4.6 Article

A comparison of in vitro culture systems for cat embryos

Journal

THERIOGENOLOGY
Volume 179, Issue -, Pages 149-154

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2021.10.026

Keywords

Co-culture; Cat embryos; IVF; Culture system

Funding

  1. Polish National Center for Research and Development (NCBiR) [NCBiR PBS3/B8/16/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared different culture systems for cat embryos and found that culture in Primo Vision (R) dishes resulted in a higher proportion of blastocysts and hatching blastocysts compared to individual and group culture systems. Co-culture with cat or sheep embryos also accelerated the development of cat embryos.
The aim of this study was to compare several culture systems for cat embryos. Domestic cat oocytes were matured in vitro (IVM), fertilized (IVF), and cultured individually or in groups in drops under oil (20 mu L or 50 mu L) and in 16 microwell dishes (Primo Vision (R)). Moreover, the effects of co-culture with a) uncleaved oocytes, b) homospecific and c) heterospecific co-culture with cat and sheep companion embryos were investigated using a time-lapse system. A higher proportion of blastocysts and hatching blastocysts was observed after culture in Primo Vision (R) dishes compared with the classical individual (p < 0.001) and group (p < 0.05) culture systems. Culture of presumptive zygotes 16 hpi and the presence of uncleaved oocytes did not reduce blastocyst development compared with culture of embryos 24 hpi without uncleaved oocytes. Co-culture with later-stage companion cator sheep embryos accelerated development of catembryos. The highest percentage of blastocysts was obtained in the group co-cultured with sheep embryos (54%). Moreover, the blastocyst cavity formed on average 10 h faster in this group than for the control group and for embryos co-cultured with cat embryos. The proportion of hatching blastocysts was similar in the co-cultures with cat and with sheep embryos (20% vs. 22%) and significantly (p < 0.05) than in the control group (12%).(c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available