4.1 Article

Supplementation of culture medium with knockout serum replacement improves the survival of bovine secondary follicles when compared with other protein sources duringin vitroculture

期刊

ZYGOTE
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 32-36

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0967199419000583

关键词

Cow; In vitroculture; Knockout serum replacement; Oocytes; Secondary follicles

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - CNPq, Brazil [310821/2015-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study evaluated the effect of knockout serum replacement (KSR), fetal bovine serum (FBS) and bovine serum albumin (BSA) on the viability and growth of bovine secondary follicles culturedin vitrofor 12 days. To this end, secondary follicles were isolated (185-202 mu m) and culturedin vitroin TCM-199(+)medium supplemented with KSR (5% and 10%), FBS (5% and 10%) or BSA (3 mg/ml) at 38.5 degrees C with 5% CO(2)in air. Follicular diameters were evaluated on days 0, 4, 8 and 12. After 12 days of culture, follicular survival analysis was performing by using calcein-AM and ethidium homodimer. Before and after culture, follicles were fixed in paraformaldehyde for histological evaluation. Follicular diameter at different days of culture were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, while the percentages of viable follicles were analyzed by chi-squared test (P< 0.05). Results showed that follicles cultured in the presence of KSR at both concentrations presented higher follicular survival rates than those cultured in control medium alone or supplemented with FBS or BSA. Conversely, the presence of KSR, BSA or FBS did not increase follicular diameter after 12 days of culture. Histology analysis showed that, among the tested treatments, follicles cultured in the presence of KSR had preserved rounded oocytes, juxtaposed granulosa cells and intact basal membrane. In conclusion, supplementation of culture medium with KSR increases the follicular survival of bovine secondary follicles culturedin vitro.

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

4.1
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