4.8 Article

Microgrooves and fluid flows provide preferential passageways for sperm over pathogen Tritrichomonas foetus

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1500541112

关键词

cell motility; cervix; microfluidics; microswimmer; trichomoniasis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01HD070038]
  2. US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  3. National Science Foundation Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers program [DMR-1120296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful mammalian reproduction requires that sperm migrate through a long and convoluted female reproductive tract before reaching oocytes. For many years, fertility studies have focused on biochemical and physiological requirements of sperm. Here we show that the biophysical environment of the female reproductive tract critically guides sperm migration, while at the same time preventing the invasion of sexually transmitted pathogens. Using a microfluidic model, we demonstrate that a gentle fluid flow and microgrooves, typically found in the female reproductive tract, synergistically facilitate bull sperm migration toward the site of fertilization. In contrast, a flagellated sexually transmitted bovine pathogen, Tritrichomonas foetus, is swept downstream under the same conditions. We attribute the differential ability of sperm and T. foetus to swim against flow to the distinct motility types of sperm and T. foetus; specifically, sperm swim using a posterior flagellum and are near-surface swimmers, whereas T. foetus swims primarily via three anterior flagella and demonstrates much lower attraction to surfaces. This work highlights the importance of biophysical cues within the female reproductive tract in the reproductive process and provides insight into coevolution of males and females to promote fertilization while suppressing infection. Furthermore, the results provide previously unidentified directions for the development of in vitro fertilization devices and contraceptives.

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

4.8
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