Dietary restriction and/or exercise training impairs spermatogenesis in normal rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary restriction and/or exercise has been shown to have multiple benefits for health. However, its effects on reproductive health and the mechanisms by which it regulates reproductive function remain unclear. Here, to evaluate its effects on spermatogenesis and sperm function, rats were divided into 4 groups: ad libitum-fed sedentary control, dietary restriction (DR), exercise training (ET), and dietary restriction plus exercise training (DR+ET) groups. Results indicated that body weight, epididymal fat pad weight, and sperm counts were significantly reduced in the DR, ET, and DR+ET groups. Moreover, sperm motility and capacitation-associated protein tyrosine phosphorylation were suppressed in the DR and DR+ET groups, but not the ET group. Microarray analysis revealed that the number of downregulated genes was higher than that of upregulated genes in the DR and/or ET groups. About half of the downregulated genes are common after exercise training and/or diet restriction. Gene ontology analysis showed that downregulated genes in the DR, ET, and DR+ET groups affected spermatogenesis through overlapping pathways, including glucocorticoid, corticosteroid, extracellular structure organization, and estradiol responses. Our findings suggest that diet restriction and/or exercise training may present potential risks to male reproductive dysfunction by disrupting normal gene expression patterns in the testis. Novelty: Dietary restriction and/or exercise can lead to the damage of spermatogenesis as well as sperm maturation. Sperm functional changes are more sensitive to dietary restriction than exercise training. Dietary restriction and exercise impair spermatogenesis through overlapping biological pathways in the testis.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".