ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Redefining safety standards: a large-scale comparative analysis of bovine versus murine models for medical device embryotoxicity testing.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
purposeTo overcome the limited sensitivity of the standard mouse embryo assay (MEA) for embryotoxicity screening of assisted reproduction devices and to assess the bovine embryo assay (BEA) as a suitable alternative.
methodsIn a large comparative laboratory study, sperm selection, fertilization, and embryo culture media from two suppliers (Vitrolife and Genea Biomedx, respectively) were used to generate bovine blastocysts from cumulus-oocyte complexes obtained from slaughterhouse ovaries and inseminated with frozen semen from the same bull (BEA). Bovine culture media were used for the control group. BEA assessed the following in the three groups: cleavage; blastocyst development and kinetics; post-warming re-expansion/hatching; total cell number; inner cell mass (ICM) and trophectoderm (TE) allocation; and ICM/TE ratio. In parallel, the culture media from both suppliers were tested using mouse cumulus-oocyte complexes that had been inseminated with epididymal sperm (IVF-MEA) and in vivo-derived one-cell embryos (standard MEA).
resultsBEA detected differences consistent with reduced developmental competence and embryo quality across 4118 bovine oocytes (≥ 4 independent cycles; ≥ 50 oocytes/group). Sperm selection media performed similarly. Regarding fertilization media, the bovine control yielded higher day 8 blastocyst rates than Vitrolife (P < 0.005), while Genea Biomedx exhibited superior blastocyst quality indicators than Vitrolife (P < 0.05). For embryo culture media, the bovine control outperformed Genea Biomedx, with Vitrolife performing intermediately (P < 0.05). Multiple kinetic, hatching, first lineage allocation and survival endpoints were reduced for Genea Biomedx (P < 0.05). Standard MEA found no significant differences, whereas IVF-MEA (1028 oocytes) detected a difference in day 4 blastocyst yield only.
conclusionBEA revealed functional and quality differences between media not detected by mouse assays, supporting BEA to strengthen safety assessment while reducing animal sacrifice.
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.