| Literature DB >> 26239320 |
Qi Liu1,2,3, Tianlei Si4,5, Xiaoyun Xu6,7, Fuqiang Liang8,9, Lufeng Wang10,11, Siyi Pan12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decreased reproductive capacity of men is an important factor contributing to infertility. Accumulating evidence has shown that Electromagnetic radiation potentially has negative effects on human health. However, whether radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) affects the human reproductive system still requires further investigation. Therefore, The present study investigates whether RF-EMR at a frequency of 900 MHz can trigger sperm cell apoptosis and affect semen morphology, concentration, and microstructure.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26239320 PMCID: PMC4523914 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-015-0062-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Fig. 1The sketch diagram of exposure setup
The details of primer of β-actin and the target genes for RT-PCR
| Gene | Primers(5′-3′) | Product(bp) |
|---|---|---|
|
| F: CACGATGGAGGGGCCGGACTCATC | 240 |
| R: TAAAGACCTCTATGCCAACACAGT | ||
|
| F: GGTGAACTGGGGGAGGATTG | 197 |
| R: GCATGCTGGGGCCATATAGT | ||
|
| F: GGCGATGAACTGGACAACAA | 151 |
| R: CAAAGTAGAAAAGGGCAACC | ||
|
| F: AAAGGAGGCAAGCATAAGACTGG | 104 |
| R: CCTTTGTTCTTGTTGGCATCTGT | ||
|
| F: GGACCTGTGGACCTGAAAAA | 159 |
| R: GCATGCCATATCATCGTCAG |
The body and epididymis weights of male mice in control group and exposure group (n = 24; Mean ± SEM)
| Groups | Body weights (g) | Epididymis weights (g) | Epididymis weight/Body weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| control | 446.04 ± 6.11 | 1.19 ± 0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.01 |
| Exposure | 474.68 ± 8.25* | 1.14 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.01* |
*P < 0.05 compared with the control group by using t-test
The sperm count and percentage of sperm malformation of the male mice in control and exposure group (n = 24; Mean ± SEM)
| Groups | Sperm count (×108) | Head malformation (%) | Tail malformation (%) | Total malformation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| control | 1.21 ± 0.08 | 7.97 ± 0.22 | 12.25 ± 0.33 | 20.22 ± 0.49 |
| Exposure | 1.10 ± 0.08* | 8.18 ± 0.34 | 12.63 ± 0.25 | 20.81 ± 0.52 |
*P < 0.05 compared with the control group by using t-test
Fig. 2The optical micrographs of morphology of normal and malformed sperms. a The normal sperm. b The sperm cell with two tails. c The sperm cell with two heads. d The sperm cell with sharp head. e The sperm with no head. f The sperm cell with abnormal head
Fig. 3Electron micrographs of sperm necks and tails. a The cross section of sperm tail from control group. b The ODF was lost in the sperm tail of exposure group mouse as the arrow pointing. c The normal linked structure between the head and tail in the sperm of control group. d the linked structure of the sperm in exposure group was swollen as arrow pointing
The percentage of sperm cell apoptosis, the Value of the TAC and ROS in sperm suspension (n = 24, Mean ± SEM)
| Groups | Apoptosis (%) | TAC (IU/mgpro) | ROS (OD/mgpro) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 11.51 ± 0.53 | 6.82 ± 0.21 | 36.51 ± 3.64 |
| Exposure | 22.47 ± 1.83* | 4.80 ± 0.12* | 53.00 ± 1.89* |
*P < 0.05 compared with the control group by using t-test
Fig. 4The comparison in expressions of cytochrome c, bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 between the exposure and control. Densitometric analyses of cytochrome c, bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 in sperm of rats between exposure group and control group. The intensities of bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 were normalized with the β-actin and the intensity of cytochrome c was normalized with VDCA1. Bars represent Mean ± SEM (n = 15). *indicated a significant difference at P = 0.05
Fig. 5The electrophoresis results of cytochrome c, bcl-2, bax and caspase-3. C represented control group and E represented exposure group. There were two bands in the gel of caspase-3 indicating the inactive (upper) and active (lower) caspase-3 proteins. The gel below the gel of cytochrome c protein represented VDCA1 and other 3 gels represented the β-actin
Fig. 6The related expressions of bcl-2, bax, cytochrome c and caspase-3 genes in the sperms of the rats with different groups. The data was presented as Mean ± SEM (n = 15). *presented significant difference compared with the control group (P < 0.05)