The dynamic epigenetic program in male germ cells: Its role in spermatogenesis, testis cancer, and its response to the environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spermatogenesis is a truly remarkable process that requires exquisite control and synchronization of germ cell development. It is prone to frequent error, as paternal infertility contributes to 30-50% of all infertility cases; yet, in many cases, the mechanisms underlying its causes are unknown. Strikingly, aberrant epigenetic profiles, in the form of anomalous DNA and histone modifications, are characteristic of cancerous testis cells. Germ cell development is a critical period during which epigenetic patterns are established and maintained. The progression from diploid spermatogonia to haploid spermatozoa involves stage- and testis-specific gene expression, mitotic and meiotic division, and the histone-protamine transition. All are postulated to engender unique epigenetic controls. In support of this idea are the findings that mouse models with gene deletions for epigenetic modifiers have severely compromised fertility. Underscoring the importance of understanding how epigenetic marks are set and interpreted is evidence that abnormal epigenetic programming of gametes and embryos contributes to heritable instabilities in subsequent generations. Numerous studies have documented the existence of transgenerational consequences of maternal nutrition, or other environmental exposures, but it is only now recognized that there are sex-specific male-line transgenerational responses in humans and other species. Epigenetic events in the testis have just begun to be studied. New work on the function of specific histone modifications, chromatin modifiers, DNA methylation, and the impact of the environment on developing sperm suggests that the correct setting of the epigenome is required for male reproductive health and the prevention of paternal disease transmission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".