Inositol monophosphatase (IMPA) is responsible for the synthesis of inositol, a polyol that can function as an intracellular osmolyte helping re-establish cell volume when exposed to hypertonic environments. Some epithelial tissues in euryhaline teleosts such as the eel and tilapia encounter considerable hyperosmotic challenge when fish move from freshwater (FW) to seawater (SW) environments; however, the roles played by organic osmolytes, such as inositol, have yet to be determined. Syntenic analysis has indicated that, as a result of whole genome- and tandem-duplication events, up to six IMPA isoforms can exist within teleost genomes. Four isoforms are homologs of the mammalian IMPA1 gene, and two isoforms are homologs of the mammalian IMPA2 gene. Although the tissue-dependent isoform expression profiles of the teleost isoforms appear to be species-specific, it was primarily mRNA for the IMPA1.1 isoform that was upregulated in epithelial tissues after fish were transferred to SW (up to 16-fold in eel and 90-fold in tilapia). Although up-regulation of IMPA1.1 expression was evident in many tissues in the eel, more substantial increases in IMPA1.1 expression were found in tilapia tissues, where SW acclimation resulted in up to 2,000-fold increases in protein expression, 16-fold increases in enzyme activity and 15-fold increases in tissue inositol contents. Immunohistochemical studies indicated that the tissue and cellular distribution of IMPA1.1 protein differed slightly between eels and tilapia; however, in both species the basal epithelial cell layers within the skin and fin, and the branchial epithelium and interstitial cells within the kidney, exhibited high levels of IMPA1.1 protein expression.

No abstract

In general, men are less likely to seek health care than women. Infertility is a global disease that afflicts approximately 15% of reproductive age couples and the male contributes to 40% of the diagnosable cause. Remarkably, no large or multi-national population data exist regarding men's perceptions about their infertility. The purpose of this study was to advance our knowledge about the infertile male's social experience regarding: (1) how they feel about their infertility, (2) what motivated them to seek health care, (3) how likely are they to talk with others about their infertility, (4) their awareness of male infertility support groups, and ( 5) what their primary source for information is regarding male infertility? Based on the results from this study, these simple questions now have clearer definition. Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, male-directed, anonymous questionnaire translated into 20 languages was made globally available through the Fertility Europe website (https://fertilityeurope.eu). Males (n=1,171) age 20-49 years were invited to complete the online survey after informed consent. Results: Results: Most respondents were European (86%). Of European men, <15.8% were self-motivated to seek medical help. Further, their physician was not the primary source of information regarding their infertility. While most men (59%) viewed their infertility positively, a large majority were not very likely (73%) to talk about it. Most respondents indicated a lack of awareness or absence of male infertility support groups. Conclusions: Conclusions: These are the first multi-national population data revealing men's feelings about their infertility, what motivates them to seek help and their awareness of resources for peer support and information. These findings also serve to highlight significant gaps that exist in the provision of male reproductive health care and in supportive resources for men suffering from infertility. We offer recommendations on how to address the problem(s).

STUDY QUESTION Do publications that involve the interpretation of the results of a basic semen analysis, published in Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility between 2011 and 2020, give sufficient evidence in their methodology to demonstrate that they followed the technical methods recommended in the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory manual, entitled WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen (WHO5)? SUMMARY ANSWER Evidence of methodological agreement of studies with the WHO5 recommendations was low, despite 70% of papers stating that they followed WHO5 recommendations. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A basic semen analysis is currently an integral part of infertility investigations of the male, but method standardization in laboratories remains an issue. The different editions of the WHO manual for the basic semen analysis (WHO1–6) have attempted to address this by providing increasingly rigorous methodological protocols to reduce experimental error. However, to what extent these methods are followed by studies that involve the interpretation of the results of basic semen analysis remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A survey of the technical methods used to perform a basic semen analysis was conducted on studies published in two leading reproduction journals (Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility) between 2011 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The literature search was performed on the electronic databases PUBMED and MEDLINE Ovid between January 2021 and March 2021. The MeSH terms included in the search were ‘sperm concentration’ OR ‘sperm motility’ OR ‘sperm morphology’ OR ‘sperm vitality’ OR ‘male fertility’ AND ‘human spermatozoa’ NOT ‘animals’. A total of 122 studies were available for analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In total, 70% of the studies cited WHO5 in their methods section. Of the remaining studies, 10% cited the fourth edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO4), 7% cited both WHO4 and WHO5, 1% cited the third edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO3), and 12% did not cite the WHO at all. Overall methodological agreement with WHO5 recommendations was poor, with the main reason for this lack of agreement being that the research studies did not disclose specific details of the technical methods and equipment used. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION In the case of studies that did not disclose any specific technical methods that they used, we did not attempt to contact these authors and so were unable to confirm the agreement between their technical methods and WHO5 recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our findings suggest there is an urgent need to develop strategies to address standardization in reporting the results of a semen analysis for publication. This is particularly timely given the recent publication of WHO6 and ISO standard 23162 for the basic examination of human semen. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There was no funding for this project. C.L.R.B., as an employee of the University of Dundee, serves on the Scientific Advisory board of ExSeed Health (from October 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee) and is a scientific consultant for Exscientia (from September 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee). C.L.R.B. has previously received a fee from Cooper Surgical for lectures on scientific research methods outside the submitted work (2020) and Ferring for a lecture on male reproductive health (2021). C.L.R.B. is Editor for RBMO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.