Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31949175›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Amniotic microvesicles impact hatching and pregnancy percentages of in vitro bovine embryos and blastocyst microRNA expression versus in vivo controls.

Anna Lange-Consiglio, Barbara Lazzari, Flavia Pizzi, Antonella Idda, Fausto Cremonesi, Emanuele Capra

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Extracellular vesicles: key mediators inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Bovine embryo productionAnimal reproduction · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Lange-ConsiglioUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Milano, Italy. anna.langeconsiglio@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7748-3413
Barbara LazzariIstituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche IBBA CNR, Lodi, Italy.
Flavia PizziIstituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche IBBA CNR, Lodi, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5076-0265
Antonella IddaUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Milano, Italy.
Fausto CremonesiUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Milano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8399-4626
Emanuele CapraIstituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche IBBA CNR, Lodi, Italy.
Istituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryo development and implantation are dynamic processes, responsive to external signals, and can potentially be influenced by many environmental factors. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of a culture medium supplemented with amniotic-derived microvesicles (MVs) on in vitro embryo hatching after cryopreservation, and pregnancy rate following embryo transfer. In addition, miRNA profiling of blastocysts produced in vitro, with or without (control; CTR) amniotic MV supplementation, was also evaluated using blastocysts produced in vivo. In vitro embryos were cultured with and without amniotic MV supplementation. In vivo blastocysts were obtained from superovulated cows. Samples for RNA isolation were obtained from three pools of 10 embryos each (in vivo, in vitro-CTR and in vitro + MVs). Our results show that the hatching percentage of cryopreserved in vitro + MVs embryos is higher (P < 0.05) than in vitro-CTR embryos and the pregnancy rate with fresh and cryopreserved in vitro + MVs embryos is higher than in vitro-CTR embryos. In addition, the analysis of differently expressed (DE) microRNAs showed that embryos produced in vivo are clearly different from those produced in vitro. Moreover, in vitro-CTR and in vitro + MVs embryos differ significantly for expression of two miRNAs that were found in higher concentrations in in vitro-CTR embryos. Interestingly, these two miRNAs were also reported in degenerated bovine embryos compared to good quality blastocysts. In conclusion, MV addition during in vitro production of embryos seems to counteract the adverse effect of in vitro culture and partially modulate the expression of specific miRNAs involved in successful embryo implantation.

Indexed as

AmnionAnimalsBlastocystCattleCell-Derived MicroparticlesCryopreservationCulture MediaEmbryo Culture TechniquesEmbryo TransferFemaleGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalMicroRNAsPregnancyPregnancy RateCulture MediaMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID31949175
PMCPMC6965648
OpenAlexW3000427990

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.