ReviewLab animal2025
Beyond swimming: emerging parameters for predicting the fertility of mouse spermatozoa.
Review in Lab animal, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cryopreservation of spermatozoa can be used as a cost-effective way of preserving the ever-increasing number of genetically modified mouse lines. Nevertheless, discontinuing the breeding of a line or strain is only warranted after the quality control of cryopreserved sperm; the ability of sperm to survive the freezing-thawing process and produce well-developed embryos needs to be confirmed. In animal research husbandries, the fertility of frozen-thawed sperm is routinely tested using in vitro fertilization. However, this procedure requires euthanizing a considerable number of females to acquire a sufficient number of oocytes, contradicting the 'reduction' principle of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). Therefore, the research community has an interest in replacing in vitro fertilization tests with proxies that can collectively characterize the fertilizing potential of mouse sperm. Methods such as computer-assisted sperm analysis and flow cytometry enable a precise and multiparametric approach to evaluate sperm quality, encompassing 'traditional' traits and the functional status of subcellular structures of sperm. Moreover, single-cell data can be processed with machine learning algorithms, offering a deeper insight into sperm physiology and functional heterogeneity. Despite the advancements made, many of these assays are still far from being used in mouse sperm quality control owing to their limited time- and cost-efficiency, the insufficiency of fertility validation studies, and the complex data analysis needed to identify fertility markers. The genetic and phenotypic diversity of different mouse strains and lines makes the establishment of a robust methodology for fertility prognostics even more challenging. Thus, this Review summarizes the available methods for assessing sperm functional characteristics in laboratory mice and discusses their contribution to fertility prognosis.
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.