4.6 Review

The genetic architecture of morphological abnormalities of the sperm tail

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 140, 期 1, 页码 21-42

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-020-02113-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spermatozoa require a specialized structure like the flagellum for successful fertilization. Defects in the flagellum, such as MMAF, can lead to male infertility by affecting sperm motility, and recent studies have identified genetic factors contributing to this condition.
Spermatozoa contain highly specialized structural features reflecting unique functions required for fertilization. Among them, the flagellum is a sperm-specific organelle required to generate the motility, which is essential to reach the egg. The flagellum integrity is, therefore, critical for normal sperm function and flagellum defects consistently lead to male infertility due to reduced or absent sperm motility defined as asthenozoospermia. Multiple morphological abnormalities of the flagella (MMAF), also called short tails, is among the most severe forms of sperm flagellum defects responsible for male infertility and is characterized by the presence in the ejaculate of spermatozoa being short, coiled, absent and of irregular caliber. Recent studies have demonstrated that MMAF is genetically heterogeneous which is consistent with the large number of proteins (over one thousand) localized in the human sperm flagella. In the past 5 years, genomic investigation of the MMAF phenotype allowed the identification of 18 genes whose mutations induce MMAF and infertility. Here we will review information about those genes including their expression pattern, the features of the encoded proteins together with their localization within the different flagellar protein complexes (axonemal or peri-axonemal) and their potential functions. We will categorize the identified MMAF genes following the protein complexes, functions or biological processes they may be associated with, based on the current knowledge in the field.

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

4.6
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