ArticleJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research2024
Modification of cryoprotectants on sperm cryopreservation: A study of embryo development.
Article in Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of the Vesicular Fraction of Donor Semen Plasma on the Expression of AURKA and KLHL10 Genes in Cryopreserved Spermatozoa.Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing cryopreservation performance in semen quality of Bali bulls (Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026Article
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
Objective: This research was conducted to analyze the effect of cryopreservation of sperm using modified cryoprotectants on embryo development through Materials and Methods: Several parameters, namely sperm concentration, motility, morphology, plasma membrane integrity, cryo-survival rate, and viability rate, were measured and compared before vitrification and warming. Embryo development was also observed on the first and third days of development based on the cell number, cell size, and fragmentation rate. Results: Sperm cryopreservation exhibited a negative influence on embryo quality. Both Nakagata cryoprotectants and modified cryoprotectants attained good-quality embryos. In terms of embryonic development, this research revealed a modified cryoprotectant superior to Nakagata's cryoprotectant, although Kitazato was superior to the Nakagata cryoprotectant and modified cryoprotectant. Significant differences were found in the three cryoprotectants on observations on day 1 and day 3, all of them with Conclusion: Modified cryoprotectant was found to be better than Nakagata but less significant than Kitazato in terms of embryonic development quality. Therefore, modified cryoprotectants could be a better alternative compared to commercial (Kitazato) cryoprotectants for improving embryo quality.
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.