Protein composition of human epididymosomes collected during surgical vasectomy reversal: a proteomic and genomic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The epididymal epithelium secretes membranous vesicles, called epididymosomes, with which a complex mixture of proteins is associated. These vesicles transfer to spermatozoa selected proteins involved in sperm maturation. Epididymosomes in the human excurrent duct have been described, but their protein composition and possible functions are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Epididymosomes were collected during vasovasostomy procedures, purified and submitted to liquid chromatography with hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. From all the mass spectra generated, 1022 peptides allowed the identification of 146 different proteins. Identification of some of these proteins was confirmed by western blots. Furthermore, western blot showed that the protein composition of epididymosomes differed from that characterizing prostasomes; membranous vesicles secreted by the prostate. Organization of the epididymosomes proteome according to common functional features suggests that epididymosomes have multiple functions. In order to understand the origin of epididymosomes collected distally, microarray databases of caput, corpus and cauda epididymidis were analysed to determine where along the excurrent duct the encoded proteins associated to epididymosomes are synthesised. Results suggest that some proteins synthesized in the caput and corpus epididymidis are associated with epididymosomes collected distally. CONCLUSIONS: Epididymosomes thus transit along the excurrent duct, and vesicles collected distally represent a mixed population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".