4.7 Article

PFOA evokes extracellular Ca2+ influx and compromises progesterone-induced response in human sperm

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 241, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125074

Keywords

Perfluorooctane acid; Reproductive toxicity; Sperm; Progesterone; Calcium

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81560248]
  2. Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation [20161BAB205208]
  3. Postgraduate Innovation Fund Project of Nanchang University [cx2016364]
  4. Empire State Stem Cell Fund through New York State Department of Health [C30293GG]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Perfluorooctane acid (PFOA), a persistent organic pollutant, is ubiquitously present in the environment and may detrimentally affect male reproductive health. In this study, mature human sperm were in vitro exposed to different concentrations of PFOA (0.25, 2.5 or 25 mu g/ml) alone or in combination with progesterone (P4) to evaluate the toxicity and the potential mechanism of action. Exposure to high-dose PFOA (25 mu g/ml) alone for 4 h caused a decline in capacity of human spermatozoa to penetrate synthetic mucus, with an increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Furthermore, PFOA treatment (2.5 and 25 mu g/ml) evoked a transient rise in intracellular calcium concentration [Ca2+](i) by activating the sperm-specific CatSper channel. However, preincubation with PFOA (2.5-25 mu g/ml) for 4 h significantly suppressed P4-stimulated extracellular Ca2+ influx in human spermatozoa. Moreover, PFOA pretreatment at all concentrations evaluated markedly compromised P4-induced acrosome reaction and sperm penetration into viscous medium. Taken together, these results suggest that PFOA exposure may impair human sperm function through inducing oxidative stress and disturbing P4-induced Ca2+ signaling. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available