ArticleBiomolecules2026
Metabolic Comparison of Mature and Immature Bovine Cumulus-Oocyte Complexes with Standardization of Bioenergetic Assessment.
Article in Biomolecules, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This study compared the bioenergetic profiles of immature and in vitro-matured bovine cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) using Seahorse extracellular flux technology, with the aim of establishing standardized conditions for real-time metabolic assessment during in vitro maturation (IVM). Groups of five COCs were analysed prior to maturation and after 22 h of IVM using the Seahorse XFp Analyzer to measure oxygen consumption rate (OCR, pmoL/min) and extracellular acidification rate (ECAR, mpH/min), providing dynamic readouts of oxidative phosphorylation and glycolysis that extend beyond conventional endpoint assays. To optimize assay performance, three media were first evaluated: TCM199, DMEM/F12, and HEPES-buffered synthetic oviductal fluid (HSOF). HSOF yielded the most reliable readings for immature COCs, whereas TCM199 provided superior conditions for mature COCs. Adhesion strategies were then tested by comparing uncoated wells with wells coated with fibronectin, concanavalin A, or Matrigel
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.