Open Access

Comprehensive proteomic analysis of bovine spermatozoa of varying fertility rates and identification of biomarkers associated with fertility

  • Divyaswetha Peddinti1, 4,
  • Bindu Nanduri1, 4,
  • Abdullah Kaya2,
  • Jean M Feugang,
  • Shane C Burgess1, 4, 5 and
  • Erdogan Memili3Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Systems Biology20082:19

DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-2-19

Received: 10 July 2007

Accepted: 22 February 2008

Published: 22 February 2008

Abstract

Background

Male infertility is a major problem for mammalian reproduction. However, molecular details including the underlying mechanisms of male fertility are still not known. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms is essential for obtaining consistently high reproductive efficiency and to ensure lower cost and time-loss by breeder.

Results

Using high and low fertility bull spermatozoa, here we employed differential detergent fractionation multidimensional protein identification technology (DDF-Mud PIT) and identified 125 putative biomarkers of fertility. We next used quantitative Systems Biology modeling and canonical protein interaction pathways and networks to show that high fertility spermatozoa differ from low fertility spermatozoa in four main ways. Compared to sperm from low fertility bulls, sperm from high fertility bulls have higher expression of proteins involved in: energy metabolism, cell communication, spermatogenesis, and cell motility. Our data also suggests a hypothesis that low fertility sperm DNA integrity may be compromised because cell cycle: G2/M DNA damage checkpoint regulation was most significant signaling pathway identified in low fertility spermatozoa.

Conclusion

This is the first comprehensive description of the bovine spermatozoa proteome. Comparative proteomic analysis of high fertility and low fertility bulls, in the context of protein interaction networks identified putative molecular markers associated with high fertility phenotype.

Background

Male infertility is a major problem for mammalian reproduction. The nature of sub-fertility due to the male is as complex as that of the female [1]. Infertility due to male factor contributes approximately 40% of the infertility cases in humans. For this reason it is very important to investigate the factors that affect male fertility. Here we used bovine spermatozoa to model human male fertility because cattle provide several advantages as a model for male factor infertility. These include good breeding records fertility data records and progeny records. In cattle breeding, Artificial insemination (AI), a common breeding technique, utilizes semen from genetically superior sires to inseminate cows. In the United States more than ~70% of cows are bred by AI but only ~50% of these matings result in successful full term pregnancy [2]. The underlying molecular events/mechanisms that determine the fertilizing potential of a semen sample are not well defined. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms is essential for obtaining consistently high reproductive efficiency and to ensure lower cost and time-loss by breeder.

Fertility traits of semen can be categorized as compensable or uncompensable [1, 37]. Defects in compensable traits (motility and morphology) can be overcome by increasing the number of spermatozoa per insemination [1]. Defects in uncompensable traits affect the function of spermatozoa during the later stages of fertilization and in embryonic development [1, 8] and as such cannot be compensated. Uncompensable traits include nuclear vacuoles [9], morphological deficiencies that do not suppress movement [4], defective chromatin structure [10]. Low fertility in bulls has an uncompensable component that includes reduced cleavage rate and delayed pronuclear formation following in vitro fertilization [1, 11]. Currently available fertility assays assess the defects that affect functional competence of spermatozoa (i.e. capacitation, acrosome reaction, sperm-oocyte interaction) [8, 12], however these cannot definitively predict fertility. At present, the molecular nature of sperm fertility defects or biomarkers for accurate fertility prediction is not known [13].

Spermatozoa are transcriptionally inactive so the only comprehensive method to understand the molecular functions in spermatozoa is via proteomics [13]. Published proteomic studies with bull spermatozoa described the sub-proteome of the sperm and functions of proteins from its surrounding cells. Accessory gland (AG) proteins were shown to modulate important sperm functions after ejaculation and in the female reproductive tract such as capacitation, acrosome reaction, sperm-oocyte interaction, and sperm protection [14]. It is known that fertile associated antigen (FAA), a heparin binding protein from seminal vesicles and prostate glands, binds to spermatozoa membrane and modulates heparin-sperm interactions that are indicative of fertility [15]. Two seminal plasma proteins such as, prostaglandin-D-synthetase and osteoponin were more abundant in the semen of high fertility bulls when compared to low fertility bulls [16, 17].

Here we describe a comprehensive proteomic analysis of bull sperm using differential detergent fractionation (DDF) two-dimensional liquid chromatography followed by electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (DDF 2-LC ESI MS2; [18]). We compared protein expression profiles of sperm from high and low fertility bulls to characterize the differences in fertility at the protein level. Our results show that expression of 2051 and 2281 proteins was specific to high and low fertility bull spermatozoa, respectively and 1518 proteins were common to both. Differential expression of 125 proteins was significant between high and low fertility bull spermatozoa and these proteins are potential biomarkers for bovine male fertility. Biological systems utilize highly complex, interrelated metabolic and signaling pathways to function. Therefore, to identify signaling pathways involved in fertility, we carried out systems modeling of our proteomic datasets using Gene Ontology (GO) and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). We identified differences in the signaling pathways between high and low fertility bull spermatozoa and found that EGF and PDGF signaling pathways were specific to high fertility.

Results

Proteome profiles of spermatozoa from high and low fertility bulls

We identified 3569 and 3799 proteins in high and low fertility group spermatozoa respectively (see additional file 1). Among these 1518 (20.4%) were common to both groups and 2051 and 2281 proteins were unique to high and low fertility groups respectively (Figure 1). Only those proteins identified by at least three peptides were included in the analysis for differential expression and we identified 125 proteins as differentially-expressed between the high and low fertility spermatozoa. Compared to low fertility bull spermatozoa, expression of 74 proteins increased and there was a decrease in the expression of 51 proteins in high fertility spermatozoa (Table 1). Only a small proportion of proteins identified in this study have been previously described (15.1% of the high fertility group specific and 14.3% of the low fertility group specific proteins (Figure 1)). The majority of the identified proteins are 'predicted' (i.e. predicted based on sequence similarity to known proteins in other species and are frequently found in NRPD database for species that have had their genomes sequenced [19]). We contributed to the annotation of the newly sequenced bovine genome by experimentally confirming the in vivo expression of 4,313 electronically predicted proteins (see additional file 1). We also identified 10.6% and 9.8% 'hypothetical' (i.e. proteins predicted from nucleic acid sequences and that have not been shown to exist by experimental protein chemical evidence [20]) proteins specific to high fertility and low fertility spermatozoa respectively.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1752-0509-2-19/MediaObjects/12918_2007_Article_176_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Comparison of proteins identified in high fertility and low fertility spermatozoa. Distribution of predicted, known and hypothetical proteins is shown. a known proteins, b predicted proteins, c hypothetical proteins.

Table 1

Differentially expressed proteins.

Accesion

Name

Peptides

∑Xcorr

P-value

Regulation

  

HF

LF

HF

LF

  

115496714

Actin-like 7B

16

7

60.06

42.11

0.02243

up

77736067

Acyl-CoA thioesterase 9

14

4

39.23

16.48

2.11E-04

up

41386786

A-kinase anchor protein 4

679

581

2581.8

2424.3

0.001694

up

30794280

Albumin

7

1

27.09

5.24

1.49E-04

up

60302887

Aldose reductase

1

3

3.03

12.82

0.03293

down

27807289

Annexin A2

4

10

29.17

26.46

0.04155

down

84490369

ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial

16

8

48.01

31.88

0.0333

up

28603752

ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F0

7

1

18.99

7.14

0.005907

up

28461221

ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex

201

174

765.55

700.71

0.006727

up

28461251

ATPase inhibitory factor 1 precursor

18

10

45.95

30.03

0.01581

up

27807145

Casein kinase 2, alpha prime polypeptide

3

0

11.25

0

5.01E-04

up

60101831

Cytochrome c oxidase subunit III

5

4

17.45

11.47

0.01008

up

84000107

Glycoprotein (transmembrane) nmb

0

3

6.9

8.98

0.0133

down

84000035

Hypothetical protein LOC504736

3

1

8.66

2.04

0.03204

up

115497288

Hypothetical protein LOC506544

4

7

13.54

18.39

0.04931

down

78369248

Hypothetical protein LOC509274

18

10

77.94

51.72

0.01217

up

115496338

Hypothetical protein LOC516024

27

22

109.76

67.93

1.54E-05

up

115495377

Hypothetical protein LOC520260

44

58

201.9

232.07

0.04396

down

114052468

Hypothetical protein LOC532785

8

19

32.19

55.25

0.003313

down

115496742

Hypothetical protein LOC534599

27

11

88.93

61.57

0.02739

up

84000301

Hypothetical protein LOC534927

9

3

32.16

14.67

0.01593

up

115495951

Hypothetical protein LOC540767

20

12

62.88

41.8

0.004421

up

94966950

Hypothetical protein LOC614199

4

0

10.84

1.66

0.007311

up

84000391

Hypothetical protein LOC615316

11

5

35.17

24.34

0.02524

up

115497750

Hypothetical protein LOC617117

19

12

58.06

44.14

0.03432

up

116004271

Hypothetical protein LOC767959

4

0

12.9

3.03

0.04429

up

27805989

Lysyl oxidase-like 4

1

3

1.59

7.16

0.03124

down

27806307

Mitochondrial ATP synthase, O subunit

13

8

51.79

34.78

0.03731

up

28461275

NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) 1 alpha subcomplex

13

3

48.9

27.96

0.05046

up

28461255

NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) 1 beta subcomplex

2

4

3.67

13.56

0.01051

down

62751972

Potassium voltage-gated channel shaker-related

3

0

5.86

0

1.21E-04

up

119891540

PREDICTED: glutathione S-transferase kappa 1

3

3

10.97

8.47

0.01147

up

119887606

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

1

3

2.03

8.02

0.04382

down

119903031

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

5

15

25.57

46.02

2.23E-04

down

119908822

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

3

1

7.23

1.65

0.03051

up

119888977

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

11

3

37.09

22.02

0.03232

up

119905186

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

0

3

0

6.3

1.90E-05

down

76661674

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

1

4

2.22

9.87

0.01595

down

119901076

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

1

5

9.84

11.22

0.04157

down

119918378

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

3

15

16.31

36.68

5.24E-04

down

61843441

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

0

4

0

9.99

4.37E-05

down

119901737

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

4

6

20.4

18.24

0.02245

down

119904572

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

3

0

6.15

4.95

0.01124

up

119884876

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

3

2

9.65

2.72

0.03549

up

76631114

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

35

15

106.7

81.25

0.02224

up

119923822

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein

63

51

205.06

170.94

0.001919

up

76644873

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein isoform 2

3

0

7.78

1.83

0.03381

up

76645752

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein isoform 4

1

4

1.62

9.68

0.003268

down

119912558

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein isoform 6

4

0

10.87

0

7.37E-12

up

119893872

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein LOC535130

5

1

14.93

12.61

0.03256

up

76687954

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein, partial

3

0

7.7

1.95

0.04264

up

119925886

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein, partial

3

0

6.76

5.69

0.01623

up

119895251

PREDICTED: profilin 3

2

4

12.89

19.46

0.01716

down

119922439

PREDICTED: similar to 1700016M24Rik protein

3

0

8.17

0

1.04E-04

up

119879571

PREDICTED: similar to AAT1-alpha

22

12

69.77

50.74

0.01412

up

119912554

PREDICTED: similar to Ace protein

15

4

55.74

20.29

8.69E-06

up

61878077

PREDICTED: similar to Actin-related protein T1

7

2

16.82

7.44

0.02775

up

119928361

PREDICTED: similar to ADAM metallopeptidase

7

2

23.85

10.3

0.01155

up

119913547

PREDICTED: similar to ADAM metallopeptidase with thrombospondin type 1 motif, 17 preproprotein

5

0

12.58

0

1.24E-07

up

119903267

PREDICTED: similar to ALMS1 protein

4

0

10.2

2.89

0.02294

up

119892487

PREDICTED: similar to Ankyrin repeat domain-containing

1

3

1.88

7.82

0.03473

down

76657564

PREDICTED: similar to calmodulin

10

5

23.53

16.83

0.04331

up

119901005

PREDICTED: similar to centrosomal protein 110kD

3

0

8.38

2.06

0.03921

up

119893858

PREDICTED: similar to chromosome 13 open reading

0

3

0

6.84

4.35E-04

down

61814552

PREDICTED: similar to Cytochrome c oxidase subunit

13

10

41.99

47.17

0.01639

up

119904416

PREDICTED: similar to diaphanous homolog 3

0

3

0

7.64

3.85E-04

down

119915202

PREDICTED: similar to DNAH8, partial

12

3

33.72

16.39

0.001961

up

119927503

PREDICTED: similar to DNAH8, partial

6

1

22.2

8.36

0.04519

up

119911633

PREDICTED: similar to EF-hand calcium binding domain 5

0

3

0

7.52

3.23E-05

down

119888835

PREDICTED: similar to EPH receptor A8

4

0

9.46

1.9

0.009866

up

119895747

PREDICTED: similar to FAT tumor suppressor 2

12

3

28.56

32.84

1.15E-04

up

119919673

PREDICTED: similar to ferritin L subunit isoform

1

4

0.57

10.42

3.74E-05

down

119909426

PREDICTED: similar to fertilin alpha

12

27

63.45

89.9

0.003791

down

119919953

PREDICTED: similar to filamin

0

3

0

6.94

4.54E-04

down

76662361

PREDICTED: similar to GFHL3075 isoform 3

3

0

8.3

7.63

0.01657

up

61820991

PREDICTED: similar to GK2 protein

16

9

54.86

31.79

0.01383

up

119901324

PREDICTED: similar to HECT domain and ankyrin repeat containing, E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 isoform 1

2

3

6.09

6.74

0.01418

down

119895512

PREDICTED: similar to HIST1H4I protein

3

0

6.36

1.06

0.007699

up

119915532

PREDICTED: similar to histone H2b-616

4

10

17.41

34.08

0.005828

down

76613952

PREDICTED: similar to histone H4

2

2

7.48

5.88

0.02561

down

76642199

PREDICTED: similar to Izumo sperm-egg fusion 1

39

24

133.67

99.29

0.005314

up

119890207

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA0191

18

26

70.99

64.29

0.01024

down

119891377

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA0225 isoform 1

1

4

1.01

9.43

5.50E-04

down

119890395

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA0467 protein

0

3

0

7.91

3.74E-06

down

119902048

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA1305 protein

0

3

0

7.91

0.001712

down

119906772

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA1429 protein isoform

0

3

0

6.98

4.55E-04

down

119912552

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA1636 protein

3

0

7.44

0

1.53E-04

up

119891313

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA1793 protein

12

8

52.91

37.11

0.0228

up

119909205

PREDICTED: similar to KIAA2017 protein isoform

6

0

17.51

6.69

0.01123

up

76664109

PREDICTED: similar to LOC505732 protein

4

6

14.08

12.97

0.01832

down

76641602

PREDICTED: similar to LOC507431 protein isoform

10

7

31.93

36.41

0.03413

up

119902010

PREDICTED: similar to LOC512571 protein

47

34

189.9

155.47

0.03649

up

119905900

PREDICTED: similar to NDRG3

0

3

0

7.3

1.80E-04

down

76612380

PREDICTED: similar to nestin

0

3

0

6.85

1.25E-04

down

119911939

PREDICTED: similar to netrin-1

2

4

2.84

8.74

0.01328

down

119894490

PREDICTED: similar to obscurin, cytoskeletal calmodulin and titin-interacting RhoGEF, partial

1

3

1.45

7.16

0.03376

down

119905455

PREDICTED: similar to Pitrilysin metallopeptidase

1

6

2.49

22.6

3.23E-05

down

76618065

PREDICTED: similar to Pou6f1 protein

4

1

15.92

11.31

0.006931

up

119894859

PREDICTED: similar to Protein KIAA1543 isoform

1

3

1.36

8.01

0.008488

down

119893105

PREDICTED: similar to protein kinase A binding protein

135

113

480.21

392.89

2.35E-05

up

76627105

PREDICTED: similar to RAB2B, member RAS oncogene

7

16

29.46

52.58

0.004367

down

119912290

PREDICTED: similar to RIKEN cDNA 4121402D02

3

0

7.29

0

2.00E-07

up

119914167

PREDICTED: similar to RIKEN cDNA A530050D06 gene

6

8

12.57

21.82

0.007372

down

119903563

PREDICTED: similar to RNA polymerase I polypept

3

6

7.15

15.59

0.03155

down

119910233

PREDICTED: similar to sca1

3

0

7.43

1.65

0.0301

up

119916698

PREDICTED: similar to Septin 12

0

3

0

8.2

2.26E-07

down

119903556

PREDICTED: similar to sulfotransferase K1

0

3

0

6.79

1.49E-04

down

119902145

PREDICTED: similar to telomerase-associated protein

3

0

8.27

0

8.45E-06

up

119914302

PREDICTED: similar to trans-Golgi p230

4

0

8.82

2.85

0.01983

up

119917225

PREDICTED: similar to TRRAP protein

2

5

2.92

11.86

0.002132

down

119917582

PREDICTED: similar to TUBA

3

1

9.42

3.39

0.03158

up

119912117

PREDICTED: similar to Tumor necrosis factor receptor

7

0

17.77

0

6.66E-12

up

119903686

PREDICTED: similar to ubiquitin specific protease 34 isoform1

1

4

2.31

9.99

0.01666

down

77736091

Prohibitin

7

3

22.59

9.08

0.03313

up

114052901

Rhabdoid tumor deletion region gene 1

10

2

31.71

15.41

0.009593

up

84000339

Sperm associated antigen 6

4

1

13.76

2.2

0.02495

up

87196516

Sperm mitochondria-associated cysteine-rich protein

3

0

9.82

3.51

0.03455

up

115495195

Tektin 1

27

19

107.5

76.3

0.0155

up

84000201

Transmembrane protein 5

3

1

6.27

6.97

0.004588

up

61888856

Triosephosphate isomerase

40

26

158.4

122.55

0.005981

up

27807143

Ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase core protein II

7

2

33.24

16.14

0.02472

up

List of differentially expressed proteins in high fertility (HF) group spermatozoa when compared to low fertility group. (LF) spermatozoa In this table we provided the information about number of peptides, Sequest cross correlation (∑Xcorr) score and P value for each protein in high and low fertility group spermatozoa respectively.

Predicted and hypothetical proteins do not have any functional annotation associated with them and they represent ~80% of differentially expressed proteins between high and low fertility spermatozoa (Table 1). This poses a problem for meaningful biological modeling of our data without carrying out some functional annotation first. Therefore, we annotated all differentially expressed proteins in our data sets using AgBase GO resources.

Membrane and nuclear proteins

Membrane and nuclear proteins are fundamental for inter and intra cellular signaling and are thus fundamental for modeling cell-cell interactions. Sperm oocyte fusion is a key element for fertilization. This process is facilitated by sperm surface proteins and leads to specific binding of the sperm surface-active component with the egg zona pellucida and, ultimately, sperm-egg fusion [21]. To identify proteins from the sperm membrane and the nucleus which function in cell fusion, we focused on membrane and nuclear proteins identified in our datasets. Based on the GO associations of known proteins, 40.6% (395) are membrane proteins. We also identified 112 nuclear proteins based on GO associations. Biological process annotation of membrane proteins revealed that majority of membrane proteins involved in transport (33%), cell communication (18%) and metabolism (17%).

We GO annotated all differentially expressed proteins and applied the generic GO Slim [22] to identify 7 functional super-categories represented in differentially expressed proteins in high fertility spermatozoa. Most GO Slim categories, including processes such as metabolism, cell communication and cell motility showed overall up regulation of protein expression in the high fertility group while transport proteins showed an overall down regulation in the high fertility group (Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1752-0509-2-19/MediaObjects/12918_2007_Article_176_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Overall effects in GO Slims of differentially expressed proteins of high and low fertility spermatozoa. Biological process GO annotations of all significantly altered proteins between high and low fertility spermatozoa were used to generate GO Slims. For each GO Slim, the difference in the numbers of proteins with increased expression and the number of proteins with decreased expression (relative to low fertility spermatozoa) was calculated to estimate the net regulatory effect.

High fertility and low fertility sperm proteomes: molecular network and pathway analysis

Protein identification from biological samples on a global scale is important. However, there is a need to move beyond this level of analysis; Instead of simply enumerating a list of proteins, the analysis needs to include their interactions as parts of complexes, pathways and biological networks. To achieve this level of analysis with our high fertility and low fertility spermatozoa proteomic datasets we used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). At IPA thresholds for significance, 71, and 73 networks and 68, and 73 functions/diseases were significantly represented in the proteomes of high fertility and low fertility spermatozoa respectively. The top 10 functions/diseases (ranked based on significance), and the associated signaling pathways are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 for proteomes of high and low fertility groups respectively. Analysis of the top 10 functions revealed that functions like cellular movement, cell to cell signaling and interaction were identified only in the high fertility sperm proteome (Table 2). Whereas, functions like cell death and reproductive system disease were identified only in the low fertility sperm proteome (Table 3).
Table 2

Top ten functions/diseases and their respective top ten signaling pathways in high fertility group spermatozoa.

 

Signaling Pathways

Functions & diseases

EGF signaling

PDGF signaling

Integrin signaling

Amyloid processing

Complement and Coagulation cascade

PPAR signaling

Neurotrophin signaling

Huntingtons disease signaling

IGF1 Signaling

Apoptosis signaling

Cell cycle

12

14

13

10

4

11

11

13

14

10

Cellular movement

9

12

25

10

11

13

9

12

11

14

Connective tissue development and function

3

4

7

5

2

2

3

2

5

2

Cellular assembly and Organization

3

5

15

9

3

4

4

5

4

7

Cell morphology

15

17

31

10

6

10

15

16

14

12

Cardio-vascular disease

4

5

3

5

3

2

3

7

3

7

Lipid metabolism

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

2

2

Small molecule Biochemistry

9

10

12

12

1

6

8

9

12

12

Cell to cell signaling and interaction

6

8

22

3

13

3

5

6

7

7

Post translational modification

8

10

14

13

1

7

7

9

9

10

EGF: Epidermal Growth Factor; PDGF: Platelet Derived Growth Factor; IGF1: Insulin Growth Factor-1.

Table 3

Top ten functions/diseases and their respective top ten signaling pathways in low fertility group spermatozoa.

 

Signaling Pathways

Functions & Diseases

Cell cycle:G2/M DN Adamage check point regulation

Integrin signaling

Apoptosis signaling

MAPK signaling

Amyloid Processing

VEGF signaling

G-protein coupled receptor signaling

PTEN signaling

Actin Cyto-skeleton signaling

Axonal guidance signaling

1.Cell cycle

10

11

11

10

5

8

8

10

10

7

2.Cell morphology

3

26

13

18

7

11

18

14

31

26

3.Post translational modification

9

12

9

11

9

5

11

9

14

11

4.Cellular assembly and Organization

3

18

4

10

5

5

7

4

23

20

5.Lipid metabolism

0

2

3

5

5

3

5

2

2

4

6.Small molecule biochemistry

5

9

10

11

8

4

13

7

11

11

7.Connective tissue disorder

1

12

1

11

2

4

10

6

11

1

8.Gene Expression

8

6

8

16

6

5

16

11

6

8

9.Cell death

7

17

14

17

8

8

14

13

15

18

10.Reproductive system disease

9

5

6

9

2

7

4

8

14

12

MAPK: Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase; VEGF: Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; PTEN: Phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome ten.

Compared to low fertility sperm proteome (9), the high fertility sperm proteome (20) had a 2-fold enrichment in signaling pathways. However, the number of significant metabolic pathways represented was comparable between the low (8) and high (9) fertility spermatozoa. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) signaling was the most prominent signaling pathway specific to high fertility sperm (Figure 3). EGF signaling is known to promote proliferation, survival, and differentiation of a wide variety of mammalian cells [23]. In addition to the EGF signaling pathway, platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) signaling, peroxisome proliferated activator receptor (PPAR) signaling, interleukin(IL) -4 signaling, NF-kβ signaling, chemokine signaling, and insulin growth factor (IGF)-1 signaling were identified only in high fertility spermatozoa. In low the fertility group, Cell cycle: G2/M DNA damage check point regulation was the most significant pathway followed by integrin signaling.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1752-0509-2-19/MediaObjects/12918_2007_Article_176_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

EGF signaling pathway generated by the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software. EGF and PDGF signaling pathways were the top two pathways in the top 10 functions/diseases associated with the high fertility spermatozoa (Table 2). Each node represents a protein; proteins in shaded nodes were found in the high fertility spermatozoa dataset (see additional file 1) while proteins in clear nodes were not found in the high fertility spermatozoa dataset.

Proteins with significantly altered expression: molecular network and pathway analysis

Systems analysis of global proteomes revealed that some signaling pathways are differentially represented between the high and low fertility group spermatozoa. To further analyze these differentially expressed pathways, we carried out IPA analysis with just the 125 differentially expressed proteins. In high fertility spermatozoa, expression of 74 proteins was increased when compared to low fertility spermatozoa. IPA analysis identified three significant networks with scores of 22, 19, and 13 respectively. Proteins identified in the top three networks are participants in EGF signaling, PDGF signaling, oxidative phosophorylation, and pyruvate metabolism pathways. Expression of two proteins, ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex (ATP5B), and cytochrome c oxidase subunit III (COX3) involved in oxidative phosphorylation and casein kinase II involved in EGF signaling and PDGF signaling were higher in the high fertility spermatozoa compared to low fertility spermatozoa (Table 1). IPA also identified pyruvate metabolism as the most significant pathway in up regulated proteins of high fertility spermatozoa. In the low fertility sperm proteome, expression of 51 proteins increased when compared to high fertility spermatozoa. IPA analysis identified two significant networks in highly expressed proteins of low fertility sperm. Proteins identified in the top two significant networks are participants in integrin signaling and estrogen receptor signaling.

Discussion

Male fertility can be described as the success by spermatozoa to fertilize oocytes and of the resulting zygotes continue on through embryonic and fetal development until birth [11]. In this study we used bovine spermatozoa to study fertility as it can serve as a model for understanding human male infertility and reproductive diseases. Studying Bovine male fertility on its own merit has implications in agro-economics involving cattle industry worldwide.

A spermatozoon must reach the site of fertilization and be capacitated for successful fertilization to occur. A subsequent step is the acrosome reaction characterized by fusion of a spermatozoon outer acrosomal membrane with overlying plasma membrane [8]. The molecular mechanisms and signal transduction pathways mediating the processes of capacitation and acrosome reaction have been partially defined [8]. Bull sperm cytosolic fraction proteomic analysis showed enrichment for tyrosine kinases which are essential for phosphorylation of specific sperm proteins during capacitation [24]. The abundance of a variety of proteins from cells surrounding the sperm has been proposed to indicate male fertility [2, 14, 15]. Most of the studies used 2-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) for isolation and identification of sperm proteins [13, 2528]. To our knowledge this is the first comprehensive non-electrophoretic proteomic study of bull sperm proteome. The aim of our study was to identify proteins that were differentially expressed between high and low fertility bull spermatozoa and interrelated metabolic and signaling pathways that have a role in fertility.

We identified 125 proteins as differentially expressed in between the high and low fertility sperm even though 1518 proteins were common to both groups and about 2000 were unique to each. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy are that we took a conservative approach to the statistical analysis: only proteins identified by at least three peptides were included in the analysis for differential expression and the statistical method used in ProtQuant is very conservative. ProtQuant specifically address the issue of "missing" mass spectra that occurs in all 2-D LC MS2 -based expression proteomics methods. No other published method (either non-isotopic or isotopic) addresses this issue. Missing mass spectra are due to the inherent limitations of the mass spectrometers, the probabilistic nature of sampling and the cutoffs used to determine "true" assignments of peptides to mass spectra [29]. ProtQuant is highly conservative method which is based on sum of Xcorr method itself increases the specificity of spectral counting and reduce the type I errors of differential expression. Regardless, proteins were analyzed from each of three of the areas represented in Figure 1 and differentially-expressed proteins occurred in all three (i.e. proteins unique to the high and low fertility sperm as well as those common to both).

From proteome profiles of specific cells or tissues, one acquires large datasets that are inherently complex. As a result we consider it beneficial to model our bovine sperm proteome data sets using GO and IPA. From GO associations of differentially expressed proteins we found that there was a comparative up regulation of three biological processes in high fertility spermatozoa: metabolism, cell communication and cell motility (Fig 2).

Up regulation of metabolism is consistent with the fact that capacitation is coupled to a specific type of metabolism, that is glycolysis or oxidative respiration [30]. Pyruvate metabolism and glycolysis were the top most significant metabolic pathways represented in high fertility sperm proteome by IPA. In glycolysis, expression of pyruvate kinase (PKM2) was higher in high fertility spermatozoa. PKM2 catalyzes the production of pyruvate and ATP from phosphoenol pyruvate. Pyruvate formed in this process serves as an energy source for cells [31]. Impaired or lower pyruvate metabolism could limit the cell's ability to produce energy and this could be one of the reasons for reduced fertility in the low fertility group.

Expression of COX 3 and ATP5B involved in oxidative respiration was higher in high fertility spermatozoa compared to low fertility spermatozoa. COX3 is a member of the large transmembrane protein complex found in the mitochondrion and is the last protein in the electron transport chain. Coupling of electron transport to oxidative respiration maintains the high mitochondrial transmembrane potential required for mitochondrial ATP production [32]. ATP5B catalyzes the production of ATP from ADP in the presence of a proton gradient across the mitochondrial membrane and this ATP is utilized for the motility of sperm and capacitation [33].

Communication between sperm and oocyte is critical for successful fertilization. We found that there was up regulation of cell communication in the high fertility sperm proteome when compared to low fertility sperm proteome (Figure 2). To bring about cell to cell communication several signaling pathways are necessary. EGF signaling and PDGF signaling were the top two significant signaling pathways identified in high fertiliy spermatozoa. EGF and PDGF signaling pathways stimulate tyrosine phosphorylation of various MAP kinases and their upstream activators MEK1, MEK2 and MEKK [34, 35]. EGF signaling has an important role in sperm capacitation as it stimulates tyrosine phosphorylation of many proteins [36]. In addition, EGF signaling also activates phospholipase C (PLC) [36] (Figure 3). PLC is important for the acrosome reaction (AR), fertilization and embryo development. PLC catalyzes the production of inositol 1, 4, 5-triphosphate (IP3) from phosphatidylinositol 4, 5-biphosphate. IP3 generated by PLC activates the extra cellular calcium influx required for the AR via binding to the IP3 receptor (IP3R) gated calcium channel located on the acrosome membrane [37]. Mutations in mouse PLCB1 reduced the AR rate, fertilization rate and embryo development [38]. EGF signaling was specific to high fertility bull sperm. Defects in EGF signaling in low fertility spermatozoa may prevent capacitation.

Expression of casein kinase 2 (CKII) prime poly peptide in EGF signaling was higher in high fertility spermatozoa compared to low fertility spermatozoa (Table 1). CKII is preferentially expressed in late stages of spermatogeneis and is involved in sperm chromatin decondensation after sperm oocyte fusion [39, 40]. CKII deficient mice are infertile with oligospermia and globozoospermia[40]. EGF signaling also induces actin polymerization in bovine sperm capcitation [41]. Actin polymerization is essential for incorporation of sperm into egg cytoplasm [42] and for sperm nuclei decondensation [43].

Comparing the proteome profiles of bull sperm of high and low fertility showed some molecular features associated with low fertility. Cell cycle: G2/M DNA damage check point regulation was the topmost significant signaling pathway followed by integrin signaling in low fertility bull sperm (Table 3). The G2/M DNA damage checkpoint could help in maintaining the integrity of the genome during different stages of development. Progression through different phases of the cell cycle requires the sequential activation of various cyclin dependent kinases and these kinases in turn are regulated by integrin signaling. Integrin signals are necessary for cells to traverse the cell division cycle [44]. These two pathways may be a compensatory response for reproductive system disease function which was identified only in low fertility sperm (Table 3).

In addition to differences in signaling and metabolic pathways between high and low fertility spermatozoa, we identified differences in protein expression that had implications in sperm motility. Expression of A-kinase anchor protein-4 (AKAP4) was significantly higher in high fertility spermatozoa (Table 1). AKAP4 is a major fibrous sheath protein of the principal piece of the sperm flagellum. AKAP4 recruits Protein kinase A to the fibrous sheath and facilitates local phosphorylation to regulate flagellar function in humans [45]. It also serves as a scaffolding protein for signaling proteins and proteins involved in metabolism. Higher expression of AKAP4 in the high fertility group sperm could result in higher motility.

Conclusion

In summary, this is the first comprehensive description of the spermatozoa proteome of bovine. Comparative proteomic analysis of high fertility and low fertility bulls, in the context of protein interaction networks identified putative molecular markers associated with high fertility phenotype. We observed marked differences in signaling and metabolic pathways between high fertility and low fertility spermatozoa that have implications in sperm capacitation, acrosomal reaction and sperm-oocyte communication.

Methods

Selection of high and low fertility bulls

Frozen semen samples and bull fertility data (see additional file 2) from six mature and progeny tested Holstein bulls with satisfactory semen quality were provided by Alta Genetics (Watertown, WI).

Sample and Data Sources

The fertility data were established by a progeny testing program named Alta Advantage®, which is the industry's most reliable source of fertility information. It consisted of insemination records collected from 180 well managed partner dairy farms located in different geographical regions across the United States. This breeding program provided the advantages of DNA verification of the paternity of the offspring, and diagnosed pregnancies by veterinary palpation, instead of just relying on non-return rates 60–90 days after breeding.

Bull Fertility Prediction

To predict fertility of the bulls from the given source, a sub-set of data were generated consisting of 962,135 insemination records from 934 bulls with an average of 1,030 breedings ranging from 300 to 15,194. The environmental and herd management factors that influence fertility performance of sires were adjusted using threshold models which were similar to previously published models by Zwald et al [46, 47]. Parameters estimation and fertility prediction were obtained using Probit.F90 software developed by Y. M. Chang [48].

Therefore, for the definition of fertility, instead of relying only on the number of pregnant cows (verified using palpation by a veterinarian or ultrasound examination) divided by the total number of cows examined for pregnancy, we considered the outcome of each breeding event and adjusted the environmental factors such as the effects of herd-year-month, parity, cow, days in milk, sire proven status (young, proven, colored) in order to rank the bulls based on their breeding values for fertility. Further, the fertility of each bull was calculated and expressed as the percent deviation of its conception from the average conception of all bulls having at least 300 breeding in the data set.

Selection of high and low fertility bulls

For this study, we used an arbitrary threshold for classifying high and low fertility bulls. However, the bulls scoring highest and lowest fertility deviation from average with highest reliability (>1,000 breeding/bull) were selected for this study. The differences in the average fertility indexes between high and low fertility groups were 5.46% which was obtained from bulls having adequate records for higher reliability. While three bulls which were scored 5.3% above the average were considered high fertile, three bulls which were scored 10.76% below the average were defined as low fertility (see additional file 2). Two separated pools of sperm cells (3 × 108) were constituted by mixing equal amounts of sperm cells from either three low or three high fertility bulls. The experiment was replicated three times.

Isolation of pure sperm cells

Spermatozoa were collected from high and low fertility bulls and frozen in 0.25 ml straws. For each bull, the total spermatozoa collected were purified by Percoll gradient centrifugation: 90% Percoll solution in water was prepared with DL-Lactate (19 μM), CaCl2 (2 μM), NaHCO3 (25 mM), MgCl2 (400 μM), KCl (3 μM), NaH2PO4 (310 μM), NaCl (2 mM) and Hepes (10 mM). 90% Percoll solution was diluted to 45% with sperm diluent medium (1 mM pyruvate, 10 mM Hepes, 0.021 mM DL-Lactate in Tyrode's salt solution, pH 7.4). A density gradient of Percoll was prepared in an Eppendorf tube (0.1 ml of 90% fraction under 1 ml of the 45% fraction). Spermatozoa were thawed at 35°C for 1 min and layered on top of the percoll gradient. The spermatozoa were pelleted by centrifugation (956 g; 15 min) followed by two washes in phosphate-buffered solution (PBS) (956 g; 5 min,). The total sperm count was obtained using an Improved Neubauer Hemacytometer and 108 sperm cells were aliquoted and stored at -80°C.

Protein extraction by DDF

DDF sequentially extracts proteins from different cellular compartments using a series of detergents and this off-line pre-fractionation step in sample preparation increases the proteome coverage. Another advantage of using DDF is that based on the DDF fractions from which proteins are identified, proteins can be found in different cellular locations. Proteins were isolated using DDF as previously described [18]. Cytosolic proteins were extracted by six sequential incubations in a buffer containing digitonin (10 min each); next a fraction containing predominantly membrane proteins was isolated by incubating the cells in 10% Triton X-100 buffer for 30 min and then removing the soluble protein. Nuclear DDF buffer containing deoxycholate (DOC) was then added to the remaining insoluble material and subjected to freeze-thawing to disrupt the nucleus. Nuclear proteins were collected from the resulting soluble fraction and the sample was then aspirated through an 18 g needle and treated with a mixture of DNase I (50U, Invitrogen, Carlsbad CA;) and RNase A (50 mg; Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO) at 37°C for 1 h) to digest nucleic acids. Any remaining pellet, containing the least soluble proteins, was treated with a buffer containing 5% SDS.

Proteomics

Proteomic analysis was carried out with triplicate samples of spermatozoa from the high fertility group and low fertility group spermatozoa as described [19]. Proteins were precipitated with 25% tricholoroacetic acid to remove salts and detergents. Protein pellets were resuspended in 0.1 M ammonium bicarbonate with 5% HPLC grade acetonitrile (ACN), reduced (5 mM, 65°C, 5 min), alkylated (iodoacetamide, 10 mM, 30°C, 30 min) and then trypsin digested until there was no visible pellet (sequencing grade modified trypsin, Promega; 1:50 w/w 37°C, 16 h). Peptides were desalted using a peptide macrotrap (Michrom BioResources, Inc., Auburn, CA) and eluted using a 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid, 95% ACN solution. Desalted peptides were dried in a vacuum centrifuge and resuspended in 20 μL of 0.1% formic acid and 5% ACN. LC analysis was accomplished by strong cation exchange(SCX) followed by reverse phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) coupled directly in line with an ESI ion trap mass spectrometer (LCQ Deca XP Plus; ThermoElectron Corporation; San Jose, CA). Samples were loaded into a LC gradient ion exchange system (Thermo Separations P4000 quaternary gradient pump coupled with a 0.32 × 100 mm BioBasic strong cation exchange column). A flow rate of 3 μL/min was used for both SCX and RP columns.

A salt gradient was applied in steps of 0, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 57, 64, 90, and 700 mM ammonium acetate in 5% ACN, 0.1% formic acid, and the resultant peptides were loaded directly into the sample loop of a 0.18 × 100 mm BioBasic C18 reverse phase liquid chromatography column of a Proteome X workstation (ThermoElectron). The reverse phase gradient used 0.1% formic acid in ACN and increased the ACN concentration in a linear gradient from 5% to 30% in 20 min and then 30% to 95% in 7 min, followed by 5% for 10 min for 0, 10, 15, 25, 30, 45, 64, 90, and 700 mM salt gradient steps. For 20, 35, 40, 50 and 57 mM salt gradient steps ACN concentration was increased in a linear gradient from 5% to 40% in 65 min 95% for 15 min and 5% for 20 min.

The mass spectrometer was configured to optimize the duty cycle length with the quality of data acquired by alternating between a single full MS scan followed by three tandem MS scans on the three most intense precursor masses (as determined by Xcalibur software in real time) from the full scan. The collision energy was normalized to 35%. Dynamic mass exclusion windows were set at 2 min, and all of the spectra were measured with an overall mass/charge (m/z) ratio range of 300–1700.

All searches were done using TurboSEQUEST™ (Bioworks Browser 3.2; ThermoElectron). Mass spectra and tandem mass spectra were searched against an in silico trypsin-digested database of bovine RefSeq proteins downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Institute [NCBI; 12/26/2006; 24,853 entries]. Trypsin digestion including mass changes due to cysteine carbamidomethylation (C, 57.02 Da) and methionine mono- and di-oxidation (15.99 Da and 32 Da), was included in the search criteria. The peptide (MS precursor ion) mass tolerance was set to 1.5 Da and the fragment ion (MS2) mass tolerance was set to 1.0 Da. Rsp Value less than 5.

As a primary filter we first limited our Sequest search output to include only peptides ≥ 6 amino acids long, with ΔCn ≥ 0.08 and Sequest cross correlation (Xcorr) scores of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 for +1, +2, and +3 charge states, respectively. We next used a decoy database search strategy [49] (using the same primary filter for the real database search) to calculate P values for peptide identifications as this allows us to assign the probability of a false identification based on the real data from the experiment itself [4952]. Since the accuracy of peptide identification depends on the charge state we calculated P values for +1, +2, and +3 charge states separately. The probability that peptide identification from the original database is really a random match (P value) is estimated based on the probability that a match against the decoy database will achieve the same Xcorr [51, 53]. Protein probabilities were calculated exactly as described [54, 55] using only peptides with a P < 0.05 and only those proteins were used for further modeling. All protein identifications and their associated MS data have been submitted to the PRoteomics IDEntifications database (PRIDE ;[56]) and PRIDE accession numbers are 1883–1888.

Differential protein expression

Label free quantification approaches design to quantify relative protein abundances directly from high throughput proteomic analyses with out labeling techniques. Here, we used ProtQuant [29], a java based tool for label free quantification that uses a spectral counting method with increased specificity (and thus decreased false positive i.e. type I errors). This increased specificity is achieved by incorporating the quantitative aspects of the Sequest cross correlation (XCorr) into the spectral counting method. ProtQuant also computes the statistical significance of differential expression of control and treatment for each protein using one-way ANOVA (α ≤ 0.05). This method requires at least 3 peptides for each protein from the combination of the control and treatment before to calculate a p-value.

Gene Ontology Annotation

We used Gene Ontology (GO) resources and tools available at AgBase [57] to identify the molecular functions and biological processes represented in differentially expressed proteins in our datasets. We used GORetriver tool to obtain all existing GO annotations available for known proteins in our datasets. We first GO-annotated differentially expressed proteins in our datasets using existing annotations from probable orthologs with ≥90% sequence identity using the UniRef 90 database. Proteins without annotation at UniRef 90, but between 70–90% sequence identities to presumptive orthologs with GO annotation were GO-annotated using GOanna tool [22]. Biological process annotations for these proteins were grouped into more generalized categories using GOSlim viewer [22].

Modeling using Ingenuity pathway analysis

To gain insights into the biological pathways and networks that are significantly represented in our proteomic datasets we used Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA; Ingenuity Systems, California). Currently IPA accepts gene/protein accession numbers from human, mouse, and rats only. Therefore, to use IPA, we mapped bovine proteins from our datasets to their corresponding human orthologs by identifying reciprocal-best-BLAST hits and uploaded these accession numbers into IPA. IPA selects "focus genes" to be used for generating biological networks. Focus genes are based on proteins from our datasets that are mapped to corresponding gene objects in the Ingenuity Pathways Knowledgebase (IPKB) and are known to interact with other genes based on published, peer reviewed content in the IPKB. Based on these interactions IPA builds networks with a size of no more than 35 genes or proteins. A P-value for each network and canonical pathway is calculated according to the fit of the user's set of significant genes/proteins. IPA computes a score for each network from P-value and indicates the likelihood of the focus genes in a network being found together due to chance. We selected networks scoring ≥ 2, which have > 99% confidence of not being generated by chance [58, 59].

Biological functions are assigned to each network by using annotations from scientific literature and stored in the IPKB. Fisher exact test is used to calculate the P-value determining the probability of each biological function/disease or pathway being assigned by chance. We used P ≤ 0.05 to select highly significant biological functions and pathways represented in our proteomic datasets [58].

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was the result of collaboration between the Laboratories of Drs. Burgess and Memili.

This study was funded by the Life Sciences and Biology Institute & Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University (Manuscript number: J-11138), and by Alta Genetics, Inc. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Susan M Bridges and Bryce Magee for helping us with Biomarker discovery tool and Dr. Tibor Pechan for MS/MS analysis.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Basic Sciences, Mississippi State University
(2)
Alta Genetics, Inc.
(3)
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State University
(4)
Institute for Digital Biology, Mississippi State University
(5)
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental station

References

  1. Saacke RG, Dalton JC, Nadir S, Nebel RL, Bame JH: Relationship of seminal traits and insemination time to fertilization rate and embryo quality. Animal reproduction science. 2000, 60–61: 663-677. 10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00137-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Killian GJ: High – Fertility Proteins Enhance Reproduction Rates in Dairy Cattle. 1999Google Scholar
  3. Watson PF: The causes of reduced fertility with cryopreserved semen. Animal reproduction science. 2000, 60–61: 481-492. 10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00099-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. DeJarnette JM, Saacke RG, Bame J, Vogler CJ: Accessory sperm: their importance to fertility and embryo quality, and attempts to alter their numbers in artificially inseminated cattle. Journal of animal science. 1992, 70 (2): 484-491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dejarnette JM: The effect of semen quality on reproductive efficiency. The Veterinary clinics of North America. 2005, 21 (2): 409-418. 10.1016/j.cvfa.2005.02.011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Love CC: The sperm chromatin structure assay: a review of clinical applications. Animal reproduction science. 2005, 89 (1–4): 39-45. 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2005.06.019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Evenson DP: Loss of livestock breeding efficiency due to uncompensable sperm nuclear defects. Reproduction, fertility, and development. 1999, 11 (1): 1-15. 10.1071/RD98023View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Braundmeier AG, Miller DJ: The search is on: finding accurate molecular markers of male fertility. Journal of dairy science. 2001, 84 (9): 1915-1925.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Saacke RG, DeJarnette JM, Bame JH, Karabinus DS, Whitman SS: Can spermatozoa with abnormal heads gain access to the ovum in artificially inseminated super- and single-ovulating cattle?. Theriogenology. 1998, 50 (1): 117-128. 10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00119-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ballachey BE, Evenson DP, Saacke RG: The sperm chromatin structure assay. Relationship with alternate tests of semen quality and heterospermic performance of bulls. Journal of andrology. 1988, 9 (2): 109-115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eid LN, Lorton SP, Parrish JJ: Paternal influence on S-phase in the first cell cycle of the bovine embryo. Biology of reproduction. 1994, 51 (6): 1232-1237. 10.1095/biolreprod51.6.1232View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Aitken RJ: Sperm function tests and fertility. International journal of andrology. 2006, 29 (1): 69-75. discussion 105–108. 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00630.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pixton KL, Deeks ED, Flesch FM, Moseley FL, Bjorndahl L, Ashton PR, Barratt CL, Brewis IA: Sperm proteome mapping of a patient who experienced failed fertilization at IVF reveals altered expression of at least 20 proteins compared with fertile donors: case report. Human reproduction (Oxford, England). 2004, 19 (6): 1438-1447. 10.1093/humrep/deh224View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Moura AA, Koc H, Chapman DA, Killian GJ: Identification of proteins in the accessory sex gland fluid associated with fertility indexes of dairy bulls: a proteomic approach. Journal of andrology. 2006, 27 (2): 201-211. 10.2164/jandrol.05089View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. McCauley TC, Zhang H, Bellin ME, Ax RL: Purification and characterization of fertility-associated antigen (FAA) in bovine seminal fluid. Molecular reproduction and development. 1999, 54 (2): 145-153. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2795(199910)54:2<145::AID-MRD6>3.0.CO;2-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerena RL, Irikura D, Urade Y, Eguchi N, Chapman DA, Killian GJ: Identification of a fertility-associated protein in bull seminal plasma as lipocalin-type prostaglandin D synthase. Biology of reproduction. 1998, 58 (3): 826-833. 10.1095/biolreprod58.3.826View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Henault MA, Killian GJ: Effect of homologous and heterologous seminal plasma on the fertilizing ability of ejaculated bull spermatozoa assessed by penetration of zona-free bovine oocytes. Journal of reproduction and fertility. 1996, 108 (2): 199-204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McCarthy FM, Burgess SC, van den Berg BH, Koter MD, Pharr GT: Differential detergent fractionation for non-electrophoretic eukaryote cell proteomics. Journal of proteome research. 2005, 4 (2): 316-324. 10.1021/pr049842dView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarthy FM, Cooksey AM, Wang N, Bridges SM, Pharr GT, Burgess SC: Modeling a whole organ using proteomics: the avian bursa of Fabricius. Proteomics. 2006, 6 (9): 2759-2771. 10.1002/pmic.200500648View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lubec G, Afjehi-Sadat L, Yang JW, John JP: Searching for hypothetical proteins: theory and practice based upon original data and literature. Progress in neurobiology. 2005, 77 (1–2): 90-127. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2005.10.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bhattacharyya AK, Kanjilal S: Assessment of sperm functional competence and sperm-egg interaction. Molecular and cellular biochemistry. 2003, 253 (1–2): 255-261. 10.1023/A:1026024202288View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McCarthy FM, Wang N, Magee GB, Nanduri B, Lawrence ML, Camon EB, Barrell DG, Hill DP, Dolan ME, Williams WP: AgBase: a functional genomics resource for agriculture. BMC genomics. 2006, 7: 229- 10.1186/1471-2164-7-229PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dikic I: Mechanisms controlling EGF receptor endocytosis and degradation. Biochemical Society transactions. 2003, 31 (Pt 6): 1178-1181.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lalancette C, Faure RL, Leclerc P: Identification of the proteins present in the bull sperm cytosolic fraction enriched in tyrosine kinase activity: a proteomic approach. Proteomics. 2006, 6 (16): 4523-4540. 10.1002/pmic.200500578View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes-Davis R, Tanaka CK, Vensel WH, Hurkman WJ, McCormick S: Proteome mapping of mature pollen of Arabidopsis thaliana. Proteomics. 2005, 5 (18): 4864-4884. 10.1002/pmic.200402011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hozumi A, Satouh Y, Ishibe D, Kaizu M, Konno A, Ushimaru Y, Toda T, Inaba K: Local database and the search program for proteomic analysis of sperm proteins in the ascidian Ciona intestinalis. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2004, 319 (4): 1241-1246. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.05.118View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez-Heredia J, Estanyol JM, Ballesca JL, Oliva R: Proteomic identification of human sperm proteins. Proteomics. 2006, 6 (15): 4356-4369. 10.1002/pmic.200600094View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan Y, Fan L, Luo K, Zhu W, Lu G: [Establishment of the two-dimensional gel electrophoretic protein map of the human sperm head]. Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology. 2004, 10 (12): 886-889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Bridges SM, Bryce GB, Wang N, Williams WP, Burgess SC, Nanduri B: ProtQuant: a tool for the label-free quantification of mudPIT proteomics data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8 (Supple 7): S24- 10.1186/1471-2105-8-S7-S24PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferrandi B, Lange Consiglio A, Chiara F, Uber E, Marchini M, Baglioni A, Carnevali A, Cremonesi F, Porcelli F: Cytochemical study on human spermatozoa metabolism during in vitro capacitation. Andrologia. 1987, 19 (Spec No): 278-283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pithukpakorn M: Disorders of pyruvate metabolism and the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Molecular genetics and metabolism. 2005, 85 (4): 243-246. 10.1016/j.ymgme.2005.06.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Guthrie HD, Welch GR: Determination of intracellular reactive oxygen species and high mitochondrial membrane potential in Percoll-treated viable boar sperm using fluorescence-activated flow cytometry. Journal of animal science. 2006, 84 (8): 2089-2100. 10.2527/jas.2005-766View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson RN, Freund M: ATP synthesis and oxidative metabolism in human spermatozoa. Biology of reproduction. 1970, 3 (1): 47-54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter T: When is a lipid kinase not a lipid kinase? When it is a protein kinase. Cell. 1995, 83 (1): 1-4. 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90225-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Payne DM, Rossomando AJ, Martino P, Erickson AK, Her JH, Shabanowitz J, Hunt DF, Weber MJ, Sturgill TW: Identification of the regulatory phosphorylation sites in pp42/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAP kinase). The EMBO journal. 1991, 10 (4): 885-892.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Breitbart H, Naor Z: Protein kinases in mammalian sperm capacitation and the acrosome reaction. Reviews of reproduction. 1999, 4 (3): 151-159. 10.1530/ror.0.0040151View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Walensky LD, Snyder SH: Inositol 1, 4, 5-trisphosphate receptors selectively localized to the acrosomes of mammalian sperm. The Journal of cell biology. 1995, 130 (4): 857-869. 10.1083/jcb.130.4.857View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Choi D, Lee E, Hwang S, Jun K, Kim D, Yoon BK, Shin HS, Lee JH: The biological significance of phospholipase C beta 1 gene mutation in mouse sperm in the acrosome reaction, fertilization, and embryo development. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. 2001, 18 (5): 305-310. 10.1023/A:1016622519228PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mudgal P, Anand SR: Casein kinase II activity of buffalo sperm chromatin. Molecular reproduction and development. 1998, 50 (2): 178-184. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2795(199806)50:2<178::AID-MRD8>3.0.CO;2-HView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu X, Toselli PA, Russell LD, Seldin DC: Globozoospermia in mice lacking the casein kinase II alpha' catalytic subunit. Nature genetics. 1999, 23 (1): 118-121. 10.1038/12729View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Breitbart H, Cohen G, Rubinstein S: Role of actin cytoskeleton in mammalian sperm capacitation and the acrosome reaction. Reproduction (Cambridge, England). 2005, 129 (3): 263-268.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanchez-Gutierrez M, Contreras RG, Mujica A: Cytochalasin-D retards sperm incorporation deep into the egg cytoplasm but not membrane fusion with the egg plasma membrane. Molecular reproduction and development. 2002, 63 (4): 518-528. 10.1002/mrd.10203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kumakiri J, Oda S, Kinoshita K, Miyazaki S: Involvement of Rho family G protein in the cell signaling for sperm incorporation during fertilization of mouse eggs: inhibition by Clostridium difficile toxin B. Developmental biology. 2003, 260 (2): 522-535. 10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00273-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Giancotti FG, Ruoslahti E: Integrin signaling. Science (New York, NY). 1999, 285 (5430): 1028-1032.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Huang Z, Somanath PR, Chakrabarti R, Eddy EM, Vijayaraghavan S: Changes in intracellular distribution and activity of protein phosphatase PP1gamma2 and its regulating proteins in spermatozoa lacking AKAP4. Biology of reproduction. 2005, 72 (2): 384-392. 10.1095/biolreprod.104.034140View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zwald NR, Weigel KA, Chang YM, Welper RD, Clay JS: Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities, and relationships with existing traits. Journal of dairy science. 2004, 87 (12): 4295-4302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zwald NR, Weigel KA, Chang YM, Welper RD, Clay JS: Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates, and sire breeding values. Journal of dairy science. 2004, 87 (12): 4287-4294.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chang YM, Gianola D, Heringstad B, Klemetsdal G: Effects of trait definition on genetic parameter estimates and sire evaluation for clinical mastitis with threshold models. Animal science. 2004, 79: 355-364.Google Scholar
  49. Elias JE, Gygi SP: Target-decoy search strategy for increased confidence in large-scale protein identifications by mass spectrometry. Nature methods. 2007, 4 (3): 207-214. 10.1038/nmeth1019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Elias JE, Gibbons FD, King OD, Roth FP, Gygi SP: Intensity-based protein identification by machine learning from a library of tandem mass spectra. Nature biotechnology. 2004, 22 (2): 214-219. 10.1038/nbt930View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Park GW, Kwon KH, Kim JY, Lee JH, Yun SH, Kim SI, Park YM, Cho SY, Paik YK, Yoo JS: Human plasma proteome analysis by reversed sequence database search and molecular weight correlation based on a bacterial proteome analysis. Proteomics. 2006, 6 (4): 1121-1132. 10.1002/pmic.200500318View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Peng J, Elias JE, Thoreen CC, Licklider LJ, Gygi SP: Evaluation of multidimensional chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/LC-MS/MS) for large-scale protein analysis: the yeast proteome. Journal of proteome research. 2003, 2 (1): 43-50. 10.1021/pr025556vView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Qian WJ, Liu T, Monroe ME, Strittmatter EF, Jacobs JM, Kangas LJ, Petritis K, Camp DG, Smith RD: Probability-based evaluation of peptide and protein identifications from tandem mass spectrometry and SEQUEST analysis: the human proteome. Journal of proteome research. 2005, 4 (1): 53-62. 10.1021/pr0498638View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nesvizhskii AI, Keller A, Kolker E, Aebersold R: A statistical model for identifying proteins by tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical chemistry. 2003, 75 (17): 4646-4658. 10.1021/ac0341261View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. MacCoss MJ, Wu CC, Yates JR: Probability-based validation of protein identifications using a modified SEQUEST algorithm. Analytical chemistry. 2002, 74 (21): 5593-5599. 10.1021/ac025826tView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Martens L, Hermjakob H, Jones P, Adamski M, Taylor C, States D, Gevaert K, Vandekerckhove J, Apweiler R: PRIDE: the proteomics identifications database. Proteomics. 2005, 5 (13): 3537-3545. 10.1002/pmic.200401303View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. McCarthy FM, Bridges SM, Wang N, Magee GB, Williams WP, Luthe DS, Burgess SC: AgBase: a unified resource for functional analysis in agriculture. Nucleic acids research. 2007, D599-603. 35 DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  58. Gerling IC, Singh S, Lenchik NI, Marshall DR, Wu J: New data analysis and mining approaches identify unique proteome and transcriptome markers of susceptibility to autoimmune diabetes. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2006, 5 (2): 293-305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Huang Y, Yan J, Lubet R, Kensler TW, Sutter TR: Identification of novel transcriptional networks in response to treatment with the anticarcinogen 3H-1, 2-dithiole-3-thione. Physiological genomics. 2006, 24 (2): 144-153. 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00258.2005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Fazal MA, Palmer VR, Dovichi NJ: Analysis of differential detergent fractions of an AtT-20 cellular homogenate using one- and two-dimensional capillary electrophoresis. Journal of chromatography. 2006, 1130 (2): 182-189. 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.05.053View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Peddinti et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement