Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28398834›Full record

ReviewBiopreservation and biobanking2017

Dry Preservation of Spermatozoa: Considerations for Different Species.

Jennifer Patrick, Pierre Comizzoli, Gloria Elliott

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. It takes two (centrioles) to tango.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Patrick1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte , Charlotte, North Carolina.
Pierre Comizzoli2 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute , National Zoological Park, Washington, District of Columbia.
Gloria Elliott3 Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte , Charlotte, North Carolina.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte · USSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current gold standard for sperm preservation is storage at cryogenic temperatures. Dry preservation is an attractive alternative, eliminating the need for ultralow temperatures, reducing storage maintenance costs, and providing logistical flexibility for shipping. Many seeds and anhydrobiotic organisms are able to survive extended periods in a dry state through the accumulation of intracellular sugars and other osmolytes and are capable of returning to normal physiology postrehydration. Using techniques inspired by nature's adaptations, attempts have been made to dehydrate and dry preserve spermatozoa from a variety of species. Most of the anhydrous preservation research performed to date has focused on mouse spermatozoa, with only a small number of studies in nonrodent mammalian species. There is a significant difference between sperm function in rodent and nonrodent mammalian species with respect to centrosomal inheritance. Studies focused on reproductive technologies have demonstrated that in nonrodent species, the centrosome must be preserved to maintain sperm function as the spermatozoon centrosome contributes the dominant nucleating seed, consisting of the proximal centriole surrounded by pericentriolar components, onto which the oocyte's centrosomal material is assembled. Preservation techniques used for mouse sperm may therefore not necessarily be applicable to nonrodent spermatozoa. The range of technologies used to dehydrate sperm and the effect of processing and storage conditions on fertilization and embryogenesis using dried sperm are reviewed in the context of reproductive physiology and cellular morphology in different species.

Indexed as

DesiccationSemen PreservationAnimalsDNA DamageFertilizationHumansMaleSpecies SpecificitySpermatozoaambient preservationbiobankingbiostabilizationdehydrationspermatozoa

Identifiers

PMID28398834
PMCPMC5397208
OpenAlexW2593475263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.