Advertisement

Sperm Chemotaxis: The First Authentication Events Between Conspecific Gametes Before Fertilization

Open Access
Conference paper

Abstract

Sperm chemotaxis toward eggs before fertilization has been observed in many living organisms. Sperm chemotaxis is the first communication or signaling event between male and female gametes in the process of fertilization, and species-specific events occur in many cases. Thus, sperm chemotaxis may act as a safety process for authenticating that fertilization occurs between conspecific egg and sperm and helps to prevent crossbreeding. Here, we introduce mechanisms of sperm chemotaxis, focusing on cross-talk between gametes and species specificity. Furthermore, we discuss the interactions between sperm-activating and sperm-attracting factors (SAAFs) in the ascidian species and that SAAF receptors on sperm cells are not all-or-none responses. The SAAF receptors may accept SAAFs of related species (closely related molecules), with different affinities.

Keywords

Fertilization Species specificity Sperm chemotaxis 

1.1 Introduction

In all living organisms, male gametes are activated, with increase in their motility, and are subsequently attracted toward a female gamete in response to certain factors released from the female gametes or reproductive organs. Chemotactic behavior of male gametes toward the ovule was first described in Kingdom Plantae, bracken fern (Pfeffer 1884). Brown algae have also developed chemoattractants for male gametes, known as sexual pheromones (Maier and Müller 1986). In flowering plants, peptidic factors called LURE s attract the pollen tube toward the ovules, resulting in guiding the sperm cell to the ovule (Okuda et al. 2009). Gamete chemotaxis was also observed in Kingdom Fungi, and the aquatic fungus Allomyces macrogynus shows gamete chemotaxis (Machlis 1973).

In Kingdom Animalia, sperm chemotaxis toward the egg was first observed in the hydrozoan Spirocodon saltatrix (Dan 1950), and such an ability is now widely recognized in marine invertebrates, from cnidarians to ascidians (Miller 1966, 1985b; Cosson 1990), and in vertebrates, from fish to humans (Oda et al. 1995; Pillai et al. 1993; Suzuki 1958, 1959; Eisenbach 1999; Yanagimachi et al. 2013). In nematodes, spermatozoa are unflagellated but use an amoeboid movement to move from the bursa through the uterus to the spermatheca (Ward and Carrel 1979). A sperm-guiding factor present in the micropyle area of the egg of the teleost rosy barb has also been described (Amanze and Iyengar 1990).

In many cases, species specificity of sperm chemotaxis is present. Thus, these phenomena constitute the first communication event between the gametes during fertilization and prevent crossbreeding among different species. In this chapter, we review sperm chemotaxis and focus on the species specificity of this phenomenon.

1.2 Chemical Nature of Sperm Chemoattractants

Chemoattractant molecules for sperm in plants are low molecular weight organic compounds such as the bimalate ions in the bracken fern (Brokaw 1957, 1958) and unsaturated cyclic or linear hydrocarbons, such as ectocarpene, in the brown algae (Maier and Müller 1986). In the aquatic fungus A. macrogynus, the female gametes release a sesquiterpene “sirenin” as a attractant for male gametes (Machlis 1973), and interestingly, a different compound called “parisin” released by the male gametes is able to attract flagellated female gametes of the same species (Pommerville and Olson 1987).

In animals, sperm chemoattractants have been identified in several species, and most of these chemoattractant molecules are proteins or peptides. Chemoattractants such as “resact ” in sea urchins (Ward et al. 1985; Guerrero et al. 2010), “sepsap ” in cuttlefish (Zatylny et al. 2002), and “asterosap ” in starfish (Böhmer et al. 2005) are peptides. A 21-kDa protein named “allurin ” in the amphibian Xenopus laevis (Olson et al. 2001) and tryptophan in abalone (Riffell et al. 2002) act as sperm chemoattractants. In the hydrozoan Hippopodius hippopus, the attractant has not yet been identified but has been characterized as a small and thermoresistant protein with a molecular mass of 25 kDa and an isoelectric point of 3.5 (Cosson et al. 1986). Recently, a Coomassie Blue-affinity glycoprotein, “Micropyler Sperm Attractant” (MSA), around the opening and inside of the micropyle of herring and flounder eggs has been identified that guides (“attract”) the spermatozoa into the micropyle (Yanagimachi et al. 2013).

On the other hand, nonproteinaceous chemoattractants have been identified in coral and ascidians: the chemoattractant of the coral Montipora digitata is an unsaturated fatty alcohol (Coll et al. 1994), and those of the ascidians Ciona intestinalis and Ascidia sydneiensis (Yoshida et al. 2002; Matsumori et al. 2013) are sulfated hydroxysterols. Mammalian spermatozoa also show chemotactic behavior, and many candidate chemoattractants for spermatozoa have been proposed (Eisenbach and Giojalas 2006). Recently, progesterone released from the cumulus oophorus was considered as a candidate of sperm attractant for human sperm (Guidobaldi et al. 2008). On the other hand, odorants such as bourgeonal (Spehr et al. 2003) and lyral (Fukuda et al. 2004), which are aromatic aldehydes used in perfumes, could also act as chemoattractants in human and mouse sperm, respectively.

Where are the sperm chemoattractants released? Fern sperms show a chemotactic response to secretions from the female reproductive structures (Pfeffer 1884). Sperm attractants of sea urchins and sea stars (starfish) are derived from the egg jelly (Ward et al. 1985; Nishigaki et al. 1996), and the source of sperm attractant of the hydrozoan, the siphonophore, is a cupule, the extracellular structure of the egg (Carré and Sardet 1981). Therefore, sperm attractants are released from the egg accessory organs or female gametes in these species. In contrast, in ascidians, sperm-attracting activity does not originate from the overall egg coat as a layer of jelly surrounding the eggs, but originates from the egg (Yoshida et al. 1993), indicating that the eggs themselves release the chemoattractant for the sperm.

1.3 Ca2+ Changes Mediate Sperm Chemotaxis

In all examples of well-characterized chemotaxis, the intracellular Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+] i ) appears to be a common element of absolute necessity in the attraction mechanism (Kaupp et al. 2008; Yoshida and Yoshida 2011). Ca2+ plays a key role in the regulation of flagellar beating, and in the case of sea urchin spermatozoa, the sperm attractant triggers [Ca2+] i fluctuations (Böhmer et al. 2005; Wood et al. 2005) that appear to correlate with the asymmetrical beating of sperm flagella (Brokaw et al. 1974; Brokaw 1979). In the hydrozoan siphonophore s, the diameters of the sperm trajectories decrease on approach of the sperm to the cupule (a sperm-attracting accessory organ of the egg), but the sperm trajectories are unchanged in the absence of Ca2+ (Cosson et al. 1984). A similar role for extracellular Ca2+ in mediating flagellar asymmetry of the spermatozoon during chemotactic behavior has been reported in hydrozoa (Miller and Brokaw 1970; Cosson et al. 1984). In ascidians, the spermatozoa normally exhibit circular movements, as just described, and maintain [Ca2+] i at very low levels (Shiba et al. 2008). During chemotactic behavior the spermatozoa produce frequent and transient increases of [Ca2+] i in the flagella (Ca2+ bursts) (Shiba et al. 2008). Interestingly, the Ca2+ bursts are consistently evoked at points at which the spermatozoon is around a temporally minimal value for a given sperm-activating and sperm-attracting factor (SAAF) concentration (Shiba et al. 2008) and to trigger a sequence of “turn-and-straight” movements. These data suggest that sperm attractants induce Ca2+ entry from extracellular spaces into the sperm cell, and the resultant increase in [Ca2+] i mediates the beating of sperm flagella, resulting in chemotactic “turn-and-straight” movements.

1.4 Specificity of Sperm Chemotaxis in Species Other Than Ascidians

As described here, the molecular structures of sperm chemoattractants are different in different species, and factors from one species cannot attract the sperm of another species. This specificity ensures species-specific fertilization by preventing crossbreeding. Species or genus specificity in sperm chemotaxis has been observed in hydrozoa (Miller 1979) and in echinoderms, other than sea urchins (Miller 1985a, 1997). However, no chemotactic cross-reactivity exists in siphonophore species examined, and contact with seawater without attractants is enough to activate sperm motility, although the presence of Ca2+ ions in seawater is involved in the chemo-attraction process (Cosson 1990). Mammalian species also seem to share a common sperm attractant molecule (Sun et al. 2003; Guidobaldi et al. 2008; Teves et al. 2006), suggesting the lack of species specificity. In Mollusca, even though the abalone species seem to show species specificity in sperm chemotaxis (Riffell et al. 2004), there is a lack of species specificity of sperm chemotaxis among chitons (Miller 1977).

1.5 Species Specificity of Sperm Chemotaxis in Ascidians

In ascidians, species-specific sperm agglutination was reported in the early 1950s in five Mediterranean ascidians (Minganti 1951), and precise species-specificity tests of sperm attractants in egg ethanol extracts were also described in many ascidian species (Miller 1975, 1982) (Table 1.1). In these studies, ascidian sperm chemotaxis or agglutination tend to be species specific, but cross-reactivity among many species was also observed (Table 1.1). In particular, a lack of specificity was evident within the genus Styela (Miller 1975, 1982) (Table 1.1). However, the study on species specificity of ascidians contained both the order Phlebobranchiata , including the genus Ciona, and the order Stolidobranchiata, including the genus Styela, which are genetically distant, as per recent taxonomic data (Zeng et al. 2006; Tsagkogeorga et al. 2009).
Table 1.1

Species-specificity tests of sperm chemotaxis or agglutination in ascidians

   

Sperm

1a

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Egg extracts

Ciona intestinalis

1

++

++

/

Ascidia callosa

2

+

++

/

/

++

/

/

/

/

/

/

Corella inflata

3

/

/

Corella willmeriana

4

±

+

±

++

++

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Chelyosoma productum

5

/

/

/

++

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Pyura haustor

6

/

/

±

/

/

/

/

/

/

Styela plicata

7

/

/

/

/

++

/

/

/

Styela clava

8

/

/

/

±

/

/

/

Styela montereyensis

9

+

+

+

++

+

+

Styela gibbsii

10

+

+

/

/

++

/

/

Boltenia villosa

11

/

±

/

/

/

/

++

/

Halocynthia igaboja

12

+

+

/

/

/

/

+

++

Species 1–5 are Phlebobranchia; species 6–12 are Stolidobranchia

++ strong activity, + weak activity, ± uncertain response, − negative response, / test not done

aNumbers show the same species shown in egg extracts

Source: Miller (1982)

We have previously identified the sperm chemoattractant released from the eggs of Ciona intestinalis as (25S)-3α,4β,7α,26-tetrahydroxy-5α-cholestane-3,26-disulfate, which was designated as the Ciona sperm-activating and -attracting factor (Ci-SAAF) (Yoshida et al. 2002; Oishi et al. 2004). The synthesized Ci-SAAF molecule possesses abilities to both activate motility and attract sperm (Yoshida et al. 2008; Oishi et al. 2004). The SAAF of another Ciona species, C. savignyi (Cs-SAAF), seems to be identical with Ci-SAAF and presents no specificity for the sperm activation of C. savignyi and vice versa (Yoshida et al. 1993, 2002). We have also recently identified As-SAAF from another phlebobranchian species, A. sydneiensis , as 3α,7α,8β,26-tetrahydroxy-5α-cholest-22-ene-3,26-disulfate (Matsumori et al. 2013); this was the first study leading to the identification of the chemoattractants of related species in Kingdom Animalia. Unexpectedly, Ci-SAAF and As-SAAF vary only by one double bond and the position of the OH group (Fig. 1.1). Even such a small difference in the sperm attractant molecules is enough to result in species-specific responses.
Fig. 1.1

Molecular structure of ascidian sperm attractants: Ciona intestinalis (Ci-SAAF) (a); Ascidia sydneiensis (As-SAAF) (b)

The cross-reactivity data of sperm chemotaxis for several ascidian species belonging to order Phlebobranchia show some specificity in the cross-reactivity between egg-conditioned seawater (ESW) and sperm response when comparing Ciona versus Phallusia and Phallusia versus Ascidia. However, this does not seem to be true in all cases in terms of “species” or “genus” specificity. For example, there is a “one-way” (no reciprocity) cross-reaction between C. savignyi and A. sydneiensis (Table 1.2) (Yoshida et al. 2013). Furthermore, even when a cross-reaction is observed, the level of activity is different. The interactions between the SAAFs in the ascidian species and the SAAF receptors on the sperm cells are not all-or-none responses. The SAAF receptor may accept SAAFs of related species, which are closely related molecules, with different affinity. Hence, sperm chemotaxis is neither a “species”- nor a “genus”-specific phenomenon among ascidians.
Table 1.2

Cross-reactivity in sperm chemotaxis elicited by egg-conditioned seawater (ESW) from different ascidian species

  

Sperm

 

1a

2

3

4

5

Egg-conditioned seawater

Ciona intestinalis

1

++

++

/

/

/

Ciona savignyi

2

++

++

/

Phallusia nigra

3

/

++

/

Phallusia mammillata

4

/

±

+

++

Ascidia sydneiensis

5

/

+

/

++

++ active, + weakly active, ± uncertain response, − negative, / not examined

aNumbers show the same species shown in egg extracts

Source: Yoshida et al. (2013)

1.6 Conclusion

Sperm chemotaxis appears to be a much more specific phenomenon at the species or genus level in many animal species: cnidarians (Miller 1979), echinoderms other than sea urchins (Miller 1985a, 1997), and ascidians (Miller 1982; Yoshida et al. 2013). These results indicate that the specificity of sperm chemotaxis participates in the prevention of crossbreeding at fertilization. It is hypothesized that the interaction between sperm attractants from egg and attractant receptors on the sperm does not result in all-or-none responses, and that attractant receptors may accept some heterospecific sperm attractants having related chemical structures but with different binding or dissociation constants. Research into the precise chemical nature of sperm attractants and their corresponding receptors in different species may provide new horizons for studies of the fertilization system, especially on the mechanisms by which authentic interactions between conspecific eggs and spermatozoa occur.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Area “Elucidating Common Mechanisms of Allogeneic Authentication: Mechanisms of Sexual Reproduction Shared by Animals and Plants” from MEXT (#22112507 & 24112708).

References

  1. Amanze D, Iyengar A (1990) The micropyle: a sperm guidance system in teleost fertilization. Development (Camb) 109:495–500Google Scholar
  2. Böhmer M, Van Q, Weyand I, Hagen V, Beyermann M, Matsumoto M, Hoshi M, Hildebrand E, Kaupp UB (2005) Ca2+ spikes in the flagellum control chemotactic behavior of sperm. EMBO J 24(15):2741–2752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brokaw CJ (1957) ‘Electro-chemical’ orientation of bracken spermatozoids. Nature (Lond) 179:525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brokaw CJ (1958) Chemotaxis of bracken spermatozoids. The role of bimalate ions. J Exp Biol 35:192–196Google Scholar
  5. Brokaw CJ (1979) Calcium-induced asymmetrical beating of triton-demembranated sea urchin sperm flagella. J Cell Biol 82:401–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brokaw CJ, Josslin R, Bobrow L (1974) Calcium ion regulation of flagellar beat symmetry in reactivated sea urchin spermatozoa. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 58:795–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carré D, Sardet C (1981) Sperm chemotaxis in siphonophores. Biol Cell 40:119–128Google Scholar
  8. Coll JC, Bowden BF, Meehan GV, Konig GM, Carroll AR, Tapiolas DM, Alino PM, Heaton A, De Nys R, Leone PA, Maida M, Aceret TL, Willis RH, Babcock RC, Willis BL, Florian Z, Clayton MN, Miller RL (1994) Chemical aspects of mass spawning in corals. I. Sperm-attractant molecules in the eggs of the scleractinian coral Montipora digitata. Mar Biol 118:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosson MP (1990) Sperm chemotaxis. In: Gagnon C (ed) Controls of sperm motility: biological and clinical aspects. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 104–135Google Scholar
  10. Cosson MP, Carré D, Cosson J (1984) Sperm chemotaxis in siphonophores. II. Calcium-dependent asymmetrical movement of spermatozoa induced by attractant. J Cell Sci 68:163–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosson J, Carré D, Cosson MP (1986) Sperm chemotaxis in siphonophores: identification and biochemical properties of the attractant. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 6:225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dan JC (1950) Fertilization in the medusan, Spirocodon saltatrix. Biol Bull 99:412–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenbach M (1999) Sperm chemotaxis. Rev Reprod 4:56–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenbach M, Giojalas LC (2006) Sperm guidance in mammals—an unpaved road to the egg. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(4):276–285. doi: 10.1038/nrm1893 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukuda N, Yomogida K, Okabe M, Touhara K (2004) Functional characterization of a mouse testicular olfactory receptor and its role in chemosensing and in regulation of sperm motility. J Cell Sci 117(pt 24):5835–5845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Guerrero A, Nishigaki T, Carneiro J, Tatsu Y, Wood CD, Darszon A (2010) Tuning sperm chemotaxis by calcium burst timing. Dev Biol 344(1):52–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.04.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Guidobaldi HA, Teves ME, Unates DR, Anastasia A, Giojalas LC (2008) Progesterone from the cumulus cells is the sperm chemoattractant secreted by the rabbit oocyte cumulus complex. PLoS One 3(8):e3040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003040 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaupp UB, Kashikar ND, Weyand I (2008) Mechanisms of sperm chemotaxis. Annu Rev Physiol 70:93–117. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.70.113006.100654 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Machlis L (1973) The chemotactic activity of various sirenins and analogues and the uptake of sirenin by the sperm of allomyces. Plant Physiol 52(6):527–530CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Maier I, Müller DG (1986) Sexual pheromones in algae. Biol Bull 170:145–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsumori N, Hiradate Y, Shibata H, Oishi T, Simma S, Toyoda M, Hayashi F, Yoshida M, Murata M, Morisawa M (2013) A novel sperm-activating and attracting factor from the ascidian Ascidia sydneiensis. Org Lett 15(2):294–297. doi: 10.1021/ol303172n CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller RL (1966) Chemotaxis during fertilization in the hydroid Campanularia. J Exp Zool 162:23–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller RL (1975) Chemotaxis of the spermatozoa of Ciona intestinalis. Nature (Lond) 254:244–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller RL (1977) Chemotactic behavior of chitons (Mollusca: Polyplacophora). J Exp Zool 202:203–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller RL (1979) Sperm chemotaxis in the hydromedusae. I. Species-specificity and sperm behavior. Mar Biol 53:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller RL (1982) Sperm chemotaxis in ascidians. Am Zool 22:827–840Google Scholar
  27. Miller RL (1985a) Demonstration of sperm chemotaxis in echinodermata: Asteroidea, Holothuroidea, Ophiuroidea. J Exp Zool 234:383–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller RL (1985b) Sperm chemo-orientation in Metazoa. In: Metz CB, Monroy A (eds) Biology of fertilization, vol 2. Academic Press, New York, pp 275–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller RL (1997) Specificity of sperm chemotaxis among Great Barrier Reef shallow-water holothurians and ophiuroids. J Exp Biol 279:189–200Google Scholar
  30. Miller RL, Brokaw CJ (1970) Chemotactic turning behaviour of Tubularia spermatozoa. J Exp Biol 52:699–706Google Scholar
  31. Minganti A (1951) Esperienze sulle fertilizine nelle ascidie. Pubbl Staz Zool Napoli 23:58–65Google Scholar
  32. Nishigaki T, Chiba K, Miki W, Hoshi M (1996) Structure and function of asterosaps, sperm-activating peptides from the jelly coat of starfish eggs. Zygote 4(3):237–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Oda S, Igarashi Y, Ohtake H, Sakai K, Shimizu N, Morisawa M (1995) Sperm-activating proteins from unfertilized eggs of the Pacific herring Clupea pallasii. Dev Growth Differ 37:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oishi T, Tsuchikawa H, Murata M, Yoshida M, Morisawa M (2004) Synthesis and identification of an endogenous sperm activating and attracting factor isolated from eggs of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis; an example of nanomolar-level structure elucidation of a novel natural compound. Tetrahedron 60:6971–6980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Okuda S, Tsutsui H, Shiina K, Sprunck S, Takeuchi H, Yui R, Kasahara RD, Hamamura Y, Mizukami A, Susaki D, Kawano N, Sakakibara T, Namiki S, Itoh K, Otsuka K, Matsuzaki M, Nozaki H, Kuroiwa T, Nakano A, Kanaoka MM, Dresselhaus T, Sasaki N, Higashiyama T (2009) Defensin-like polypeptide LUREs are pollen tube attractants secreted from synergid cells. Nature (Lond) 458(7236):357–361. doi: 10.1038/nature07882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olson JH, Xiang X, Ziegert T, Kittelson A, Rawls A, Bieber AL, Chandler DE (2001) Allurin, a 21-kDa sperm chemoattractant from Xenopus egg jelly, is related to mammalian sperm-binding proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(20):11205–11210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfeffer W (1884) Locomotorische Richtungsbewegungen durch chemische Reize. Untersuch Botanisch Inst Tübingen 1:363–482Google Scholar
  38. Pillai MC, Shields TS, Yanagimachi R, Cherr GN (1993) Isolation and partial characterization of the sperm motility initiation factor from eggs of the Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi. J Exp Zool 265:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pommerville J, Olson LW (1987) Evidence for a male-produced pheromone in Allomyces macrogynus. Exp Mycol 11(3):245–248. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-5975(87)90012-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Riffell JA, Krug PJ, Zimmer RK (2002) Fertilization in the sea: the chemical identity of an abalone sperm attractant. J Exp Biol 205(pt 10):1439–1450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Riffell JA, Krug PJ, Zimmer RK (2004) The ecological and evolutionary consequences of sperm chemoattraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(13):4501–4506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Shiba K, Baba SA, Inoue T, Yoshida M (2008) Ca2+ bursts occur around a local minimal concentration of attractant and trigger sperm chemotactic response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(49):19312–19317. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808580105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Spehr M, Gisselmann G, Poplawski A, Riffell JA, Wetzel CH, Zimmer RK, Hatt H (2003) Identification of a testicular odorant receptor mediating human sperm chemotaxis. Science 299(5615):2054–2058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun F, Giojalas LC, Rovasio RA, Tur-Kaspa I, Sanchez R, Eisenbach M (2003) Lack of species-specificity in mammalian sperm chemotaxis. Dev Biol 255(2):423–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Suzuki R (1958) Sperm activation and aggregation during fertilization in some fishes. I. Behavior of spermatozoa around the micropyle. Embryologia 4:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suzuki R (1959) Sperm activation and aggregation during fertilization in some fishes. II. Effect of distilled water on the sperm-stimulating capacity and fertilizability of eggs. Embryologia 4:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teves ME, Barbano F, Guidobaldi HA, Sanchez R, Miska W, Giojalas LC (2006) Progesterone at the picomolar range is a chemoattractant for mammalian spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 86(3):745–749. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.080 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsagkogeorga G, Turon X, Hopcroft RR, Tilak MK, Feldstein T, Shenkar N, Loya Y, Huchon D, Douzery EJ, Delsuc F (2009) An updated 18S rRNA phylogeny of tunicates based on mixture and secondary structure models. BMC Evol Biol 9:187. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-187 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ward S, Carrel JS (1979) Fertilization and sperm competition in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol 73(2):304–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ward GE, Brokaw CJ, Garbers DL, Vacquier VD (1985) Chemotaxis of Arbacia punctulata spermatozoa to resact, a peptide from the egg jelly layer. J Cell Biol 101:2324–2329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood CD, Nishigaki T, Furuta T, Baba SA, Darszon A (2005) Real-time analysis of the role of Ca2+ in flagellar movement and motility in single sea urchin sperm. J Cell Biol 169(5):725–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Yanagimachi R, Cherr G, Matsubara T, Andoh T, Harumi T, Vines C, Pillai M, Griffin F, Matsubara H, Weatherby T, Kaneshiro K (2013) Sperm attractant in the micropyle region of fish and insect eggs. Biol Reprod 88(2):47. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.112.105072 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Yoshida M, Yoshida K (2011) Sperm chemotaxis and regulation of flagellar movement by Ca2+. Mol Hum Reprod 17(8):457–465. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gar041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Yoshida M, Inaba K, Morisawa M (1993) Sperm chemotaxis during the process of fertilization in the ascidians Ciona savignyi and Ciona intestinalis. Dev Biol 157:497–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Yoshida M, Murata M, Inaba K, Morisawa M (2002) A chemoattractant for ascidian spermatozoa is a sulfated steroid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(23):14831–14836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Yoshida M, Shiba K, Yoshida K, Tsuchikawa H, Ootou O, Oishi T, Murata M (2008) Ascidian sperm activating and attracting factor: importance of sulfate groups for the activities and implication of its putative receptor. FEBS Lett 582(23-24):3429–3433. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2008.09.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Yoshida M, Hiradate Y, Sensui N, Cosson J, Morisawa M (2013) Species specificity of sperm motility activation and chemotaxis: a study on ascidian species. Biol Bull 224(3):156–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zatylny C, Marvin L, Gagnon J, Henry J (2002) Fertilization in Sepia officinalis: the first mollusk sperm-attracting peptide. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 296(5):1186–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeng L, Jacobs MW, Swalla BJ (2006) Coloniality has evolved once in stolidobranch ascidians. Integr Comp Biol 46(3):255–268. doi: 10.1093/icb/icj035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Misaki Marine Biological Station, School of Science, Center for Marine BiologyUniversity of TokyoMiuraJapan

Personalised recommendations