Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the post-testicular maturation that occurs in the epididymis, spermatozoa need to face biochemical and morphological changes that may make them vulnerable to oxidative damage. During spermatogenesis and the epididymal maturation, the spermatozoon acquires antioxidant enzymes needed to face possible increases of reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by its own aerobic metabolism but also due to ROS produced in high quantities by abnormal spermatozoa. OBJECTIVES: Provide an up-to-date review of the enzymatic antioxidant system in the epididymis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed for papers concerning the players of the antioxidant defenses in the epididymis. RESULTS: The antioxidant system in the epididymis is composed by superoxide dismutases, catalase, glutathione peroxidases, peroxiredoxins, glutathione-S-transferases, thioredoxins and thioredoxin reductase. They work together to maintain low levels of ROS during the epididymal maturation. Knockout models revealed that the absence of one of the enzyme impact sperm quality affecting a variety of proteins involved in motility, the ability to fertilize oocyte, and promotes oxidative damage to the sperm DNA. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that each enzyme is playing a specific role, and in most of the cases, no compensatory mechanisms are put in place when one enzyme is absent. This review highlights the different antioxidant enzymes in the epididymis and their role during maturation of the spermatozoon.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".