A Review on Environmental Contaminants-Related Fertility Threat in Male Fishes: Effects and Possible Mechanisms of Action Learned from Wildlife and Laboratory Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing global rates of diminished fertility in males has been suggested to be associated with exposure to environmental contaminants (ECs). The aquatic environments are the final repository of ECs. As the reproductive system is conserved in vertebrates, studies on the effects of ECs on fertility endpoints in fishes provide us with valuable information to establish biomarkers in risk assessment of ECs, and to understand the ECs-related fertility threat. The aim of the present review was to evaluate associations between ECs and fertility determinants to better understand ECs-related male fertility threat in male fishes. Wildlife studies show that the reproductive system has been affected in fishes sampled from the polluted aquatic environment. The laboratory studies show the potency of ECs including natural and synthetic hormones, alkylphenols, bisphenols, plasticizers, pesticides, pharmaceutical, alkylating, and organotin agents to affect fertility determinants, resulting in diminished fertility at environmentally relevant concentrations. Both wildlife and laboratory studies reveal that ECs adverse effects on male fertility are associated with a decrease in sperm production, damage to sperm morphology, alternations in sperm genome, and decrease in sperm motility kinetics. The efficiency of ECs to affect sperm quality and male fertility highly depends on the concentration of the contaminants and the duration of exposure. Our review highlights that the number of contaminants examined over fertility tests are much lower than the number of contaminants detected in our environment. The ECs effects on fertility are largely unknown when fishes are exposed to the contaminants at early developmental stages. The review suggests the urgent need to examine ECs effects on male fertility when a fish is exposed at different developmental stages in a single or combination protocol. The ECs effects on the sperm genome are largely unknown to understand ECs-related inheritance of reproductive disorders transmitted to the progeny. To elucidate modes of action of ECs on sperm motility, it is needed to study functional morphology of the motility apparatus and to investigate ECs-disrupted motility signaling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".