4.6 Article

In vitro growth and maturation of isolated caprine preantral follicles: Influence of insulin and FSH concentration, culture dish, coculture, and oocyte size on meiotic resumption

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 32-41

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.10.026

关键词

Embryo corral; Oocyte competence; Secondary follicles

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) (Biotecnologia-Rede Nordeste em Biotecnologia [RENORBIO] [554812/2006-1]
  2. Coordenacan de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aims of this study were: (1) to evaluate the effect of different insulin concentrations, alone or in combination with either a fixed FSH concentration or increasing FSH concentrations on the in vitro culture of isolated caprine preantral follicles and (2) to analyze the efficiency of two IVM media and maturation culture systems (with or without coculture with in vivo grown oocytes) on the meiosis resumption. Secondary follicles were cultured for 18 days in a basic medium supplemented with low- or high-insulin concentration alone or with a fixed FSH concentration or with increasing FSH concentrations. Oocytes grown in vivo or in vitro were matured alone or cocultured. The high-insulin concentration associated with fixed FSH treatment had higher meiotic resumption rate (P < 0.05) and was the only treatment capable of producing oocytes in metaphase II. The rates of germinal vesicle, germinal vesicle breakdown, metaphase I, metaphase II (MII), meiotic resumption, and oocyte diameter were similar between the maturation media. In conclusion, a basic medium supplemented with 10-mu g/mL insulin and 100-mu g/mL FSH throughout the culture period improved meiotic resumption rate and produced MII oocytes from caprine pre antral follicles cultured in vitro. The MII rate was similar between in vivo and in vitro grown oocytes >110 mu m. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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