ArticleMethods and protocols2026
In Vitro Capacitation in Boar Sperm: Evaluation of Selected Detection Techniques.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2026. 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
Sperm capacitation is essential for fertilization and involves coordinated changes in membrane organization, ion fluxes, and intracellular signaling. However, commonly used detection methods may reflect different biological events, which can be strongly influenced by experimental methodology. This study critically evaluated fluorescence-based approaches for assessing capacitation in boar spermatozoa, focusing on their specificity, interpretative limits, and methodological sensitivity. Ejaculated boar spermatozoa were incubated under in vitro capacitating conditions in TALP medium. Selected samples were subsequently treated with calcium ionophore to induce the acrosome reaction (AR). Phosphotyrosine (PTyr) immunofluorescence was assessed using five fixation and labeling protocols, acrosin redistribution was evaluated with the ACR.2 antibody, calcium ion redistribution was assessed using chlortetracycline (CTC) fluorescence, and acrosomal responsiveness was monitored by peanut agglutinin (PNA) lectin labeling. PTyr immunofluorescence was highly dependent on fixation protocol, indicating marked methodological sensitivity. Acrosin immunodetection revealed a clear capacitation-associated redistribution from weak or diffuse staining to a well-defined acrosomal pattern, whereas ionophore treatment caused a pronounced signal loss consistent with acrosomal exocytosis. PNA labeling confirmed that capacitation alone did not increase spontaneous acrosome loss, whereas ionophore treatment induced a robust AR. CTC staining showed a significant shift from whole-head pattern to acrosome in TALP-treated spermatozoa, indicating capacitation-associated Ca
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.