3.9 Article

How Do You Get Six Meters of Epididymis Inside a Human Scrotum?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 558-564

出版社

AMER SOC ANDROLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.111.013029

关键词

Androgen; reproductive tract; development; Wolffian duct

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [KO8 HD42058, HD52035] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1051294] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is very clear that the epididymis plays a crucial role in the maturation of spermatozoa, and without a fully developed and functional epididymis, male infertility will result. We are especially interested in understanding the mechanisms that regulate the development of this important organ because disruptions to epididymal function will also arise as a consequence of abnormal development. Very little is known either of the process of epididymal development or the nature and causes of congenital defects that lead to male infertility. A major event during Wolffian/epididymal duct embryonic development is elongation and coiling and this short review outlines potential mechanisms by which these events occur. It is hypothesized that elongation is the result of cell proliferation coupled with directed cell rearrangements, the later regulated by the planar cell polarity signaling pathway. Coiling proceeds in a proximal to distal manner, with three-dimensional coiling beginning approximately embryonic day 16.5 to 18.5 in the mouse. The exact mechanisms of coiling are not known but we hypothesize that it involves an interaction between the Wolffian duct epithelium and the surrounding mesenchyme cells, such that the extracellular matrix is remodeled to allow coiling and growth of the duct. Cell proliferation in the Wolffian duct appears to be dependent on the presence of androgens and mesenchymal factors during embryonic development, but lumicrine factors play an additional role during postnatal development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据