| Literature DB >> 26848960 |
Francisco Marco-Jiménez1, Estrella Jiménez-Trigos2, Victoria Almela-Miralles1, José Salvador Vicente1.
Abstract
This study was designed to compare the efficiency of the Cryotop and Calibrated plastic inoculation loop (CPIL) devices for vitrification of rabbit embryos on in vitro development and implantation rate, offspring rate at birth and embryonic and fetal losses. CPIL is a simple tool used mainly by microbiologists to retrieve an inoculum from a culture of microorganisms. In experiment 1, embryos were vitrified using a Cryotop device and a CPIL device. There were no significant differences in hatched/hatching blastocyst stage rates after 48 h of culture among the vitrified groups (62 ± 4.7% and 62 ± 4.9%, respectively); however, the rates were significantly lower (P<0.05) than those of the fresh group (95 ± 3.4%). In experiment 2, vitrified embryos were transferred using laparoscopic technique. The number of implanted embryos was estimated by laparoscopy as number of implantation sites at day 14 of gestation. At birth, total offspring were recorded. Embryonic and fetal losses were calculated as the difference between implanted embryos and embryos transferred and total born at birth and implanted embryos, respectively. The rate of implantation and development to term was similar between both vitrification devices (56 ± 7.2% and 50 ± 6.8% for implantation rate and 40 ± 7.1% and 35 ± 6.5% for offspring rate at birth); but significantly lower than in the fresh group (78 ± 6.6% for implantation rate and 70 ± 7.2% for offspring rate at birth, P<0.05). Likewise, embryonic losses were similar between both vitrification devices (44 ± 7.2% and 50 ± 6.8%), but significantly higher than in the fresh group (23 ± 6.6%, P < 0.05). However, fetal losses were similar between groups (10 ± 4.4%, 15 ± 4.8% and 8 ± 4.2%, for vitrified, Cryotop or CPIL and fresh, respectively). These results indicate that the CPIL device is as effective as the Cryotop device for vitrification of rabbit embryos, but at a cost of €0.05 per device.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26848960 PMCID: PMC4743988 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Image shows calibrated plastic inoculation loop and Cryotop devices.
a) Both devices packaged in individual sterilized bag. b) Shows each device with the corresponding covers. c) Detail of the device covers.
Fig 2Details of Calibrated plastic inoculation loop and Cryotop devices.
a) Magnified image shows embryos in the corresponding devices. b) Shows each device with the corresponding covers (asterisks cotton top).
Effect of vitrification device after 48 h of in vitro culture.
| Experimental group | n | Hatching/Hatched Blastocyst rate |
|---|---|---|
| Cryotop | 98 | 62±4.7 |
| Calibrated plastic inoculation loop | 107 | 62±4.9 |
| Fresh | 41 | 95±3.4 |
n: number of embryos.
a,b: Data in the same column with uncommon letters are different (p < 0.05). Data are presented as least squares means ± standard error of the least squares means.
Effect of vitrification device on implantation, offspring at birth and embryonic and fetal losses.
| Experimental group | n | Implantation rate | Offspring at birth rate | Losses rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Embryonic | Fetal | ||||
| Cryotop | 54 | 56±7.2 | 40±7.1 | 44±7.2 | 10±4.4 |
| Calibrated plastic inoculation loop | 48 | 50±6.8 | 35±6.5 | 50±6.8 | 15±4.8 |
| Fresh | 40 | 78±6.6 | 70±7.2 | 23±6.6 | 8±4.2 |
n: number of embryos.
# Calculated as differences between transferred embryos and implanted embryos.
* Calculated as differences between implanted embryos and offspring at birth.
a,b: Data in the same column with uncommon letters are different (p < 0.05). Data are presented as least squares means ± standard error of the least squares means.