4.6 Review

Morphological and Molecular Bases of Male Infertility: A Closer Look at Sperm Flagellum

期刊

GENES
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes14020383

关键词

sperm flagellum; infertility; asthenozoospermia; axoneme; morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infertility is a common health issue affecting couples worldwide, with no effective therapy available. Male infertility, specifically asthenozoospermia or reduced sperm motility, is a major cause. Many researchers have identified over 4000 genes involved in sperm production and development, which can potentially lead to male infertility if mutated. This review provides an overview of sperm flagellum morphology and highlights genetic factors related to sperm immotility and flagellum development.
Infertility is a major health problem worldwide without an effective therapy or cure. It is estimated to affect 8-12% of couples in the reproductive age group, equally affecting both genders. There is no single cause of infertility, and its knowledge is still far from complete, with about 30% of infertile couples having no cause identified (named idiopathic infertility). Among male causes of infertility, asthenozoospermia (i.e., reduced sperm motility) is one of the most observed, being estimated that more than 20% of infertile men have this condition. In recent years, many researchers have focused on possible factors leading to asthenozoospermia, revealing the existence of many cellular and molecular players. So far, more than 4000 genes are thought to be involved in sperm production and as regulators of different aspects of sperm development, maturation, and function, and all can potentially cause male infertility if mutated. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the typical sperm flagellum morphology and compile some of the most relevant information regarding the genetic factors involved in male infertility, with a focus on sperm immotility and on genes related to sperm flagellum development, structure, or function.

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