Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ LAReferencia - Red F...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Sobrevivencia de blastocistos bovinos in vitro en dos métodos de criopreservación

Authors: Oriundo Núñez, Katherine Patricia;

Sobrevivencia de blastocistos bovinos in vitro en dos métodos de criopreservación

Abstract

El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar, entre los métodos de criopreservación de congelación convencional y vitrificación, el que asegure una mayor tasa de sobrevivencia de blastocistos bovinos producidos in vitro, evaluando: 1) porcentaje de recuperación de blastocistos post descongelación, 2) porcentaje de re- expansión de bastocistos descongelados. Para la producción de blastocistos, los ovocitos fueron madurados , fertilizadas y cultivadas in vitro a 38 ºC con 5% CO2; los blastocistos obtenidos se asignaron aleatoriamente a los métodos de criopreservación . La tasa de recuperación de embriones post criopreservación fue de 92.31 % por el método de congelación convencional, y 77.55 % por vitrificación, siendo esta diferencia significativa entre los métodos (p< 0,05); estas diferencias posiblemente se deban a la facilidad de manejo de los dispositivos. Para la evaluación de la tasa de re expansión los embriones criopreservados fueron cultivados en IVC, en una atmósfera compuesta por 5 % de CO2, 90% humedad a 38 °C, durante 3 horas. Reexpandieron un 43.75 % de embriones congelados y un 26.32 % de embriones vitrificados, siendo esta diferencia no significativa (p<0.05). Se determinó que ambos métodos de criopreservación disminuyeron la calidad embrionaria post descongelación.

The objective of the present study was to determine, among conventional freezing and vitrification cryopreservation methods, the one that ensures a higher survival rate of bovine blastocysts produced in vitro, evaluating: 1) recovery percentage of blastocysts post thawing, 2) percentage of re-expansion of thawed bastocysts. For the production of blastocysts, the oocytes were matured, fertilized and cultured in vitro at 38 ° C with 5% CO2; the obtained blastocysts were randomly assigned to cryopreservation methods. The rate of recovery of embryos after cryopreservation was 92.31% by the conventional freezing method, and 77.55% by vitrification, this difference being significant among the methods (p <0.05); These differences are possibly due to the ease of handling of the devices. For the evaluation of the re-expansion rate, cryopreserved embryos were cultured in IVC, in an atmosphere composed of 5% CO2, 90% humidity at 38 ° C, for 3 hours. They reexpanded 43.75% of frozen embryos and 26.32% of vitrified embryos, this difference being not significant (p <0.05). It was determined that both cryopreservation methods decreased embryo quality after thawing.

Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. Escuela de Posgrado. Maestría en Producción Animal

Tesis

Keywords

Criopreservación, Supervivencia, Evaluación, Descongelación, Sobrevivencia, Métodos, Transferencia térmica, Vitrificación, Blastocitos bovinos, Ganado bovino, Perú, Experimentación in vitro, https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#4.04.01, Embriones animales, Congelación

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green