hatching (20% O2: 32% vs. 5% O2: 81%, P = 0.07). Whereas, for BRL co-culture, 20% O2 yielded higher quality blastocysts than 5% O2 as evaluated by higher ICM and trophectoderm cell numbers (19 +/- 1 and 71 +/- 5 at 20% O2 vs. 15 +/- 2 and 48 +/- 9 at 5% O2, respectively, P < 0.05), by lower nuclear fragmentation in the ICM (20% O2: 2.2% vs. 5% O2: 6.7%, P < 0.05). In conclusion, co-culture conditions may influence blastocysts survival and quality after cryopreservation. In our conditions, co-culture with BRL cells under 20% O2 seems to be the best combination to evaluate blastocyst survival and quality after vitrification.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:issn0378-4320lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MassieJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DessyFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DonnayIIlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Van...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KaidiSSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:day30lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:volume52lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:pagination39-50lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:dateRevised2008-11-21lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9728813-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:year1998lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:articleTitleComparison of two co-culture systems to assess the survival of in vitro produced bovine blastocysts after vitrification.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:affiliationUnité des Sciences Vétérinaires, UCL, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9728813pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:9728813lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:9728813lld:pubmed