4.5 Article

Ganglioside GM1 Mediates Decapacitation Effects of SVS2 on Murine Spermatozoa

期刊

BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION
卷 79, 期 6, 页码 1153-1159

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.108.069054

关键词

decapacitation factor; female reproductive tract; fertilization; ganglioside GM1; mouse; seminal vesicles; signal transduction; sperm; sperm capacitation; SVS2

资金

  1. MEXT
  2. JSPS (KAKENHI) [19370028, 19037012, 19045008]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19037012, 19370028, 19045008] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior to fertilization, mammalian spermatozoa need to acquire fertilizing ability (capacitation) in the female reproductive tract. On the other hand, capacitated spermatozoa reversibly lose their capacitated state when treated with seminal plasma (decapacitation). Previously, we demonstrated that a mouse seminal plasma protein, SVS2, is a decapacitation factor and regulates sperm fertilizing ability in vivo. Here, we examined the mechanisms of regulation of fertilizing ability by SVS2. Capacitation appears to be mediated by dynamic changes in lipid rafts since release of the cholesterol components of lipid rafts in the sperm plasma membrane is indispensable for capacitation. When the ejaculated spermatozoa were stained with a cholera toxin subunit B (CTB) that preferably interacts with ganglioside GM1, another member of the lipid rafts, the staining pattern of the sperm was the same as the binding pattern of SVS2. Interestingly, SVS2 and CTB competitively bound to the sperm surface with each other, suggesting that the binding targets of both molecules are the same, that is, GM1. Molecular interaction studies by the overlay assay and the quartz crystal microbalance analysis revealed that SVS2 selectively interacts with GM1 rather than with other gangliosides. Furthermore, external addition of GM1 nullified SVS2-induced sperm decapacitation. Thus, ganglioside GM1 is a receptor of SVS2 and plays a crucial role in capacitation in vivo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据