The Experts below are selected from a list of 90027 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David K Gardner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted Human Reproduction
Human Reproduction Update, 2016Co-Authors: Petra L Wale, David K GardnerAbstract:Although laboratory procedures, along with culture media formulations, have improved over the past two decades, the issue remains that Human IVF is performed in vitro (literally 'in glass').Using PubMed, electronic searches were performed using keywords from a list of chemical and physical factors with no limits placed on time. Examples of keywords include oxygen, ammonium, volatile organics, temperature, pH, oil overlays and incubation volume/embryo density. Available clinical and scientific evidence surrounding physical and chemical factors have been assessed and presented here.Development of the embryo outside the body means that it is constantly exposed to stresses that it would not experience in vivo. Sources of stress on the Human embryo include identified factors such as pH and temperature shifts, exposure to atmospheric (20%) oxygen and the build-up of toxins in the media due to the static nature of culture. However, there are other sources of stress not typically considered, such as the act of pipetting itself, or the release of organic compounds from the very tissue culture ware upon which the embryo develops. Further, when more than one stress is present in the laboratory, there is evidence that negative synergies can result, culminating in significant trauma to the developing embryo. It is evident that embryos are sensitive to both chemical and physical signals within their microenvironment, and that these factors play a significant role in influencing development and events post transfer. From the viewpoint of assisted Human Reproduction, a major concern with chemical and physical factors lies in their adverse effects on the viability of embryos, and their long-term effects on the fetus, even as a result of a relatively brief exposure. This review presents data on the adverse effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryos and the importance of identifying, and thereby minimizing, them in the practice of Human IVF. Hence, optimizing the in vitro environment involves far more than improving culture media formulations.
-
the effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted Human Reproduction
Human Reproduction Update, 2016Co-Authors: Petra L Wale, David K GardnerAbstract:Background Although laboratory procedures, along with culture media formulations, have improved over the past two decades, the issue remains that Human IVF is performed in vitro (literally 'in glass'). Methods Using PubMed, electronic searches were performed using keywords from a list of chemical and physical factors with no limits placed on time. Examples of keywords include oxygen, ammonium, volatile organics, temperature, pH, oil overlays and incubation volume/embryo density. Available clinical and scientific evidence surrounding physical and chemical factors have been assessed and presented here. Results and conclusions Development of the embryo outside the body means that it is constantly exposed to stresses that it would not experience in vivo. Sources of stress on the Human embryo include identified factors such as pH and temperature shifts, exposure to atmospheric (20%) oxygen and the build-up of toxins in the media due to the static nature of culture. However, there are other sources of stress not typically considered, such as the act of pipetting itself, or the release of organic compounds from the very tissue culture ware upon which the embryo develops. Further, when more than one stress is present in the laboratory, there is evidence that negative synergies can result, culminating in significant trauma to the developing embryo. It is evident that embryos are sensitive to both chemical and physical signals within their microenvironment, and that these factors play a significant role in influencing development and events post transfer. From the viewpoint of assisted Human Reproduction, a major concern with chemical and physical factors lies in their adverse effects on the viability of embryos, and their long-term effects on the fetus, even as a result of a relatively brief exposure. This review presents data on the adverse effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryos and the importance of identifying, and thereby minimizing, them in the practice of Human IVF. Hence, optimizing the in vitro environment involves far more than improving culture media formulations.
Petra L Wale - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted Human Reproduction
Human Reproduction Update, 2016Co-Authors: Petra L Wale, David K GardnerAbstract:Although laboratory procedures, along with culture media formulations, have improved over the past two decades, the issue remains that Human IVF is performed in vitro (literally 'in glass').Using PubMed, electronic searches were performed using keywords from a list of chemical and physical factors with no limits placed on time. Examples of keywords include oxygen, ammonium, volatile organics, temperature, pH, oil overlays and incubation volume/embryo density. Available clinical and scientific evidence surrounding physical and chemical factors have been assessed and presented here.Development of the embryo outside the body means that it is constantly exposed to stresses that it would not experience in vivo. Sources of stress on the Human embryo include identified factors such as pH and temperature shifts, exposure to atmospheric (20%) oxygen and the build-up of toxins in the media due to the static nature of culture. However, there are other sources of stress not typically considered, such as the act of pipetting itself, or the release of organic compounds from the very tissue culture ware upon which the embryo develops. Further, when more than one stress is present in the laboratory, there is evidence that negative synergies can result, culminating in significant trauma to the developing embryo. It is evident that embryos are sensitive to both chemical and physical signals within their microenvironment, and that these factors play a significant role in influencing development and events post transfer. From the viewpoint of assisted Human Reproduction, a major concern with chemical and physical factors lies in their adverse effects on the viability of embryos, and their long-term effects on the fetus, even as a result of a relatively brief exposure. This review presents data on the adverse effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryos and the importance of identifying, and thereby minimizing, them in the practice of Human IVF. Hence, optimizing the in vitro environment involves far more than improving culture media formulations.
-
the effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted Human Reproduction
Human Reproduction Update, 2016Co-Authors: Petra L Wale, David K GardnerAbstract:Background Although laboratory procedures, along with culture media formulations, have improved over the past two decades, the issue remains that Human IVF is performed in vitro (literally 'in glass'). Methods Using PubMed, electronic searches were performed using keywords from a list of chemical and physical factors with no limits placed on time. Examples of keywords include oxygen, ammonium, volatile organics, temperature, pH, oil overlays and incubation volume/embryo density. Available clinical and scientific evidence surrounding physical and chemical factors have been assessed and presented here. Results and conclusions Development of the embryo outside the body means that it is constantly exposed to stresses that it would not experience in vivo. Sources of stress on the Human embryo include identified factors such as pH and temperature shifts, exposure to atmospheric (20%) oxygen and the build-up of toxins in the media due to the static nature of culture. However, there are other sources of stress not typically considered, such as the act of pipetting itself, or the release of organic compounds from the very tissue culture ware upon which the embryo develops. Further, when more than one stress is present in the laboratory, there is evidence that negative synergies can result, culminating in significant trauma to the developing embryo. It is evident that embryos are sensitive to both chemical and physical signals within their microenvironment, and that these factors play a significant role in influencing development and events post transfer. From the viewpoint of assisted Human Reproduction, a major concern with chemical and physical factors lies in their adverse effects on the viability of embryos, and their long-term effects on the fetus, even as a result of a relatively brief exposure. This review presents data on the adverse effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryos and the importance of identifying, and thereby minimizing, them in the practice of Human IVF. Hence, optimizing the in vitro environment involves far more than improving culture media formulations.
Case Report - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Human Reproduction vol.12 no.5 pp.1103–1105, 1997
2016Co-Authors: Case ReportAbstract:A case of pregnancy in a woman with cloacal dysgenesis and a rudimentary uterine horn Y.Hamai1,3, T.Fujii1, M.Iwasaki2, E.Muronosono2 graphy showed a normal-sized uterus with thickened endo-metrium and a hen-egg sized mass in the left adnexal regionand Y.Taketani1 with little peritoneal effusion. Her urinary Human chorionic1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, gonadotrophin (HCG) titre was 8000 IU/l and her bloodUniversity of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, and haemoglobin concentration (8.8 g/dl at her first visit) fell2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital, Ibaraki, 309–17 Japan rapidly 3 days later (6.0 g/dl). The presumptive diagnosis was an ectopic pregnancy of 10 weeks duration. Laparotomy3To whom correspondence should be addressed revealed a hen-egg sized elastic and well-delineated mass Cloacal dysgenesis is frequently associated with uterine (4 cm in diameter) without blood effusion in the cul-de-sac anomalies. We report a case of pregnancy which resulted space. The uterus and the right Fallopian tube appeared normal. in an abortion in a woman with a persistent cloaca. We performed resection of the mass and the left ovary. Presumptive diagnosis before operation was ectopic preg- Endometrial curettage through the neoconstructed anorectum nancy of the left tube. Postoperatively, the site of implanta- yielded decidua-like tissues. The mass, seemingly an ampullary tion of the conceptus was found to be the cavity of a part of the left Fallopian tube, was pathologically diagnose
-
Human Reproduction vol.11 no.2 pp.334-335, 1996
2016Co-Authors: Case Report, Outi Hovatta, Ilkka Reima, Tarja Butzow, Kristine Johansson, Karl Von SmittenAbstract:Vas deferens aspiration and intracytoplasmie injection of frozen-thawed spermatozoa in a case of anejaculation in a diabetic ma
-
Human Reproduction vol.11 no.2 pp.28O-282, 1996
2016Co-Authors: Case Report, U. Btischer, W. LichteneggerAbstract:Internal jugular vein thrombosis caused by resistance to activated protein C as a complication of ovarian hyperstimulation after in-vitro fertilizatio
-
Human Reproduction vol.13 no.3 pp.573–575, 1998
2015Co-Authors: Case Report, D. De Jong, N. S. Macklon, B. M. J. L. Mannaerts, H. Coelingh J. T. Bennink, B. C. J. M. FauserAbstract:High dose gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (ganirelix) may prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome caused by ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilizatio
-
Human Reproduction vol.14 no.5 pp.1324–1327, 1999
2014Co-Authors: Case Report, Hiroaki Shibahara, Mizumi Mitsuo, Kazuya Fujimoto, Jyunko Muranaka, Hideaki Sawai, Takefumi Bessho, Minoru Shigeta, Koji KoyamaAbstract:Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of a fetal renal mesoblastic nephroma occurring after transfer of a cryopreserved embry
William F. Crowley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The puzzles of the prokineticin 2 pathway in Human Reproduction.
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 2011Co-Authors: Ravikumar Balasubramanian, Qunyong Zhou, Lacey Plummer, Yisrael Sidis, Nelly Pitteloud, Cecilia Martin, William F. CrowleyAbstract:Abstract Prokineticin, 1 (PROK1) and prokineticin 2 (PROK2), are two closely related proteins that were identified as the mammalian homologs of their two amphibian homologs, mamba intestinal toxin (MIT-1) and Bv8. MIT-1 was initially identified as a non-toxic constituent in the venom of the black mamba snake (Dendroaspis polylepis) ( Joubert and Strydom, 1980 ) while Bv8 was identified in the skin secretion of the toad, Bombina variegate ( Mollay et al., 1999 ). All three homologs stimulate gastrointestinal motility thus accounting for their family name “prokineticins” ( Schweitz et al., 1990 , Schweitz et al., 1999 ). However, since its initial description, both PROK1 and PROK2 have been found to regulate a dazzling array of biological functions throughout the body. In particular, PROK1 acts as a potent angiogenic mitogen on endocrine vascular epithelium, thus earning its other name, Endocrine gland–vascular endothelial factor (EG–VEGF) ( LeCouter et al., 2002 ). In contrast, the PROK2 signaling pathway is a critical regulator of olfactory bulb morphogenesis and sexual maturation in mammals and this function is the focus of this review.
Ravikumar Balasubramanian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The puzzles of the prokineticin 2 pathway in Human Reproduction.
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 2011Co-Authors: Ravikumar Balasubramanian, Qunyong Zhou, Lacey Plummer, Yisrael Sidis, Nelly Pitteloud, Cecilia Martin, William F. CrowleyAbstract:Abstract Prokineticin, 1 (PROK1) and prokineticin 2 (PROK2), are two closely related proteins that were identified as the mammalian homologs of their two amphibian homologs, mamba intestinal toxin (MIT-1) and Bv8. MIT-1 was initially identified as a non-toxic constituent in the venom of the black mamba snake (Dendroaspis polylepis) ( Joubert and Strydom, 1980 ) while Bv8 was identified in the skin secretion of the toad, Bombina variegate ( Mollay et al., 1999 ). All three homologs stimulate gastrointestinal motility thus accounting for their family name “prokineticins” ( Schweitz et al., 1990 , Schweitz et al., 1999 ). However, since its initial description, both PROK1 and PROK2 have been found to regulate a dazzling array of biological functions throughout the body. In particular, PROK1 acts as a potent angiogenic mitogen on endocrine vascular epithelium, thus earning its other name, Endocrine gland–vascular endothelial factor (EG–VEGF) ( LeCouter et al., 2002 ). In contrast, the PROK2 signaling pathway is a critical regulator of olfactory bulb morphogenesis and sexual maturation in mammals and this function is the focus of this review.