| Literature DB >> 32611817 |
Irem Sepil1, Ben R Hopkins2,3, Rebecca Dean4, Eleanor Bath2, Solomon Friedman5, Ben Swanson2, Harrison J Ostridge2,4, Lucy Harper2,6, Norene A Buehner7, Mariana F Wolfner7, Rebecca Konietzny8, Marie-Laëtitia Thézénas8, Elizabeth Sandham2, Philip D Charles8, Roman Fischer8, Josefa Steinhauer5, Benedikt M Kessler8, Stuart Wigby2,9,10.
Abstract
Declining ejaculate performance with male age is taxonomically widespread and has broad fitness consequences. Ejaculate success requires fully functional germline (sperm) and soma (seminal fluid) components. However, some aging theories predict that resources should be preferentially diverted to the germline at the expense of the soma, suggesting differential impacts of aging on sperm and seminal fluid and trade-offs between them or, more broadly, between reproduction and lifespan. While harmful effects of male age on sperm are well known, we do not know how much seminal fluid deteriorates in comparison. Moreover, given the predicted trade-offs, it remains unclear whether systemic lifespan-extending interventions could ameliorate the declining performance of the ejaculate as a whole. Here, we address these problems using Drosophila melanogaster. We demonstrate that seminal fluid deterioration contributes to male reproductive decline via mating-dependent mechanisms that include posttranslational modifications to seminal proteins and altered seminal proteome composition and transfer. Additionally, we find that sperm production declines chronologically with age, invariant to mating activity such that older multiply mated males become infertile principally via reduced sperm transfer and viability. Our data, therefore, support the idea that both germline and soma components of the ejaculate contribute to male reproductive aging but reveal a mismatch in their aging patterns. Our data do not generally support the idea that the germline is prioritized over soma, at least, within the ejaculate. Moreover, we find that lifespan-extending systemic down-regulation of insulin signaling results in improved late-life ejaculate performance, indicating simultaneous amelioration of both somatic and reproductive aging.Entities:
Keywords: aging; fertility; fitness; seminal fluid; sperm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32611817 PMCID: PMC7382285 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2009053117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Decline in reproductive performance in response to male age and mating activity. (A) Experimental design. U and F males. (B) Number of offspring from a single mating, excluding infertile matings (age and mating interaction: χ22 = 98.668; P = 0.0005) (n = 73–135). (C) The proportion of infertile matings (age and mating interaction: χ22 = 11.32; P = 0.0035) (n = 110–137). (D) Female latency to remate (age and mating interaction: χ22 = 34.886; P < 0.0001) (n = 60–70). (E) Paternity share of the experimental first male (age and mating interaction: χ22 = 219.34; P = 0.0234) (n = 37–55). (F) Number of eggs laid by virgin females or females mated to spermless (tudor) or control (cont) experimental males (U: female mating treatment: χ24 = 2398.7; P < 0.0001; n = 29–56) (F: female mating treatment: χ24 = 1405.9; P < 0.0001; n = 29–56) (G) Female latency to mate for virgin females and females first mated to spermless (tudor) or control (cont) experimental males (U: female mating treatment: χ24 = 137.923; P < 0.0001; n = 25–45) (F: female mating treatment: χ24 = 99.421; P < 0.0001; n = 23–42). Differences at P < 0.05 within mating groups and age categories and between treatments are represented as different letters.
Fig. 2.The seminal fluid proteome responds differentially to aging in U versus F males. (A) Heatmap of the abundance of the 117 Sfps detected in accessory gland and ejaculatory duct samples (n = 4 replicate experiments per group). The abundance of 40 out of 117 Sfps exhibit a significant differential response to age and mating after multiple test corrections. The annotation classification of each Sfp is indicated. (B) Line plots showing the change in standardized Sfp abundance with age. The average change in Sfp abundance for U and F males is depicted with lines marked U and F, respectively (age and mating interaction: L ratio22 = 163.856; P < 0.0001). (C) Principal component analyses of the seminal fluid proteome in male reproductive tissues (age and mating interaction: L ratio22 = 34.949; P < 0.0001). (D) Heatmap of the abundance of 117 seminal fluid proteins transferred to females during mating. None of the individual 117 Sfps exhibited a significant interaction between age and mating group after multiple test corrections. Two ejaculatory duct-specific Sfps were transferred in significantly higher quantities in response to age, independent of mating activity (CG17242 and CG5162), and 10 Sfps were transferred in significantly higher quantities in response to frequent mating independent of age (Acp26Aa, CG10587, CG17472, CG3097, CG34002, Est-6, NLaz, Regucalcin, Sfp24F, and Sfp65A). The annotation classification of each Sfp is indicated. (E) Line plots showing the standardized abundance of Sfps transferred with age. The average change in Sfp abundance for U and F males is depicted with lines marked U and F, respectively (age and mating interaction: L ratio22 = 130.595; P < 0.0001). (F) Principal component analyses of the seminal fluid proteome transferred to females (age and mating interaction: L ratio22 = 11.485; P = 0.003). Differences at P < 0.05 within mating groups and age categories are represented as different letters.
Fig. 3.The gel mobility of a number of functionally important Sfps (Acp62F, Acp26Aa, and Semp1) as determined by Western blots, in 1w and 5w males from U and F groups. The abundance of each protein is predicted from the proteomic data and illustrated as a heatmap. Each lane is an individual male. n = 3–6. Full blots are shown in .
Fig. 4.Aging and mating impact sperm production and transfer. (A) Average number of mature germline cysts per testis (a measure of sperm individualization rate) (age: χ22 = 223.78; P < 0.0001; mating: χ21 = 1.334; P = 0.119; age and mating interaction: χ22 = 0.772; P = 0.496) (n = 16–22). (B) Seminal vesicle area (mm2) (age and mating interaction: F22 = 68.494; P < 0.0001) (n = 49–79). (C) Proportion of males with no evidence of sperm within the seminal vesicle (n = 47–51). (D) Sperm viability 10 min after removal from the seminal vesicles (male age: χ21 = 0.308; P = 0.871; mating group: χ21 = 121.59; P = 0.001; interaction between male age and mating group: χ21 = 13.537; P = 0.282) (n = 36–51). (E) Number of GFP fluorescent sperm heads in female sperm storage organs 90 min after mating starts (binomial: age and mating interaction: χ22 = 13.417; P = 0.0012; count: age and mating interaction: χ22 = 726.46; P = 0.0062) (n = 22–43). Results are shown as means ± SEM. Differences at P < 0.05 within mating groups and age categories are represented as different letters.
Fig. 5.Manipulation of the insulin signaling pathway ameliorates ejaculate deterioration in Old-F males. (A) The proportion of infertile matings (U: age: χ21 = 10.413; P = 0.001; line: χ21 = 0.437; P = 0.508; age and line interaction: χ21 = 1.941; P = 0.164; n = 95–202) (F: age: χ21 = 115.83; P < 0.0001; line: χ21 = 5.433; P = 0.0198; age and line interaction: χ21 = 3.684; P = 0.055; n = 94–189). (B) Female remating latency (U: age: χ21 = 28.927; P < 0.0001; line: χ21 = 3.602; P = 0.058; age and line interaction: χ24 = 0.660; P = 0.416; n = 92–198) (F: age and line interaction: χ21 = 4.727; P = 0.03; n = 91–186). “C” stands for control and “A” stands for ablated lines. Results are shown as means ± SEM. Shaded areas are confidence intervals at the 0.15 level. Differences at P < 0.05 within lines and age categories are represented as different letters.