MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596479291 · doi:10.1093/biolreprod/81.s1.133

The Effects of Paternal Exposure to Cyclophosphamide on the Rate of Spermatozoal Decondensation and the Patterning of Chromatin Remodeling in Early Postfertilization Zygotes.

2009· article· en· W2596479291 on OpenAlexaff
Lisanne Grenier, Barbara F. Hales, Bernard Robaire

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySpermatozoonChromatinChromatin remodelingZygoteAndrologyOocyteCell biologySpermHistoneEmbryoGeneticsEmbryogenesisDNAMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following fertilization, the entry of the mature spermatozoon triggers the arrested oocyte to complete its second meiotic division; oocyte proteins are activated to induce sperm decondensation. Sperm decondensation is divided into four distinct stages: condensed, type a (partially decondensed), type b (totally decondensed) and type c (recondensed) nuclei. Once the spermatozoon has started decondensing, chromatin remodeling is initiated, during which protein exchange occurs and sperm specific proteins are replaced with maternal histones. Cyclophosphamide (CPA), an anticancer and immunosuppressive agent that causes DNA crosslinks and strand breaks, is studied as a model male mediated developmental toxicant. Paternal exposure to CPA results in time specific and dose dependent adverse effects on progeny outcome. The treatment of male Sprague Dawley rats with a chronic low dose of CPA, 6 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks, targets highly sensitive post meiotic male germ cells undergoing chromatin remodeling. The delivery of a properly packaged male genome to the oocyte is essential for early embryonic development. We hypothesize that paternal exposure to CPA during spermiogenesis leads to improper packaging of the male genome, disturbing chromatin decondensation and remodelling in early zygotes. Our objectives were first to determine when, during sperm decondensation, post-translational modified histones are present on the paternal chromatin in the control group and second to assess whether CPA treatment alters the time required for sperm decondensation or the patterning of chromatin remodeling. Control and CPA treated male Sprague Dawley rats were mated overnight to naturally cycling females; early zygotes were collected the following morning at 9 AM and prepared for analysis by immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy. The classification of sperm decondensation stages was determined by the chromatin compaction level of spermatozoa stained with propidium iodide. Sperm decondensation occurred first at the base, then the tip and finally in the center region of the sperm head. In zygotes sired by CPA-exposed males, the progression of sperm through these decondensation stages was accelerated significantly in type c sperm nuclei compared to the zygotes sired by control males. The pattern and distribution of modified histones during chromatin remodeling was assessed with H4ack12 and H3S10ph. We observed two distinct patterns of chromatin remodeling. H4ack12, a marker for open chromatin structure, had homogenous staining, whereas H3S10ph, a marker for condensed chromatin structure, displayed a ring-like staining around the sperm head. Chromatin remodeling varied significantly along the longitudinal section of spermatozoa within and between sperm decondensation stages but was not affected by paternal exposure to CPA. Thus, paternal exposure to CPA disturbs the compaction of chromatin structure of male germ cells, affecting the rate of sperm decondensation, without altering the distribution pattern of modified histones in early post-fertilized zygotes. Supported by CIHR. (platform)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207