ArticleMutation research2010
Isolated spermatozoa as indicators of mutations transmitted to progeny.
Article in Mutation research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Spermatozoa comprise a large and homogeneous population of cells that may serve as an alternative to resource-intensive assays of transmissible mutations based on progeny. To evaluate mutagenic responses in spermatozoa derived from germ cells exposed to a mutagen at different stages of spermatogenesis, we compared cII mutant frequencies (MFs) in spermatozoa collected from male lambda transgenic medaka exposed to ethylnitrosourea (ENU) as either post-meiotic or pre-meiotic germ cells. cII MFs in spermatozoa exposed to ENU as spermatogonial stem cells were induced significantly, 9-fold, compared to controls, whereas, cII MFs in spermatozoa exposed as spermatozoa/late spermatids were not elevated. To directly compare responses in spermatozoa with those in progeny, we analyzed cII MFs directly in spermatozoa and in the offspring produced from identical sperm samples of ENU-exposed males. cII MFs in isolated spermatozoa exposed to ENU as post-meiotic germ cells were not significantly elevated, whereas 11-30% of the progeny derived from the identically exposed germ cells exhibited significantly elevated cII MFs, approximately 2-fold to >130-fold, compared to controls. The contradictory responses between spermatozoa and progeny analyses can be attributed to induced pre-mutational lesions that remain intact in spermatozoa but were not detected as mutations. Progeny analyses, by contrast, revealed mutant individuals with elevated cII mutant frequencies because persistent DNA damage in the spermatozoa was fixed as mutations in cells of the early stage embryo. Spermatozoa exposed to a mutagen as spermatogonial stem cells can provide an efficient means to detect the portion of transmissible mutations that were fixed as mutations in spermatozoa. The caveat is that direct analyses of mutations in spermatozoa excludes the contribution of mutations that arise from post-fertilization processes in cells of early stage embryos, and therefore may underestimate the actual frequency of mutant offspring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.