ArticleThe Journal of reproduction and development2015
A comparison of different vitrification devices and the effect of blastocoele collapse on the cryosurvival of in vitro produced porcine embryos.
Article in The Journal of reproduction and development, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Open Cryotop System Is Effective for the Simultaneous Vitrification of a Large Number of Porcine Embryos at Different Developmental Stages.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Cryotolerance of porcine blastocysts is improved by treating in vitro matured oocytes with L-carnitine prior to fertilization.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2017Article
- Vitrification of Rhesus Macaque Mesenchymal Stem Cells and the Effects on Global Gene Expression.Stem cells international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the optimum conditions for vitrifying in vitro produced day 7 porcine embryos using different vitrification devices and blastocoele collapse methods. Firstly embryos were collapsed by micro-pipetting, needle puncture and sucrose with and without conducting vitrification. In the next experiment, non-collapsed embryos were vitrified in an open device using either superfine open-pulled straws (SOPS) or the CryoLoop(TM) system, or vitrified in a closed device using either the CryoTip(TM) or Cryo Bio(TM)'s high security vitrification system (HSV). The post-thaw survival of embryos vitrified in the open devices did not differ significantly (SOPS: 37.3%; CryoLoop(TM): 37.3%) nor did the post-thaw survival of embryos vitrified in the closed devices (CryoTip™: 38.5%; HSV: 42.5%). The re-expansion rate of embryos that were collapsed via micro-pipetting (76.0%) did not differ from those that were punctured (75.0%) or collapsed via sucrose (79.6%) when vitrification was not performed. However, embryos collapsed via sucrose solutions (24.5%) and needle puncture (16.0%) prior to vitrification were significantly less likely to survive vitrification than the control (non-collapsed) embryos (53.6%, P < 0.05). The findings show that both open and closed vitrification devices were equally effective for the vitrification of porcine blastocysts. Collapsing blastocysts prior to vitrification did not improve survival, which is inconsistent with the findings of studies in other species. This may be due to the extremely sensitive nature of porcine embryos, and/or the invasiveness of the collapsing procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.