4.2 Article

Relationship Between the Length of Cell Cycles, Cleavage Pattern and Developmental Competence in Bovine Embryos Generated by In Vitro Fertilization or Parthenogenesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 200-207

出版社

SOCIETY REPRODUCTION & DEVELOPMENT-SRD
DOI: 10.1262/jrd.09-097A

关键词

Bovine; Cleavage pattern; Developmental kinetics; Embryo; In vitro culture; Time lapse cinematography

资金

  1. Research and Development Program for New Bio-industry Initiatives

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to study the kinetics of initial cell divisions in relation with the cleavage patterns in viable (with the ability to develop to the blastocyst stage) and non-viable bovine embryos and parthenotes. The kinetics of in vitro development and cleavage patterns were observed by time lapse cinematography. The length of the first and second but not third cell cycle differed significantly between the viable and non-viable embryos after IVF or parthenogenesis. Viable embryos had significantly shorter first and second cell cycles than non-viable ones. The presence of fragments, protrusions and unequally-sized blastomeres was associated with an extended one-cell stage and reduced ability to develop to the blastocyst stage; however, the lengths of the second and third cell cycles were not altered. Oocytes showing direct division from one cell to 3 or 4 blastomeres showed similar developmental ability and embryonic cell numbers to those showing normal division, although, with a high frequency of chromosomal abnormalities. Our results suggest that the differences in the first cell cycles between viable and non-viable embryos were not sperm-related, whereas direct cleavage of 1-cell embryos to 3 or more blastomeres and protrusion formation are related to sperm-driven factors. The length of the first and second cell cycles and the cleavage pattern should be examined simultaneously to predict developmental competence of embryos at early cleavage stages.

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

4.2
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