Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30774950›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2019

Nanotechnology-based approach for safer enrichment of semen with best spermatozoa.

Casey L Durfey, Sabrina E Swistek, Shengfa F Liao, Mark A Crenshaw, Henry J Clemente, Rooban V K G Thirumalai, Christy S Steadman, Peter L Ryan, Scott T Willard, Jean M Feugang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Molecular Markers: A New Paradigm in the Prediction of Sperm Freezability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Casey L Durfey1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Sabrina E Swistek1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Shengfa F Liao1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Mark A Crenshaw1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Henry J ClementeClemente Associates, Madison, CT USA.
Rooban V K G Thirumalai4Institute of Imaging and Analytic Technology (I2AT), Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Christy S Steadman1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Peter L Ryan1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Scott T Willard1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.
Jean M Feugang1Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1376-5059

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in nanotechnology have permitted molecular-based targeting of cells through safe and biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles (MNP). Their use to detect and remove damaged spermatozoa from semen doses could be of great interest. Here, MNP were synthesized and tested for their ability to target apoptotic (annexin V) and acrosome-reacted (lectin) boar spermatozoa, for high-throughout retrieval in a magnetic field (nanoselection). The potential impacts of nanoselection on sperm functions and performance of offspring sired by sperm subjected to nanoselection were determined. Fresh harvested and extended boar semen was mixed with various amounts (0, 87.5, and 175 μg) of MNP-conjugates (Annexin V-MNP or Lectin-MNP) and incubated (10 to 15 min) for 37 °C in Exp. 1. In Exp. 2, extended semen was mixed with optimal concentrations of MNP-conjugates and incubated (0, 30, 90, or 120 min). In Exp. 3, the synergistic effects of both MNP-conjugates (87.5 μg - 30 min) on spermatozoa was evaluated, followed by sperm fertility assessments through pregnancy of inseminated gilts and performance of neonatal offspring. Sperm motion, viability, and morphology characteristics were evaluated in all experiments.

resultsTransmission electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and hyperspectral imaging techniques were used to confirm attachment of MNP-conjugates to damaged spermatozoa. The motility of nanoselected spermatozoa was improved (

conclusionsThe findings revealed the benefit of magnetic nanoselection for high-throughput targeting of damaged sperm, for removal and rapid and effortless enrichment of semen doses with highly motile, viable, and fertile spermatozoa. Therefore, magnetic nanoselection for removal of abnormal spermatozoa from semen is a promising tool for improving fertility of males, particularly during periods, such as heat stress during the summer months.

Indexed as

Acrosome reactionApoptosisArtificial inseminationBoarIron oxide nanoparticlesNanopurificationNanoselectionNanotechnologyReproductionSwine

Identifiers

PMID30774950
PMCPMC6368687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.