4.7 Article

Proteomic Signatures Reveal Differences in Stress Response, Antioxidant Defense and Proteasomal Activity in Fertile Men with High Seminal ROS Levels

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20010203

关键词

seminal plasma; spermatozoa; reactive oxygen species; antioxidants; chemiluminescence; proteomics; bioinformatics; differentially expressed proteins; Western blot

资金

  1. American Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/109284/2015]
  3. Fulbright Program [E0585639]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/109284/2015] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are a major cause of male infertility. However, some men with high seminal ROS levels are still fertile. The main objective of this study was to understand the molecular mechanism(s) responsible for the preservation of fertility in those men. Semen samples from fertile men were divided into two groups: control (n = 10, ROS < 102.2 RLU/s/10(6) sperm) and ROS+ (n = 10, ROS > 102.2 RLU/s/10(6) sperm). Proteomic analysis of seminal plasma and spermatozoa was used to identify the differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) between the experimental groups, from which some proteins were validated by Western blot (WB). A total of 44 and 371 DEPs were identified between the study groups in the seminal plasma and spermatozoa, respectively. The identified DEPs were primarily involved in oxidoreductase, endopeptidase inhibitor, and antioxidant activities. We validated by WB the underexpression of NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase core subunit S1 (p = 0.01), as well as the overexpression of superoxide dismutase 1 (p = 0.03) and peroxiredoxin 4 (p = 0.04) in spermatozoa of ROS+ group. Our data suggest that fertile men with high ROS levels possess an effective antioxidant defense system that protects sperm proteins, as well as an active proteasomal system for degradation of defective proteins.

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

4.7
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