4.4 Article

Oxidative stress biomarkers in newborn calves: Comparison among artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and cloning

期刊

ANIMAL REPRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106538

关键词

Antioxidant enzymes; Cattle; Lipid peroxidation; Neonatology; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. Sao Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress occurs when there is greater than optimal production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or an antioxidant system failure. Calves produced using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or cloning (CA) have greater mortality rates, with greater incidence of respiratory diseases, which could be explained by the deleterious outcomes from oxidative stress. Calves were studied that were produced using: artificial insemination (AI; n = 20), in vitro fertilization (IVF; n = 15) or cloning (CA; n = 15). Blood samples were collected at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h subsequent to the time of birth. The cloned calves had greater ROS production from lipid peroxidation, with greater thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. This factor was associated with a lesser amount of superoxide dismutase in the CA. Calves produced using IVF had a greater activity of catalase and glutathione peroxidase, either due to greater production of hydrogen peroxide or greater efficiency of enzymatic response of these neonates. Calves produced using AI had greater concentrations of reduced thiol groups. These associated factors may indicate there is greater oxidative stress in calves produced by IVF and cloning than with use of AI, however in these calves there was an effective response to these oxidative stressors within 48 h subsequent to birth. Hence, calves produced using IVF and by cloning have greater ROS production when compared to calves produced using AI. The calves produced using IVF, however, had a greater enzymatic activity or were more efficient in adapting to ROS when compared to calves produced by cloning.

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

4.4
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