2016
DOI: 10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n5p3189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of follicular diameter, time of first cleavage and H3K4 methylation on embryo production rates of Bos indicus cattle

Abstract: This study aimed investigate the relationship between epigenetics, follicular diameter and cleavage speed, by evaluating the developmental potential and occurence of H3K4 monomethylation of early-, intermediate-and late-cleaving Bos indicus embryos from in vitro fertilized oocytes originating from follicles up to 2 mm in diameter or between 4 and 8 mm in diameter. Oocytes (n = 699) from small follicles (≤ 2 mm) and 639 oocytes from large follicles (4-8 mm) were punched from 1,982 Bos indicus' slaughterhouse ov… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 34 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Perhaps these vital roles of cysteamine are the main reason for the low rates of arrest presented in our study (Table 3), specifically in embryos resulting from oocytes that have been matured in B medium (LF group). In general, the results of the current study related to the rates of cleavage and blastocyst stage can be compared with the results of some studies (Lojkić et al 2016;Shabankareh et al 2015;Muasa 2010;Lunardelli et al 2016;Merton et al 2013;Shabankareh & Zandi 2010;Ranjbar et al 2018) summarized in Table 5 according to the studied factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Perhaps these vital roles of cysteamine are the main reason for the low rates of arrest presented in our study (Table 3), specifically in embryos resulting from oocytes that have been matured in B medium (LF group). In general, the results of the current study related to the rates of cleavage and blastocyst stage can be compared with the results of some studies (Lojkić et al 2016;Shabankareh et al 2015;Muasa 2010;Lunardelli et al 2016;Merton et al 2013;Shabankareh & Zandi 2010;Ranjbar et al 2018) summarized in Table 5 according to the studied factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%