Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28086947›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2017

Quantifying growing versus non-growing ovarian follicles in the mouse.

Bahar Uslu, Carola Conca Dioguardi, Monique Haynes, De-Qiang Miao, Meltem Kurus, Gloria Hoffman, Joshua Johnson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. TSG FromFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Depletion ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Harnessing the Power of Purple Sweet Potato Color andInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Bahar UsluDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Carola Conca DioguardiDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Monique HaynesDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
De-Qiang MiaoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Meltem KurusDepartment of Histology and Embryology, Izmir Katip Celebi University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Gloria HoffmanDepartment of Biology, Morgan State University, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, 21251, Maryland, USA.
Joshua JohnsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado-Denver, Building RC2, Room P15 3103, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA. joshua.2.johnson@ucdenver.edu.
Yale University · USIzmir Kâtip Çelebi University · TRMorgan State University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USWashington State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA standard histomorphometric approach has been used for nearly 40 years that identifies atretic (e.g., dying) follicles by counting the number of pyknotic granulosa cells (GC) in the largest follicle cross-section. This method holds that if one pyknotic granulosa nucleus is seen in the largest cross section of a primary follicle, or three pyknotic cells are found in a larger follicle, it should be categorized as atretic. Many studies have used these criteria to estimate the fraction of atretic follicles that result from genetic manipulation or environmental insult. During an analysis of follicle development in a mouse model of Fragile X premutation, we asked whether these 'historical' criteria could correctly identify follicles that were not growing (and could thus confirmed to be dying).

methodsReasoning that the fraction of mitotic GC reveals whether the GC population was increasing at the time of sample fixation, we compared the number of pyknotic nuclei to the number of mitotic figures in follicles within a set of age-matched ovaries.

resultsWe found that, by itself, pyknotic nuclei quantification resulted in high numbers of false positives (improperly categorized as atretic) and false negatives (improperly categorized intact). For preantral follicles, scoring mitotic and pyknotic GC nuclei allowed rapid, accurate identification of non-growing follicles with 98% accuracy. This method most often required the evaluation of one follicle section, and at most two serial follicle sections to correctly categorize follicle status. For antral follicles, we show that a rapid evaluation of follicle shape reveals which are intact and likely to survive to ovulation.

conclusionsCombined, these improved, non-arbitrary methods will greatly improve our ability to estimate the fractions of growing/intact and non-growing/atretic follicles in mouse ovaries.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell NucleusDisease Models, AnimalFemaleFollicular AtresiaFragile X SyndromeGranulosa CellsMiceMitosisOvarian FolliclePrimary Ovarian InsufficiencyAtresiaFollicleFragile XHistomorphometric evaluationOocyteOvarian reserveOvaryPremutation

Identifiers

PMID28086947
PMCPMC5237173
OpenAlexW2574224286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.