Chicken sperm transcriptome profiling by microarray analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been confirmed that mammalian sperm contain thousands of functional RNAs, and some of them have vital roles in fertilization and early embryonic development. Therefore, we attempted to characterize transcriptome of the sperm of fertile chickens using microarray analysis. Spermatozoal RNA was pooled from 10 fertile males and used for RNA preparation. Prior to performing the microarray, RNA quality was assessed using a bioanalyzer, and gDNA and somatic cell RNA contamination was assessed by CD4 and PTPRC gene amplification. The chicken sperm transcriptome was cross-examined by analysing sperm and testes RNA on a 4 × 44K chicken array, and results were verified by RT-PCR. Microarray analysis identified 21,639 predominantly nuclear-encoded transcripts in chicken sperm. The majority (66.55%) of the sperm transcripts were shared with the testes, while surprisingly, 33.45% transcripts were detected (raw signal intensity greater than 50) only in the sperm and not in the testes. The greatest proportion of up-regulated transcripts were responsible for signal transduction (63.20%) followed by embryonic development (56.76%) and cell structure (56.25%). Of the 20 most abundant transcripts, 18 remain uncharacterized, whereas the least abundant genes were mostly associated with the ribosome. These findings lay a foundation for more detailed investigations on sperm RNAs in chickens to identify sperm-based biomarkers for fertility.
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 | 0.001 |
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".