Human sperm rheotaxis: a passive physical process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long-standing question in natural reproduction is how mammalian sperm navigate inside female reproductive tract and finally reach the egg cell, or oocyte. Recently, fluid flow was proposed as a long-range guidance cue for sperm navigation. Coitus induces fluid flow from oviduct to uterus, and sperm align themselves against the flow direction and swim upstream, a phenomenon termed rheotaxis. Whether sperm rheotaxis is a passive process dominated by fluid mechanics, or sperm actively sense and adapt to fluid flow remains controversial. Here we report the first quantitative study of sperm flagellar motion during human sperm rheotaxis and provide direct evidence indicating that sperm rheotaxis is a passive process. Experimental results show that there is no significant difference in flagellar beating amplitude and asymmetry between rheotaxis-turning sperm and those sperm swimming freely in the absence of fluid flow. Additionally, fluorescence image tracking shows no Ca(2+) influx during sperm rheotaxis turning, further suggesting there is no active signal transduction during human sperm rheotaxis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".