Proteomic profile of sex-sorted bull sperm evaluated by SWATH-MS analysis

Scott, Caroline; Souza, Fabiana Ferreira de; Aristizábal, Viviana Helena Vallejo; Hethrington, Louise; Krisp, Christoph; Molloy, Mark P.; Baker, Mark A.; Dell’Aqua, J.A.

doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.09.010

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 11 proteins were upregulated and 4 were downregulated in X spermatozoa compared with those in the Y spermatozoa (P < 0.05). This finding was partly supported by other investigators (De Canio et al, 2014;Scott et al, 2018). Using label-free shotgun nUPLC-MS/MS De Canio et al (2014) found that 15 and 2 proteins were upregulated in X and Y spermatozoa, respectively.…”

Section: Genomic and Proteomic Contents Of X And Y Spermatozoasupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Using label-free shotgun nUPLC-MS/MS De Canio et al (2014) found that 15 and 2 proteins were upregulated in X and Y spermatozoa, respectively. In another recent study, Scott et al (2018) identified the differential expression of eight proteins between X-and Y-bearing spermatozoa. Of these, the protein related to the embryo development (EF-hand domain-containing protein 1) was expressed abundantly in the Y spermatozoa, whereas majority of other detected proteins were abundant in the X spermatozoa.…”

Section: Genomic and Proteomic Contents Of X And Y Spermatozoamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Biological Insights on X and Y Chromosome-Bearing Spermatozoa

Rahman

Pang

2020

Front. Cell Dev. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A spermatozoon is a male germ cell capable of fertilizing an oocyte and carries genetic information for determining the sex of the offspring. It comprises autosomes and an X (X spermatozoa) or a Y chromosome (Y spermatozoa). The origin and maturation of both X and Y spermatozoa are the same, however, certain differences may exist. Previous studies proposed a substantial difference between X and Y spermatozoa, however, recent studies suggest negligible or no differences between these spermatozoa with respect to ratio, shape and size, motility and swimming pattern, strength, electric charge, pH, stress response, and aneuploidy. The only difference between X and Y spermatozoa lies in their DNA content. Moreover, recent proteomic and genomic studies have identified a set of proteins and genes that are differentially expressed between X and Y spermatozoa. Therefore, the difference in DNA content might be responsible for the differential expression of certain genes and proteins between these cells. In this review, we have compiled our present knowledge to compare X and Y spermatozoa with respect to their structural, functional, and molecular features. In addition, we have highlighted several areas that could be explored in future studies in this field.

show abstract

Section: Genomic and Proteomic Contents Of X And Y Spermatozoasupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Genomic and Proteomic Contents Of X And Y Spermatozoamentioning

confidence: 99%

New Biological Insights on X and Y Chromosome-Bearing Spermatozoa

Rahman

Pang

2020

Front. Cell Dev. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…regulation of genes on non‐sex chromosomes by genes located on the sex chromosome (Metzger & Schulte, 2016)), sex‐specific differences in epigenetic mechanisms or genomic imprinting (Bonduriansky & Day, 2008; Dunn & Bale, 2011). Furthermore, in bulls, Y ‐bearing and X ‐bearing spermatozoa have differentially expressed proteins, suggesting a mechanism by which fathers can transmit different information to sons versus daughters (Scott et al., 2018). Although mothers in many species can also transmit different information to sons and daughters (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex‐specific plasticity across generations I: Maternal and paternal effects on sons and daughters

Hellmann

Bukhari

Deno

et al. 2020

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Intergenerational plasticity or parental effects-when parental environments alter the phenotype of future generations-can influence how organisms cope with environmental change. An intriguing, underexplored possibility is that sex-of both the parent and the offspring-plays an important role in driving the evolution of intergenerational plasticity in both adaptive and non-adaptive ways. 2. Here, we evaluate the potential for sex-specific parental effects in a freshwater population of three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus by independently and jointly manipulating maternal and paternal experiences and separately evaluating their phenotypic effects in sons versus daughters. We tested the adaptive hypothesis that daughters are more responsive to cues from their mother, whereas sons are more responsive to cues from their father. 3. We exposed mothers, fathers or both parents to visual cues of predation risk and measured offspring antipredator traits and brain gene expression. 4. Predator-exposed fathers produced sons that were more risk-prone, whereas predator-exposed mothers produced more anxious sons and daughters. Furthermore, maternal and paternal effects on offspring survival were non-additive: offspring with a predator-exposed father, but not two predator-exposed parents, had lower survival against live predators. There were also strong sex-specific effects on brain gene expression: exposing mothers versus fathers to predation risk activated different transcriptional profiles in their offspring, and sons and daughters strongly differed in the ways in which their brain gene expression profiles were influenced by parental experience. 5. We found little evidence to support the hypothesis that offspring prioritize their same-sex parent's experience. Parental effects varied with both the sex of the parent and the offspring in complicated and non-additive ways. Failing to account for these sex-specific patterns (e.g. by pooling sons and daughters) would have underestimated the magnitude of parental effects. Altogether, these results draw attention to the potential for sex to influence patterns of intergenerational plasticity and raise new questions about the interface between intergenerational plasticity and sex-specific selective pressures, sexual conflict and sexual selection.

show abstract

“…surface antigenic differences. We also cannot as yet say whether the changes in sperm shape lead directly to the altered motility by affecting hydrodynamic efficiency or whether the sperm also have altered biomechanics and/or biochemistry (e.g., differential flagellar beat patterns as in the case of t heterozygotes [41], differential mitochondrial protein expression as seen in bull sperm [42], and differential capacitation or hyperactivation kinetics). Studying these aspects of the phenotype will require improved methods to separate sperm with differing motility and probe their biochemistry and chromosomal content, with recent advances in microfluidics providing a potential route forward [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Sperm Motility Mediates the Sex Ratio Drive Shaping Mouse Sex Chromosome Evolution

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe mouse sex chromosomes exhibit an extraordinary level of copy number amplification of postmeiotically expressed genes [1, 2], driven by an “arms race” (genomic conflict) between the X and Y chromosomes over the control of offspring sex ratio. The sex-linked ampliconic transcriptional regulators Slx and Sly [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] have opposing effects on global transcription levels of the sex chromosomes in haploid spermatids via regulation of postmeiotic sex chromatin (PMSC) [8, 9, 10, 11] and opposing effects on offspring sex ratio. Partial deletions of the Y chromosome (Yq) that reduce Sly copy number lead to global overexpression of sex-linked genes in spermatids and either a distorted sex ratio in favor of females (smaller deletions) or sterility (larger deletions) [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Despite a large body of work studying the role of the sex chromosomes in regulating spermatogenesis (recent reviews [17, 18, 19, 20]), most studies do not address differential fertility effects on X- and Y-bearing cells. Hence, in this study, we concentrate on identifying physiological differences between X- and Y-bearing sperm from Yq-deleted males that affect their relative fertilizing ability and consequently lead to sex ratio skewing. We show that X- and Y-bearing sperm in these males have differential motility and morphology but are equally able to penetrate the cumulus and fertilize the egg once at the site of fertilization. The altered motility is thus deduced to be the proximate cause of the skew. This represents the first demonstration of a specific difference in sperm function associated with sex ratio skewing.

show abstract

Proteomic profile of sex-sorted bull sperm evaluated by SWATH-MS analysis

Cited by 32 publications

References 34 publications

New Biological Insights on X and Y Chromosome-Bearing Spermatozoa

New Biological Insights on X and Y Chromosome-Bearing Spermatozoa

Sex‐specific plasticity across generations I: Maternal and paternal effects on sons and daughters

Differential Sperm Motility Mediates the Sex Ratio Drive Shaping Mouse Sex Chromosome Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About