Dietary fatty acids affect semen quality: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian spermatozoa are characterized by a high proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) which play a crucial role in fertilization. This review focuses on analysis of sperm fatty acid profiles and the effects of omega-3, saturated and trans dietary and sperm fatty acids on sperm parameters. Two major points have been pivotal points of investigation in the field of sperm fatty acid profiles: first, the comparison between fatty acid profiles of fertile and infertile men and second, the effect of dietary fatty acids on sperm fatty acid profiles as well as sperm quality and quantity. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, C22:6n-3), and palmitic acid (C16:0) are the predominant PUFA and saturated fatty acids, respectively, in human sperm cells. Higher levels of DHA are concentrated on the sperm's head or tail varying among different species. However, the human sperm head contains a higher concentration of DHA. Dietary fatty acids influence on sperm fatty acid profiles and it seems that sperm fatty acid profiles are most sensitive to dietary omega-3 PUFA. Although improvements in sperm parameters are a response to omega-3 sources after more than 4 weeks of supplementation in the male diet, time-dependent and dose-dependent responses may explain the failure in some experiments. In human spermatozoa, elevated saturated or trans fatty acid concentration and a low DHA level is a concern. The regulations of the sperm fatty acid mean melting point as well as expression regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG) alongside with spermatozoon assembly, anti-apoptosis effects, eicosanoid formation, and hormone activity are the putative key factors that induce a response by inclusion of omega-3 PUFA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".