| Literature DB >> 28096959 |
Rafieh Alizadeh1, Shadan Navid2, Niloofar Abbasi3, Abazar Yari4, Zohreh Mazaheri5, Erfan Daneshi6, Ashok Agarwal7, Mehdi Abbasi2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Increased levels of nitric oxide (NO) in the testicular veins of people suffering from varicocele have already been reported. However, the role of NO-synthase (NOS) isozymes and their inhibitors have not been extensively studied. We aimed to evaluate the inhibitory effects of aminoguanidine (AG), on sperm motility, vitality, and mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) in varicocelized rats.Entities:
Keywords: Aminoguanidine Mitochondrial membrane-potential; Rat; Sperm motility; Varicocele; Vitality
Year: 2016 PMID: 28096959 PMCID: PMC5220232 DOI: 10.22038/ijbms.2016.7908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Basic Med Sci ISSN: 2008-3866 Impact factor: 2.699
Figure 1(A) Flow cytometric two-dimensional dot-plots of fluorescence intensities of 10,000 individual rat sperm stained with Rh123 and PI. Data in quadrants 2 and 4 represent sperms with normal MMP, and Rh123 fluorescence and data in quadrants 3 and 4 represent viable sperm with no PI fluorescence. Only 18.64% of the varicocele sperm population (quadrant 4) contain viable cells with normal MMP, compared with 65.74% of the control sperm population and 59.04% of the treatment sperm population. The fluorescence of Rh123 and PI were collected in fluorescence detectors 1 (FL1) and 3 (FL3), respectively. (B). Comparison of MMPs in different groups. Experiments were independently repeated three times. Each column represents mean± SEM
*Significant difference observed when varicocele group was compared with the control and sham groups (P<.05)
**Significant difference observed when treatment group was compared with control and sham groups (P<.05)
Figure 2Evaluation of sperm motility in different groups Experiments were independently repeated three times. Each column represents mean±SEM
*Significant difference observed when varicocele group was compared with control and sham groups (P<.05)
**Significant difference observed when treatment group was compared with control and sham groups (P<.05)