4.4 Article

Osmotic stress stimulates generation of superoxide anion by spermatozoa in horses

期刊

ANIMAL REPRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 117, 期 3-4, 页码 249-260

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2009.05.014

关键词

Equine; Horse; Spermatozoa; Superoxide anion; Osmotic stress; Dihydroethidium

资金

  1. John P. Hughes Endowment
  2. Center for Equine Health
  3. Oak Tree Racing Association
  4. State of California pari-mutuel fund
  5. USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service [2002-35203-12260]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to examine the interplay between osmotic and oxidative stress as well as to determine mechanisms by which osmotic stress increases superoxide generation in spermatozoa of horses. Superoxide production, as measured by dihydroethidium (DHE), increased when spermatozoa of horses were incubated under either hyperosmotic or hyposmotic conditions. This increase in superoxide production was inhibited by the MAP kinase p38 inhibitor, SB203580, and by the superoxide scavenger, tiron. Incubation of spermatozoa under hyperosmotic conditions increased overall protein tyrosine phosphorylation as measured by western blotting techniques; however, a similar increase was not detected when spermatozoa were incubated under hyposmotic conditions. The general protein kinase C (PKC) and protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) inhibitor staurosporine inhibited (P < 0.05) tyrosine phosphorylation in samples from cells under hyperosmotic conditions. In addition, the NADPH oxidase inhibitor diphenyleneiodonium (DPI) also inhibited (P < 0.05) protein tyrosine phosphorylation in cells under hyperosmotic conditions. In summary, these data indicate that incubation of equine spermatozoa under both hyposmotic and hyperosmotic conditions can increase superoxide anion generation. Under hyperosmotic conditions, this increased generation of superoxide anion was accompanied by increased protein tyrosine phosphorylation. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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