MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213260043 · doi:10.1530/rep-21-0195

How, where and when is SPINK3 bound and removed from mouse sperm?

2022· article· en· W4213260043 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsCapacitationSpermSerine proteaseUterusIn vitroHuman fertilizationEpididymisLipid raft

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sperm capacitation in mammals is a fundamental requirement to acquire their fertilizing capacity. Little is known about the action mechanism of the molecules that prevent capacitation from occurring prematurely. These molecules are known as decapacitation factors (DFs) and they must be removed from the sperm surface for capacitation to occur successfully. Serine protease inhibitor Kazal type 3 (SPINK3) has been proposed as one of these DFs. Here, we evaluate how this protein binds to mouse sperm and its removal kinetics. We describe that SPINK3 is capable of binding to the membrane of mature epididymal sperm through protein-lipid interactions, specifically to lipid rafts subcellular fraction. Moreover, cholera toxin subunit b (CTB) avoids SPINK3 binding. We observe that SPINK3 is removed from the sperm under in vitro capacitating conditions and by the uterine fluid from estrus females. Our ex vivo studies show the removal kinetics of this protein within the female tract, losing SPINK3 formerly from the apical region of the sperm in the uterus and later from the flagellar region within the oviduct. The presence of acrosome-reacted sperm in the female duct concurs with the absence of SPINK3 over its surface.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207