4.4 Article

Sperm functional aspects and enriched proteomic pathways of seminal plasma of adult men with obesity

期刊

ANDROLOGY
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 341-349

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12606

关键词

DNA fragmentation; obesity; proteomics; seminal plasma; spermatozoa

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP [2013/07442-9]
  2. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-CNPq [306705/2017-6]
  3. Fleury Group Projects Funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Previous studies have demonstrated an association between obesity and the decreased male fertility. Objective to observe the mechanisms by which obesity affects semen quality. Materials and methods A prospective study was performed including 47 male volunteers, of which 27 were obese group (body mass index >30 kg/m(2)) and 20 were eutrophic (body mass index between 18.5 and 25 kg/m(2)) controls. Sperm functional analysis was performed. The remaining seminal plasma was pooled-four pools per group- and submitted to proteomic analysis by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Groups were compared by an unpaired Student's t-test. Differentially expressed proteins were submitted to functional enrichment analysis using the online platform PantherDB. Results Obese men presented decreased non-progressive motility, morphology, acrosome integrity, mitochondrial activity, and increased sperm DNA fragmentation. In proteomics analysis, 69 proteins were differentially expressed between the two groups. Among them, one protein was absent, 19 were down-regulated, 49 were up-regulated, and one was exclusive in the study group. The main functions enriched were as follows: negative regulation of the intrinsic pathway of apoptosis, activation of immune and inflammatory, antioxidant activity, among others. Conclusion molecular pathways suggest there is a causative link, and that the effector mechanisms alter sperm metabolic status and defective testicular selection 5 mechanisms.

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

4.4
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