Impact of BPA and its analogs on sperm hyperactivity, acrosome reaction, epigenetic profiles and in vitro embryo development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphenols, particularly BPA, are ubiquitous environmental contaminants known to affect male reproductive health. However, their specific impacts on sperm function and subsequent embryo development remain understudied especially for BPA's commonly used replacements, BPS and BPF. This study investigated the effects of direct sperm exposure to BPA, BPS, and BPF on fertilization capacity and embryo development using a bovine model, as translational for humans. Sperm samples were exposed to 0.05 mg/mL of each bisphenol in vitro . Parameters, including hyperactivity and acrosome reaction, as well as fertilization outcomes, such as developmental rates and blastocyst quality, were further evaluated following IVF. miRNA profiles were also analyzed in sperm and embryos to detect potential biomarkers of bisphenol exposure. We found that BPF significantly increased sperm hyperactivity, and BPA decreased acrosome reaction levels (p < 0.05). Cleavage and blastocyst rates were also notably decreased in embryos derived from BPA-exposed sperm (p < 0.05). Furthermore, blastocysts produced from BPA, BPS and BPF treated sperm all had significantly lower cell counts and increased DNA fragmentation (p < 0.05). Although no statistically significant changes in miRNA levels were observed, this study highlights some of the detrimental effects of bisphenols on bovine sperm and subsequent embryo development, with potential implications for human reproductive health. • In vitro exposure to BPA lead to reduced acrosome reaction in bovine sperm. • Embryos produced from BPA-exposed sperm showed lower cleavage and blastocyst rates. • Blastocysts from BPA, BPS or BPF-treated sperm had fewer total cells. • DNA fragmentation was elevated in blastocysts from BPA, BPS, and BPF-exposed sperm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".