English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Decades ago it was reported that when male rats were exposed to chloroethylmethanesulfonate (CEMS) for 5 days prior to weekly matings with untreated females, the second mating resulted in reduced litter size. Since fertility was not assessed at earlier time points, it was not possible to determine whether CEMS exerted any effects on sperm in the epididymis. In this study, we used a 4-day exposure and assessed multiple reproductive endpoints on Day 5 to characterize effects of CEMS exposure (6.25-25 mg/kg) on Leydig cells and the epididymis. Exposure to CEMS caused a dose-related decline in serum testosterone (T) levels. This occurred at a dose lower than that required to decrease T production in vitro by testicular parenchyma. The in vitro decline was not attributed to a decrease in maximal hCG-stimulated T production, but to a decrease in unstimulated T production. CEMS was 5-fold less sensitive than ethane dimethanesulfonate (EDS) in reducing maximal hCG-stimulated T production. To control for alterations in the epididymis resulting from decreased serum T alone, T was implanted in CEMS-treated animals to maintain serum T at a concentration similar to that found in normal rats. This exogenous T failed to prevent the CEMS-induced decrease in the weight of the caput/corpus epididymidis but did prevent the CEMS-induced decrease in seminal vesicle weight. Implantation of T failed to prevent the CEMS-induced reduction in sperm reserves in the cauda epididymidis, and it failed to prevent the CEMS-induced alterations in the histology of both the corpus and proximal cauda epididymidis. The height of the epithelium in both of these regions was increased, and clear cells disappeared from the proximal cauda epididymidis. These results demonstrate that CEMS might alter the ability of the Leydig cell to respond to LH stimulation in vivo, and that alterations in the structure and function of the epididymis occur even when the serum concentration of T is maintained.

Chloroethylmethanesulfonate-lnduced Effects on the Epididymis Seem Unrelated to Altered Leydig Cell Function1