4.3 Article

Comparison of spermatozoa parameters, fine structures, and energy-related factors among tetraploid, hyper-tetraploid, and hyper-triploid loaches (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus)

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jez.1851

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. JSPS-KAKENHI [21380114]
  2. JAMBIO [23-11, 24-11]
  3. CENAKVA [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/01.0024, GACR P502/12/1973, L01205]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21380114] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the influence of ploidy elevation and aneuploidy on spermatozoa in the loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, we investigated some parameters (motility, concentration, and viability), fine structures (gross morphology, head size, and flagellum length), and energy-related biochemical factors (volume of mitochondrial mass per cell and ATP content) in diploid, hyper-diploid, and hexaploid-range spermatozoa produced in natural tetraploid, hyper-tetraploid, and hyper-triploid male loaches, respectively. Diploid spermatozoa exhibited vigorous movement and sufficient duration of motility similar to those in haploid spermatozoa. They had longer flagella, higher numbers and larger volume of mitochondria, and higher ATP content than haploid spermatozoa of wild-type diploids. No differences were observed in parameters and morphological characteristics between diploid and hyper-diploid spermatozoa. In contrast, the hexaploid-range spermatozoa of hyper-triploid males exhibited poor progressive motility in spite of a higher ATP content of spermatozoa. Spermatozoa with no flagella (36.0%) or multiple flagella (18.6%) were also observed in hyper-triploids. Ratios of head to flagellum length in hexaploid-range spermatozoa were significantly different from those of haploid spermatozoa. In addition to the normal 9 + 2 microtubule structure of the flagellum, an abnormal 9 + 1 microtubule structure was also observed in the spermatozoa of hyper-triploids. J. Exp. Zool. 321A: 198-206, 2014. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.3
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