Association of the developing acrosome with multiple small Golgi units, the Golgi satellites, in spermatids of the musk shrew, Suncus murinus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spermatozoa of the musk shrew, Suncus murinus, have a fan-like giant acrosome with a diameter of approximately 20 mm. The aim of this study was to investigate how this giant acrosome is constructed in the musk shrew spermatid and, in particular, how the Golgi apparatus involved in acrosome formation behaves. The behaviour of the Golgi apparatus was monitored by confocal laser scanning microscopy with antibody against a Golgi-associated Rab6 small GTPase. In the early Golgi phase, small Golgi units, the Golgi satellites, localized as a large aggregate in the juxtanuclear cytoplasm. As acrosome formation progressed, the Golgi satellites gradually dispersed, associated with proacrosomal vesicles and an acrosomal vesicle, and finally became distributed as multiple small units over the whole surface of an acrosomal cap in the round spermatid. The mode of acrosome formation in musk shrews was distinctly different from that in rats and mice, in which the Golgi apparatus remains as a single unit throughout acrosome formation. In musk shrews, the proacrosomal vesicles formed successively by the Golgi satellites coalesced, one after another, into a potential acrosomal vesicle. This process may result in further enlargement of the acrosome. The results of the present study indicate that Golgi satellites are necessary for the biogenesis and development of the giant acrosome in musk shrew spermatozoa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".