4.6 Article

Blastocyst morphology, actin cytoskeleton quality and chromosome content are correlated with embryo quality in the pig

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 923-935

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.05.055

关键词

pig; embryo quality; non-surgical embryo transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Embryo survival rates obtained after transfer of in vitro produced porcine blastocysts are very poor. This is probably related to poor quality of the embryos. The aim of the present study was to determine markers for good quality blastocysts. Therefore, we tried to link blastocyst morphology to several morphological and cell biological properties, and evaluated the Survival of in vitro produced, morphologically classified, blastocysts following non-surgical transfer. In vitro and in vivo produced blastocysts were allocated to two groups (classes A and B) on the basis of morphological characteristics. The quality of their actin cytoskeleton, their total cell number, their ability to re-expand after cytochalasin-B treatment and the occurrence of numerical chromosome aberrations were studied and compared. In vivo produced blastocysts were used as a control. Our results indicate that the ability of blastocysts to re-expand after cytochalasin-B-induced actin depolymerization was positively correlated with the morphology of the blastocyst, and associated with the quality of the actin cytoskeleton. Chromosome analysis revealed that mosaicism is inherent to the in vitro production of porcine embryos, but also that in vivo produced blastocysts contained some non-diploid cells. In non-surgical embryo transfer experiments more recipients receiving class A blastocysts were pregnant on Day 20 than those receiving class B blastocysts. One recipient gave birth to six piglets from class A in vitro produced blastocysts, providing a verification of the enhanced viability of blastocysts that were scored as 'good' on the basis of their morphology. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据