Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21698162›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Zebrafish reproduction: revisiting in vitro fertilization to increase sperm cryopreservation success.

Mary Hagedorn, Virginia L Carter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clonal dynamics deviate from neutral drift in zebrafish spermatogenesis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Optimization of Sperm Management and Fertilization in Zebrafish (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Optimizing Sperm Collection Procedures in Zebrafish.Journal of the South Carolina Academy of Science · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary HagedornSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, United States of America. hagedornm@si.edu
Virginia L Carter
National Zoological Park · USSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute · US

Funding

Development of Germplasm Resources for Preservation of Aquatic ModelsR24RR023998 · NCRR · LOUISIANA STATE UNIV AGRICULTURAL CENTER · PI TIERSCH, TERRENCE ROBERT · 2008 to 2011
$2.3M
NCRR NIH HHS 5R24RR023998NCRR NIH HHS R24 RR023998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although conventional cryopreservation is a proven method for long-term, safe storage of genetic material, protocols used by the zebrafish community are not standardized and yield inconsistent results, thereby putting the security of many genotypes in individual laboratories and stock centers at risk. An important challenge for a successful zebrafish sperm cryopreservation program is the large variability in the post-thaw in vitro fertilization success (0 to 80%). But how much of this variability was due to the reproductive traits of the in vitro fertilization process, and not due to the cryopreservation process? These experiments only assessed the in vitro process with fresh sperm, but yielded the basic metrics needed for successful in vitro fertilization using cryopreserved sperm, as well. We analyzed the reproductive traits for zebrafish males with a strict body condition range. It did not correlate with sperm volume, or motility (P>0.05), but it did correlate with sperm concentration. Younger males produced more concentrated sperm (P<0.05). To minimize the wastage of sperm during the in vitro fertilization process, 10(6) cells/ml was the minimum sperm concentration needed to achieve an in vitro fertilization success of ≥ 70%. During the in vitro process, pooling sperm did not reduce fertilization success (P>0.05), but pooling eggs reduced it by approximately 30 to 50% (P<0.05). This reduction in fertilization success was due not to the pooling of the females' eggs, but to the type of tools used to handle the eggs. Recommendations to enhance the in vitro process for zebrafish include: 1) using males of a body condition closer to 1.5 for maximal sperm concentration; 2) minimizing sperm wastage by using a working sperm concentration of 10(6) motile cells/ml for in vitro fertilization; and 3) never using metal or sharp-edged tools to handle eggs prior to fertilization.

Indexed as

CryopreservationFertilization in VitroAnimalsFemaleMaleSpermatozoaSperm MotilityZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID21698162
PMCPMC3116877
OpenAlexW1980814890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.