Binder of sperm 1 and epididymal sperm binding protein 1 are associated with different bull sperm subpopulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, we showed that binder of sperm 1 (BSP1) and epididymal sperm binding protein 1 (ELSPBP1) proteins are more abundant in the immotile bovine sperm subpopulation following cryopreservation. In this study, we investigated the association of BSP1 and ELSPBP1 with sperm in relation to their ability to survive the cryopreservation process. Fresh and cryopreserved semen samples from the same ejaculate collected from nine Holstein bulls were incubated with a fixable viability probe, fixed and permeabilised and then immunolabelled with rabbit anti-BSP1, rabbit anti-ELSPBP1 or rabbit IgG as negative control. Spermatozoa were then incubated with Alexa 488-conjugated secondary antibody and Hoechst 33342. For each sample, 10 000 'Hoechst positive' events were analysed by flow cytometry. Alternatively, sperm populations were obtained by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. In freshly ejaculated live sperm, two distinct BSP1 detection patterns were revealed: a first population where BSP1 is present along the flagellar region (P1 subpopulation) and a second population where BSP1 is localised on both the flagellar and the acrosomal regions (P3 subpopulation). The dead population presented a BSP1 distribution similar to P3 but with a more intense fluorescence signal (P4 subpopulation). In the corresponding cryopreserved samples, all sperm in the P3 subpopulation were dead while only a small proportion of the P1 subpopulation was dead (P2 subpopulation). ELSPBP1 was detected only in dead spermatozoa and in comparable proportions in both freshly ejaculated and cryopreserved semen. These results show that the presence of BSP1 over the acrosomal region characterises spermatozoa sensitive to cryopreservation and that ELSPBP1 characterises spermatozoa that are already dead at ejaculation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".