4.7 Article

Computer-assisted motility analysis of spermatozoa obtained after spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in the mouse

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 1411-1416

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.035

关键词

motility; vitality; spermatogenesis; spermatozoa; transplantation

资金

  1. Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (Brussels, Belgium)
  2. Brussels Free University [318]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study the motility characteristics of epididymal spermatozoa after spermatogonial stem cell transplantation. Design: Testicular cells from fertile donor mice were transplanted to the testis of genetically sterile recipient mice. Three to nine months later, the epididymal spermatozoa were isolated and used for a computer-assisted sperm motility analysis. Spermatozoa from fertile adult mice were used as control. Setting: Murine transplantation model in an academic research environment. Animal(S): Donors, 6-day-old male C57BI x WBRej F1 mice; acceptors, 4- to 6-week-old W/W-v mice of the same genetic background. Intervention(S): Two to 10 mu L from a 30-million/mL testicular cell suspension was injected through the efferent duct in the rete testis. Main Outcome Measure(s): Vitality, concentration, motility, individual sperm movement, and hyperactivity of the spermatozoa. Result(s): Vitality was comparable between the two groups; the concentration, motility, and hyperactivity of post-transplantation spermatozoa were significantly reduced. The movement pattern of the individual spermatozoon was normal at the time of isolation but decreased more rapidly during in vitro culture, compared with the case in controls. This difference already had reached a significant level 3 hours after culture, which is comparable with the duration of an IVF procedure. Conclusion(s): The reduced fertilization rate after IVF can thus be explained by a lower number of motile spermatozoa and the faster decrease of the individual sperm movement parameters.

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

4.7
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