4.2 Article

Vitrification of caprine secondary and early antral follicles as a perspective to preserve fertility function

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 371-378

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.repbio.2020.05.001

关键词

Cryopreservation; Ovarian follicles; TZPs; Endocrine function; Goat

资金

  1. National Council of Technological and Scientific Development [CNPq: 437458/2018-0]
  2. CNPq [308.071/2016-6]
  3. Fulbright Visiting Professor Scholarship
  4. NIH [R01HD083930, P51OD011092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study aimed to evaluate the structure, survival and development of isolated caprine (secondary-SEC and early antral-EANT) follicles, after vitrification in the presence of synthetic polymers and in vitro culture. Additionally, transzonal projections (TZPs) and p450 aromatase enzyme were evaluated. After isolation, SEC and EANT follicles were in vitro cultured for six days or vitrified. After one week, SEC and EANT follicles were warmed and also in vitro cultured for six days. Data revealed that the percentage of morphologically normal follicles was similar between fresh and vitrified follicles in both follicular categories and antrum formation rate was similar between fresh and vitrified SEC follicles. Fluorescence by calcein-AM did not show difference between fresh and vitrified (SEC and EANT) follicles, however, the trypan blue test showed low viability for vitrified follicles. The integrity of TZPs was not affected between fresh and vitrified SEC follicles, however, in vitrified EANT follicles, there were signs of TZPs loss. Regarding steroidogenic function, it was observed a positive staining for p450 aromatase enzyme in fresh and vitrified SEC and EANT follicles. It was concluded that SEC follicles seem to be more resistant to vitrification than EANT follicles, as shown by the trypan blue test and TZPs assay. Future studies may confirm this hypothesis, in order to consolidate the use of SEC and EANT follicles as an alternative to ovary cryopreservation.

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