4.7 Article

A potential role of knockout serum replacement as a porcine follicular fluid substitute for in vitro maturation: Lipid metabolism approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 233, 期 9, 页码 6984-6995

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.26489

关键词

embryo development; knockout serum replacement; lipid metabolism; oocyte maturation; porcine follicular fluid

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016M3A9B6903410]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of supplements, such as porcine follicular fluid (pFF), fetal bovine serum and human serum albumin are widely used during in vitro maturation (IVM) in different species but these supplements contain undefined components that cause technical difficulties in standardization and influence the efficiency of IVM. Knockout serum replacement (KSR) is a synthetic protein source, without any undefined growth factors or differentiation-promoting factors. Therefore, it is feasible to use KSR as a defined component for avoiding effects of unknown molecules in an IVM system. In this study, the rates of oocyte maturation and blastocyst formation after parthenogenetic activation (PA), somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were significantly higher in the 5% KSR supplemented group than in the unsupplemented control group and more similar to those of the 10% pFF supplemented group. Moreover, the intensity of GDF9, BMP15, ROS, GSH, BODIPY-LD, BODIPY-FA, and BODIPY-ATP staining showed similar values between 5% KSR and 10% pFF, which have significant difference with control group. Most of the gene expression related to lipid metabolism with both supplements exhibited similar patterns. In conclusion, 5% KSR upregulated lipid metabolism and thereby provides an essential energy source to sustain and improve oocyte quality and subsequent embryo development after PA, SCNT, and IVF. These indications support the idea that KSR used as a defined serum supplement for oocyte IVM might be universally used in other species.

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

4.7
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