The sperm hook in house mice: a functional adaptation for migration and self-organised behaviour

Curation statements for this article:
  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    This study uses ex vivo live imaging of the uterus, uterotubal junction, and oviduct post-mating to test the role of the sperm hook in the house mouse (Mus musculus) in sperm movement which could be interesting to evolutionary biologists. The work is useful as their live imaging revealed sperm behaviors in the female tract that have not been previously reported. However, the strength of evidence is incomplete since the limited quantification of the data is insufficient and the extensive speculation on the functions of these sperm behaviors is not supported by sufficient experimental evidence to support their conclusions.

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Mouse sperm has a falciform apical hook at the head of the sperm. In this study, we investigated the function of the sperm hook while migrating through the female reproductive tract in Mus musculus (C57BL/6), using custom-built two-photon microscopy. Our observations indicate that sperm hook plays a probe-like role to facilitate sperm interaction with the epithelium during migration and an anchor-like role to secure onto the epithelia of the uterine and oviduct. We found no direct evidence of sperm trains being beneficial in their migration. While the sperm hook may be a key for sperm cooperative behaviour in other rodent species, our results suggest that in house mice, the sperm hook plays a role in sperm migration through female reproductive tract, but not for cooperative behaviour, except for synchronised sperm beating.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife assessment

    This study uses ex vivo live imaging of the uterus, uterotubal junction, and oviduct post-mating to test the role of the sperm hook in the house mouse (Mus musculus) in sperm movement which could be interesting to evolutionary biologists. The work is useful as their live imaging revealed sperm behaviors in the female tract that have not been previously reported. However, the strength of evidence is incomplete since the limited quantification of the data is insufficient and the extensive speculation on the functions of these sperm behaviors is not supported by sufficient experimental evidence to support their conclusions.

  2. Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The authors want to determine the role of the sperm hook of the house mouse sperm in movement through the uterus. The authors are trying to distinguish between two hypotheses put forward by others on the role of the sperm hook: (1) the sperm cooperation hypothesis (the sperm hook helps to form sperm trains) vs (2) the migration hypothesis (that the sperm hook is needed for sperm movement through the uterus). They use transgenic lines with fluorescent labels to sperm proteins, and they cross these males to C57BL/6 females in pathogen-free conditions. They use 2-photon microscopy on ex vivo uteri within 3 hours of mating and the appearance of a copulation plug. There are a total of 10 post-mating uteri that were imaged with 3 different males. They provide 10 supplementary movies that form the basis for some of the quantitative analysis in the main body figures. Their data suggest that the role of the sperm hook is to facilitate movement along the uterine wall.

    Strengths:

    Ex vivo live imaging of fluorescently labeled sperm with 2-photon microscopy is a powerful tool for studying the behavior of sperm.

    Weaknesses:

    The paper is descriptive and the data are correlations.

    The data are not properly described in the figure legends.

    When statistical analyses are performed, the authors do not comment on the trend that sperm from the three males behave differently from each other. This weakens confidence in the results. For example, in Figure 1 the sperm from male 3613 (blue squares) look different from male 838 (red circles), but all of these data are considered together. The authors should comment on why sperm across males are considered together when the individual data points appear to be different across males.

    Movies S8-S10 are single data points and no statistical analyses are performed. Therefore, it is unclear how penetrant the sperm movements are.

    Movies S1B - did the authors also track the movement of sperm located in the middle of the uterus (not close to the wall)? Without this measurement, they can't be certain that sperm close to the uterus wall travels faster.

    Movie S5A - is of lower magnitude (200 um scale bar) while the others have 50 and 20 uM scale bars. Individual sperm movement can be observed in the 20 uM (Movie 5SC). If the authors went to prove that there is no upsucking movement of sperm by the uterine contractions, they need to provide a high magnification image.

    Movie S8 - if the authors want to make the case that clustered sperm do not move faster than unclustered sperm, then they need to show Movie S8 at higher magnification. They also need to quantify these data.

    Movie S9C - what is the evidence that these sperm are dead or damaged?

    MovIe S10 - both slow- and fast-moving sperm are seen throughout the course of the movie, which does not support the authors' conclusion that sperm tails beat faster over time.

  3. Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The specific objective of this study was to determine the role of the large apical hook on the head of mouse sperm (Mus musculus) in sperm migration through the female reproductive tract. The authors used a custom-built two-photon microscope system to obtain digital videos of sperm moving within the female reproductive tract. They used sperm from genetically modified male mice that produce fluorescence in the sperm head and flagellar midpiece to enable visualization of sperm moving within the tract. Based on various observations, the authors concluded that the hook serves to facilitate sperm migration by hooking sperm onto the lining of the female reproductive tract, rather than by hooking sperm together to form a sperm train that would move them more quickly through the tract. The images and videos are excellent and inspirational to researchers in the field of mammalian sperm migration, but interpretations of the behaviors are highly speculative and not supported by controlled experimentation.

    Strengths:

    The microscope system developed by the authors could be of interest to others investigating sperm migration.

    The new behaviors shown in the images and videos could be of interest to others in the field, in terms of stimulating the development of new hypotheses to investigate.

    Weaknesses:

    The authors stated several hypotheses about the functions of the sperm behaviors they saw, but the hypotheses were not clearly stated or tested experimentally.

    The hypothesis statements were weakened by the use of hedge words, such as "may".