MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003783679 · doi:10.1577/a06-094.1

Effect of Seminal Plasma Protein on Postthaw Viability and Fertility of Arctic Char Spermatozoa

2008· article· en· W2003783679 on OpenAlexaff
Nabil Mansour, G.F. Richardson, M.A. McNiven

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyArctic charFertilitySemenAndrologyCharZoologyGeneticsDemographySalvelinusFisheryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seminal plasma protein of Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus was characterized using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) gel electrophoresis. Twelve protein bands with molecular weights of 7.2, 12.4, 15.3, 20.0, 20.4, 22.6, 39.4, 66.3, 74.0, 92.0, 94.5, and 130.1 kilodaltons (kDa) were detected. The effect of total seminal plasma protein and protein fractions of three categories (<50, 50–100, and >100 kDa) on postthaw sperm motility, viability, and fertility was tested. Incorporation of total seminal plasma protein, the fraction greater than 100 kDa, or the fraction less than 50 kDa into the semen extender (300 mmol of glucose/L of water, plus 10% methanol) had a deleterious effect on postthaw sperm motility, viability, and fertility in comparison with spermatozoa frozen in the semen extender only. However, adding the 50-100-kDa fraction of seminal plasma protein to the semen extender did not affect the postthaw sperm motility and fertility relative to spermatozoa frozen in the extender only. Further experiments are needed to test the effect of different concentrations of seminal plasma proteins alone or in a combination with other seminal plasma constituents on sperm physiology and viability during short-term storage and cryopreservation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207