Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Feb 13;15(2):e0228656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228656

Proteomic characterization and comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach

Wen Zhu 1,#, Xiao Cheng 1,#, Chunhuan Ren 1, Jiahong Chen 2, Yan Zhang 1, Yale Chen 1, Xiaojiao Jia 1, Shijia Wang 1, Zhipeng Sun 1, Renzheng Zhang 1, Zijun Zhang 1,*
Editor: Peter J Hansen3
PMCID: PMC7018057  PMID: 32053710

Abstract

Fresh semen is most commonly used in an artificial insemination of small ruminants, because of low fertility rates of frozen sperm. Generally, when developing and applying assisted reproductive technologies, sheep and goats are classified as one species. In order to optimize sperm cryopreservation protocols in sheep and goat, differences in sperm proteomes between ram and buck are necessary to investigate, which may contribute to differences in function and fertility of spermatozoa. In the current work, a data-independent acquisition-mass spectrometry proteomic approach was used to characterize and make a comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) sperm proteomes. A total of 2,109 proteins were identified in ram and buck spermatozoa, with 238 differentially abundant proteins. Proteins identified in ram and buck spermatozoa are mainly involved in metabolic pathways for generation of energy and diminishing oxidative stress. Specifically, there are greater abundance of spermatozoa proteins related to the immune protective and capacity activities in ram, while protein that inhibit sperm capacitation shows greater abundance in buck. Our results not only provide novel insights into the characteristics and potential activities of spermatozoa proteins, but also expand the potential direction for sperm cryopreservation in ram and buck.

Introduction

Cryopreservation of spermatozoa is an important tool for breed improvement in small ruminants. However, frozen sperm is not commonly used in artificial insemination (AI) of small ruminants due to the low fertility rates [1]. Sheep (Ovis. aries) and goat (Capra. hircus) is a major food-animal group as well as a major source of wool and cashmere [2]. Generally, when developing and applying assisted reproductive technologies, sheep and goats are classified as one species. For example, most of the sperm cryopreservation procedures used for goat are extrapolated from those developed for the sheep species [35]. However, differences exist between sheep rams and goat bucks in regards to sperm morphometric [6] and concentration [7], which indicated various ability to undergo capacitation and fertility [8]. Spermatozoa response to the cryopreservation procedure was also different between rams and bucks, such as semen collection method [1]. In order to improve AI efficiency in sheep and goat, a deeper understanding of sperm biology is needed urgently.

Spermatozoa are highly specialized cells, which are inactive in transcription, proteomics-based technique is one of the great methods to understand the sperm molecular functions [9]. Over the last few years, comparative proteomics showed the ability to detect the difference and screen biomarkers as well as interesting candidates for further study among individuals or species, which may contribute to differences in fertility [1011] and sperm function [1214]. Furthermore, spermatozoa proteome characterization has been published for both sheep [15] and goat [7], however, there are no directly comparable between these two species. A comprehensive proteomic profiling between ram and buck spermatozoa is important for the identification of potential interesting proteins, with the end goal is to improve success rate of AI in these agriculturally important animals. Because of simultaneous high-throughput scanning and identifying all peptides within a given mass range, data-independent acquisition- mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) provides the possibility of overcoming limitations related to data dependent acquisition (DDA) [16]. As a highly promising MS-acquisition method, DIA has been successful used to investigate proteomic changes in plasma [17], cell [18], and tissue [19] in recent years.

To better investigate the sperm protein characteristics and estimation their differences, comparative analyses of sperm proteins between ram (Ovis. aries) and buck (Capra. hircus) are necessary. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically characterize and make a comparison of ram and buck spermatozoa proteome using a DIA-MS approach.

Material and methods

Experimental design and workflow

The experimental design and workflow are shown in Fig 1. The experimental design and workflow are shown in Fig 1. Semen samples were collected from Hu-sheep rams (n = 9) and Anhui white goat bucks (n = 9). Individual spermatozoa of each species were equally pooled into three biological samples.

Fig 1. Experimental design and work flow for the comparison of ram and buck spermatozoa using a data-independent acquisition-based mass spectrometry technology.

Fig 1

Chemicals

In this study, unless otherwise stated, the reagents were purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA), and the diluents were prepared using Milli-Q water (Millipore Ibérica S.A., Barcelona, Spain).

Animals

The Animal Care Committee of Anhui Agriculture University proved the use of animals for the experiment (Hefei, China). Mature Hu-sheep and Anhui white goat were housed at Anxin Husband Inc. (Fuyang, P.R. China) and fed 2 times daily at 06:00 and 18:00 h with free access to drinking water. Animals were fed a Chinese ryegrass-based diet with concentrate supplementation.

Collection and preparation of spermatozoa

Semen from 18 (9 rams, Hu-sheep, Ovis aries; and 9 bucks, Anhui white goat, Capra hircus) mature males (1.5 ± 0.25 years) were collected by artificial vagina (April 2017) using a previously described method [20]. Ejaculates were assessed for volume, concentration and motility immediately by a CASA system (sperm class analyzer (SCA)-5.4.0.0; Microptic Supply, Barcelona, Spain) according to Mortimer et al. [21]. Ejaculates (n = 2/male) from each animal were pooled together, and then semen samples (1.70 ± 0.084 mL volume; 3.99 ± 0.52×108/mL concentration; 89.5 ± 8.56% A+B grade motility) were divided into 3 groups randomly (n = 3) for each species. Spermatozoa was separated from seminal plasma by centrifugation (2,500 × g, 30 min, 4°C), and supernatant was discarded, then the remainder of each sample was washed in PBS twice by centrifugation (2,500 × g, 10 min, 4°C). The sperm pellets were stored -80°C until further use.

Protein extraction and digestion

The frozen sperm pellets were dissolved in lysis buffer (1mM Phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (Bio Basic Inc., Amherst, NY, USA), 2 mM ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (Amersco, Burlington, MA, USA), 1% Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (Basel, Swiss, Roche)), oscillated on the Vortex Oscillator (Shanghai Damu Industrial Co., LTD, Shanghai, P. R. China), incubated on ice for 5 min. Then 10 mM dithiothreitol (DTT; Amersco, MA, USA) was added into the mixture and disrupted by tissue lysing machine (120 s, 50 HZ/s, Shanghai Jingxin Industrial Development Co., LTD, Shanghai, P. R. China). After centrifugation at 25,000 × g for 15 min at 4°C, 10 mM DTT was added into the supernatant and kept at 56°C for 1 h. Then, 55 mM iodoacetamide was added to the solution and incubated for 45 min at room temperature in the dark, and followed by mixed with four times volumes of cold acetone (Guangdong Shantou Xilong Chemical Co., LTD. Shantou, P.R. China), and stored at -20°C for 2 h (This step was repeated three times). The supernatant was discarded after centrifugation (25,000 × g, 20 min, 4°C), and the remaining debris was lysed in the above lysis buffer, sonicated (120 s, 50 HZ/s) by tissue lysing machine followed by centrifugation (25,000 × g, 4°C, 20 min). Finally, the protein concentration of the supernatant was measured by the Bradford method [22]. The sperm protein was kept frozen at -80°C until used.

For protein digestion, each protein sample (100 μg) were digested overnight with trypsin at 37°C (trypsin: protein = 1:40 (v/v); Promega; Madison, WI, USA). Enzymatic peptides were then desalted by StrataX column and vacuum dried prior to MS.

High pH reverse-phase separation

All samples were mixed equally (20 μg/sample), and 100 μg subsample was re-dissolved in 2 mL buffer A (5% acetonitrile (ACN); pH 9.8) and fractionated by an LC-20AB system (Shimadzu, Japan) connected to a reverse-phase Gemini C18 column (4.6 mm × 250 mm, 5 μm, Phenomenex, CA, American). The samples were subjected to the column and then eluted at a rate of 1mL/min: 5% (v/v) buffer B (95% ACN; pH 9.8) for 10 min, 5–35% (v/v) buffer B for 40 min, 35–95% (v/v) buffer B for 1 min, flow buffer B lasted 3 min and 5% buffer B equilibrated for10 min. The elution peak was monitored at a wavelength of 214 nm, the sample fractions were collected every 1 min. Then, components were combined into 10 fractions, and freeze-dried.

Data dependent acquisition (DDA) and DIA analysis by nano-LC-MS/MS

All experiments were carried out with a Q Exactive HF mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) coupled with an Ultimate 3000 RSLCnano system (Thermo Fisher Scientific). A nano-LC column (150 μm × 25 cm, 1.8 μm, 100 Å) was packed in-house for peptide separation at a flow rate of 500 nl/min. For DDA analysis, the peptides were re-dissolved with buffer C (2% ACN; 0.1% formic acid (v/v)), and centrifuged (20,000 × g; 10 min; 4°C). Then the supernatant was loaded onto a trap column (300 μm × 5 mm, 5 μm, Thermo Scientific) and eluted with a set gradient, from in 5% (v/v) buffer D (98% CAN; 0.1%formic acid (v/v)) for 5 min, 5–35% (v/v) buffer D for 155 min, 35–80% (v/v) buffer D for 10 min, 80% (v/v) buffer D for 5 min, and 5% (v/v) buffer D for 4 min. The MS parameters were set as below: (1) MS: 350–1,500 scan range (m/z); 60,000 resolution; 3e6 AGC target; 50 ms maximum injection time (MIT); 30 loop count; 28 NCE; (2) HCD-MS/MS: 15,000 resolution; 1e5 AGC target; 100 ms MIT; charge exclusion, exclude 1, 7, 8, >8; filter dynamic exclusion duration 30 s; isolation window 2.0 m/z. For DIA analysis, the same nano-LC system and gradient was used as DDA analysis. The DIA MS parameters were set as below: (1) MS: 350–1,500 scan range (m/z); 20 ppm MS tolerance; 120,000 resolution; 3e6 AGC target; 50 ms MIT; 50 loop count; (2) HCD-MS/MS: 1.7 m/z isolation window; 30,000 resolution; 1e6 AGC target; automatic MIT; 50 loop count; filter dynamic exclusion duration 30s; stepped NCE: 22.5, 25, 27.5.

Mass spectrometric raw data analysis

Raw data of DDA were processed and analyzed by MaxQuant (version 1.5.3.30). The identifications were filtered for no more than 1% FDR both on peptide and protein level. The DDA files were searched against an in-house Uniprot database of sheep and goat with 27,533 and 2,859 entries, respectively (03–2018). Search parameters and settings were as follows: (i) trypsin enzyme; (ii) 7 minimal peptide length; (iii) Carbamidomethyl as fixed modifications (C); (iv) oxidation (M) and acetyl (protein N-term) as the variable modifications. DIA were analyzed by Spectronaut Pulsar 11.0 (Biognosys AG), which uses the iRT peptides for retention time calibration [23]. The FDR was estimated with the mProphet scoring algorithm, and set to no more than 1% at peptide precursor level. Then, based on the target-decoy model applicable to SWATH-MS, to obtain quantitative results. All raw MS data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium through the PRIDE partner repository (Identifier: PXD014095).

Western blotting validation

Western blot was performed according to our previously described method [20]. Briefly, protein samples (60 ug protein per sample) from ram and buck spermatozoa were separated prior to detection with antibodies: CRP (1:1000), DEFB1(1:1000), COII (1:1000), and ALDH2 ((1:1000) from Abcam (Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA); NUDT18 (1:800) from BIOSS (BIOSS, Beijing, P. R. China). Goat anti-rabbit (Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA) (diluted at 1:5000) was used as the second antibody. Finally, blot was visualized and the band gray values were calculated.

Bioinformatic analysis and statistical analyses

Identified proteins from spermatozoa were annotated and classified into pathway by gene ontology (GO) (http://david.abcc.ncifcrf.gov/home.jsp) and the kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) database (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/) database, respectively. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the quantified proteins were processed by Unscrambler software (Camo, version 9.8, Norway). Significant GO functions and pathways were examined within different expressed proteins (DEPs) with p- value ≤ 0.05. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of the difference proteins was analyzed by the web-tool STRING 11.0 (http://string-db.org).

Significance between ram and buck spermatozoa was determined by a Student’s t-test in the MSstats, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. In order to increase the quantitative comparison validity, unique peptides ≥ 2 and the fold change ≥ 2 were selected. Western blot data were analyzed by a Student’s t-test in SPSS (v.22.0, Chicago, IL, USA), where p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Protein identification and quantification

DIA-MS requires an assay library containing all spectra peptides to be quantified. A spectral library consisting of 16,143 peptides belonging to 3,217 proteins were built in our study. The details of the proteins generated by DDA are list in S1 Table. Totally, 13,195 peptides, corresponding to 2,288 proteins (2,197 proteins for ram, 91 proteins for buck) were identified, and 2,109 proteins for further qualified. Details of protein identified and quantified by DIA are shown in S2 and S3 Tables, respectively.

For GO cellular component annotation, the most representative proteins were classified into cell, cell part, and organelle; For GO biological process annotations, the most represented were cellular process, single-organism process, and metabolic process; For GO molecular function annotations, the most prevalent represented were the binding and catalytic activity (Fig 2). Pathway analysis of all identified proteins from ram and buck were shown in S4 and S5 Tables, respectively. We noted that most proteins were involved in metabolic pathways.

Fig 2. Bar graph of gene ontology (GO) classification of all identified spermatozoa proteins by data-independent acquisition-based mass spectrometry.

Fig 2

The length shows the number of all differentially abundant proteins associated with the GO term.

Principal component analysis

PCA of qualified spermatozoa proteins showed that samples from sheep and goat were in a separate cluster (Fig 3). The first two PCs explained 68.02% of the total variance, which could distinguish the two species.

Fig 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) scores plot of qualified spermatozoa proteins from ram and buck.

Fig 3

Each symbol represents one sample, and group of samples defined by PCA are enclosed in circles.

DEPs in ram and buck

Totally 238 significantly differential abundant sperm proteins were identified (p < 0.05, fold change > 2 or < 0.5), which included 166 up-regulated proteins and 72 down-regulated proteins in comparison of ram with buck spermatozoa. Detailed information of the DEPs is shown in S6 Table. In addition, the top 10 up- and down-regulated proteins with the highest differential abundance in the comparison of ram with buck spermatozoa are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. The top 10 up- and down-regulated proteins with the highest differential abundance in ram comparing with buck spermatozoa.

Up-regulated Down-regulated
Protein Accession Protein Description Gene Name log2FCa P-valueb Protein Accession Protein Description Gene Name log2FCa P-valueb
W5PD71 Pentaxin CRP 6.43 0.041 W5PEC3 Annexin ANXA6 -4.95 0.030
W5PJJ9 Uncharacterized LOC101114850 5.96 0.009 G1DGI1 Serpine 2 protein SERPINE2 -4.65 0.004
W5P1P8 Beta-defensin 1 DEFB1 5.94 0.009 W5PLD7 Nudix hydrolase 18 NUDT18 -3.34 0.012
W5PHD0 Uncharacterized protein LOC101111693 5.79 0.005 W5P6F3 Phospholipid scramblase NA -2.81 0.044
A0A0P0KLF3 Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 COII 5.36 0.001 I3WAE6 HSP27 protein (Fragment) HSP27 -2.64 0.043
W5P9A0 Aldehyde dehydrogenase 5 family member A1 ALDH5A1 4.40 0.004 W5P220 Glyoxylate reductase 1 homolog GLYR1 -2.57 0.037
W5PEB3 Uncharacterized LOC101111505 3.73 0.005 W5QBX4 Solute carrier family 25 member 24 SLC25A24 -2.41 0.001
W5PSZ8 Triokinase and FMN cyclase TKFC 3.53 0.025 W5QIV1 Protein S100 S100A11 -2.39 0.012
W5NU21 Alpha-L-fucosidase, FUCA2 3.18 0.008 W5PHD3 Sigma non-opioid intracellular receptor 1 SIGMAR1 -2.27 0.018
W5PV74 Acylaminoacyl-peptide hydrolase APEH 3.14 0.012 W5PB83 Serine hydroxymethyltransferase SHMT2 -2.21 0.050

aFC, Fold change

bp values were calculated using Student’s t-Test.

Validation of DEPs by western blot

We selected five proteins CRP, DEFB1, COII, NUDT18, and ALDH2 to be validated by Western blot (Fig 4). Validation of the five proteins by Western blot (Fig 5A) were consistent with the results of DIA proteomic analyses (Fig 5B), indicating that the proteomics data were highly reliable.

Fig 4. Validation of selected different expressed proteins in ram and buck spermatozoa by Western blot.

Fig 4

The abundance of pentaxin (CRP), β-defensin 1(DEFB1), cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 (COII), nucleoside diphosphate Type 18 (NUDT18), and aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) proteins in ram and buck spermatozoa were analyzed by Western blot, with β-actin as an internal reference.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Expression levels of selected different expressed proteins as quantified by Western blotting (A) and DIA (B). The values are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 3 per group). All differences tested were statistically different (P < 0.05).

GO classification and pathway enrichment of the DEPs

GO annotation was used to identify the functions of the DEPs between ram and buck spermatozoa (S7 Table). Among the 238 DEPs between ram and buck spermatozoa, 171 proteins had annotated functions and were classified into 47 functional groups (Fig 6A). Among them, the biological process accounted for 23 GO terms (the most representative were cellular process, metabolic process, and biological regulation), cellular component accounted for 15 GO terms (the most representative were cell, cell part, organelle, organelle part, membrane, and extracellular region), and molecular function accounted for 9 GO terms (the most representative were catalytic activity and binding).

Fig 6. Bar graph of gene ontology (GO) classification and bubble chart of Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway (B) analysis of differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

Fig 6

The bar length (A) and bubble size (B) show the number of all differentially abundant proteins associated with the GO and KEGG term.

According to the analysis of the enrichment of KEGG pathway, 16 pathways were assigned to DEPs in ram and buck (Fig 6B), and all enriched terms are shown in S8 Table. Most proteins were associated with microbial metabolism in diverse environments, valine, leucine and isoleucine degradation, glycine, serine and threonine metabolism, and other glycan degradation.

Proteins networks analysis

STRING analysis of the DEPs from ram and buck formulated color-coded networks which were largely based on their associations (Fig 7). The functional modules were mainly involved in microbial metabolism in diverse environments (ME3, ACLY, FBP1, PGK2, ACAA2, GOT2, and LDHAL6B) and other glycan degradation (ALDH2, ACAA2, HIBCH, and ACAD8). S9 Table showed the central functional modules based on the PPI networks.

Fig 7. STRING analysis of protein interaction network association of differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

Fig 7

Each node presents a protein; line colors present the types of evidence: purple lines from experimental determined, the blue lines from curated databases, and the yellow lines from text mining.

Discussion

The characterization of identified/differential spermatozoa proteins

In the present study, a total of 2,109 sperm proteins from ram and buck were identified and quantified by DIA-MS proteomics. Ram sperm proteins have been identified in several studies (i.e., Merino ram, Small-tail Han ram, Dorset ram). For example, Pini et al. reported that a total of 685 proteins were identified in ejaculated ram spermatozoa with the most abundant proteins involved in metabolic pathways [15]. In another study, SWATH-MS was applied to Merino ram proteins of fresh and frozen spermatozoa, identified 1,154 proteins and uncovered 51 DEPs, respectively [24]. Additionally, 25 proteins with differentially abundant between fresh and freeze-thawed in Dorset ram spermatozoa were identified by two-dimensional electrophoresis [12]. Only a small number of buck sperm proteins were identified by two-dimensional electrophoresis [7]. The number of sperm proteins in ram and buck identified this study were larger than that of previous studies, which will expand our knowledge of the spermatozoa proteome.

Due to high energy demands for key cellular processes in sperm, such as motility, the acrosome reaction, and capacitation, energy production is the primary goal for spermatozoa protein [25]. Our finding showed that most abundant proteins identified in ram and buck spermatozoa were involved in metabolic pathways, which is consistent with Pini et al. [15]. Among these proteins some are directly involved in supply of ATP (e.g., ATP6, ATP5A1, ACLY, ND4, ND2, DN5, etc.).

High abundance spermatozoa proteins in rams

We found pentaxin (CRP), β-defensin 1 (DEFB1), cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 (COII), and Aldehyde dehydrogenase 5 family member A1(ALDH5A1) had higher abundances in ram spermatozoa than buck spermatozoa in the current study. CRP has been reported as a conserved and species-specific sperm protein in ram [15]. CRP is produced by hepatocytes, which has pro- and anti-inflammatory activity, and multiple effects on the immune system [26]. β-defensins has been well known to act as signaling molecules in the immune system [27]. Studies have confirmed the expression of β-defensin genes (including DEFB1) in human, rat and ram epididymis [2830], and Male mice with β-defensin gene knock-out were reported to be infertile [29]. Higher expression of CRP and DEFB1 indicated an immune protection role for sperm within the female sheep reproductive tract. Mitochondria are important components of sperm, which provide energy supply for its motility, and sperm mitochondrial gene COII mutation is an important cause of low sperm motility in human [31]. As a member of aldehyde dehydrogenases family, ALDH5A1 is known to diminish oxidative stress [3234]. Oxidative stress will inhibit mitochondrial respiration in freeze-thawed ram sperm [14]. The higher expression of ALDH5A1 abundance in ram spermatozoa may reduce the risk of oxidative stress during freeze-thawed process.

Major spermatozoa proteins in bucks

Very few reports on buck sperm proteome were observed. In our study, the expression levels of annexin 6 (ANXA6), serpin peptidase inhibitor, clade E, member 2 (SERPINE2), and nucleoside diphosphate Type 18 (NUDT18) were the highest in the bucks among the spermatozoa proteins. As a calcium-dependent membrane binding protein, ANXAs is characterized by its ability to connect and bind to biological structures [35]. The deficiency of ANXA6 not only affects the calcium signaling but also affects the mitochondrial morphology in cells [36]. Expressions of annexins (ANXA1, ANXA2, and ANXA5) have been reported to be related with human sperm quality [37]. However, to date, the relationship between ANXA6 and sperm quality in bucks remains unclear and deserves further investigation. It is reported that SERPINE2 could inhibit sperm capacitation by blocking the cholesterol outflow of sperm plasma membranes and inhibiting the increase in the level of tyrosine phosphorylation in rat sperm protein [38]. Li et al. further confirmed that SERPINE2 could reversibly regulate mouse sperm from the state of capacitated to incapacitated [39]. Results indicated that capacitation inducers (such as BSA [36], cAMP analogs [40], and methyl-β-cyclodextrin [41]) or SERPINE2 inhibitor need to be added in buck sperm cryoprotectants for AI improvement. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are byproducts of respiration using oxygen [42]. In the pool of DNA precursor, the guanine-containing nucleotides are converted into the oxidized forms of nucleotides by the action of ROS, such as 8-oxo-dGTP, which can be incorporated into DNA incorrectly [43]. NUDT18 could hydrolyze deoxyribonucleoside di- and tri-phosphates containing 8-oxoG into the monophosphate form in human cells, which could not be used for DNA synthesis [44]. Levels of ROS were significantly increased in freeze-thawed sperm, which indicated that the antioxidative system were disrupt during the freeze-thaw process [14]. Thus, higher expression of NUDT18 abundance in buck spermatozoa may involve in antioxidant stress during freeze-thawed process.

Differences in spermatozoa proteins between ram and buck

As discussed above, there are variations in spermatozoa proteins between ram and buck, which contribute to the differential sperm characteristics. Differences in spermatozoa proteomes between ram and buck have been confirmed by the results of PCA in this study.

The abundance of 238 sperm proteins was significantly difference between ram and buck, and the other glycan degradation pathway was enriched. There were significant differences in 4 central functional modules (ALDH2, ACAA2, HIBCH, and ACAD8) associated with this pathway. In our study, it was found that the protein levels of acyltransferase 2 (ACAA2) and 3-hydroxyisobutyryl-CoA hydrolase (HIBCH) are higher in ram spermatozoa than that of buck, while the abundance of aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) and acyl-coenzyme a dehydrogenase 8 (ACAD8) are lower. As discussed above, antioxidative system were disrupt during the sperm freeze-thaw process [14]. In the absence of the protective antioxidant factors, cells increase rates of lipid peroxidation, the formation of electrophilic aldehydes such as 4-hydroxynonenal (4HNE) are formed, the motility and membrane integrity are lost finally [45]. ALDH is an enzyme, which has responsibility for the removing 4-hydroxynonenal adducts from lipid membranes, and a strong correlation between ALDH2 expression and various motility parameters of stallion spermatozoa were reported [46]. A higher abundant of ALDH2 in spermatozoa were also observed with high reproductive efficiency of Meishan boar [19]. To date, literature on the relative of ALDH2 expression with sperm functionality in buck is paucity, which is worthy of further exploration. ACAA2 and ACAD8 are proteins mainly catalyze dehydrogenation steps of β-oxidation processes in mitochondrial fatty acids catabolism [4748], HIBCH involving in energy metabolism by regulating fat hydrolysis in obesity mice [49]. Taken above, these results indicated the important role of fatty acids catabolism in sperm.

Regulation of lipolysis in adipocytes pathway was another most representative pathway enriched based on DEPs between ram and buck spermatozoa. Lipolysis is the metabolic pathway, which has an important role in male fertility [50]. Hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL) proteins were enriched in the regulation of lipolysis in adipocytes pathway. In addition, we found that the levels of three HSL proteins were higher in ram spermatozoa that that of buck. HSL is an enzyme involved in fatty acid metabolism [51]. It has been reported that HSL was the main enzyme in the testis that hydrolyzes the cholesterol esters [52]. Cholesterol is the most abundant sterol of membrane properties in sperm cells that have the capacity to inhibit the capacitation [53]. It was reported that spermiogenesis ceased at the elongation phase of HSL-knockout mice [54]. Thus, higher abundance of HSL in ram spermatozoa probably represents higher capacity ability.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the composition of spermatozoa proteins in ram and buck were investigated using DIA-MS proteomics. Proteins identified in ram and buck spermatozoa are mainly involved in metabolic pathways for generation of energy and diminishing oxidative stress. Specifically, the higher abundance of spermatozoa proteins in rams are associated with the immune protective and capacity activities, while protein that inhibit sperm capacitation shows greater abundance in buck. It is indicated that in order to achieve the high quality of frozen spermatozoa, cryopreservation of sperm in bucks should be different form rams. Furthermore, these difference abundant proteins might be research targets for improving AI.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Proteins identified via data dependent acquisition.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Proteins identified via data independent acquisition.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Proteins quantified via data independent acquisition.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the identified proteins in ram spermatozoa.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the identified proteins in buck spermatozoa.

(XLSX)

S6 Table. Differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

(XLSX)

S7 Table. GO classification of the differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

(XLSX)

S8 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

(XLSX)

S9 Table. The central functional modules based on the protein-protein interaction networks.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Miss. Mengnan Huang from BGI-Shenzhen Technology Co., Ltd for her technical support in mass spectroscopy.

Data Availability

All mass spectrometry proteomics data are available from the PRIDE database (accession number PXD014095). With reviewer account details: Username: reviewer92861@ebi.ac.uk Password: hB4YOBzO

Funding Statement

This work was supported by National Key R&D program of China (No. 2018YFD0502001) awarded by Zijun Zhang, Key Program for Youth Science Foundation of Anhui Agricultural University (2018zd18) awarded by Wen Zhu, Introduced and Stable Program for the Talents of Anhui Agricultural University (yj2018-53) awarded by Wen Zhu, and from China Agriculture Research System (CARS-38) awarded by Zijun Zhang. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jiménez-Rabadán P, Soler AJ, Ramón M, García-Álvarez O, Maroto-Morales A, Iniesta-Cuerda M, et al. Influence of semen collection method on sperm cryoresistance in small ruminants. Anim Reprod Sci. 2016; 167:103–108. 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lv LX, Ujisguleng B, Orhontana B, Lian WB, Xing WJ. Molecular cloning of sheep and Cashmere goat pdia3 and localization in sheep testis. Reprod Domest Anim. 2011; 46(6): 980–989. 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01771.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chemineau P, Cagine Y, Guerin Y. Training manual on artificial insemination in sheep and goats FAO Animal Production and Health 83. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shipley CFB, Buckrell BC, Mylne MJA. Current therapy large animal theriogenology, 2nd ed. St. Louis: Saunders-Elsevier; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Parkinson T. Veterinary reproduction and obstetrics, 9th ed. London: Saunders-Elsevier; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vicente-Fiel S, Palacín I, Santolaria P,Yániz JL. A comparative study of sperm morphometric subpopulations in cattle, goat, sheep and pigs using a computer-assisted fluorescence method (CASMA-F). Anim Reproduction Sci. 2013; 139: 182–189. 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Moreira RF, Matos MNC, Filho JGA, Do Valle RV, Eloy AMX, Pinto TMF, et al. Diversity of ejaculated sperm proteins in Moxotó bucks (Capra hircus) evaluated by multiple extraction methods. Anim Reprod.1984;15:84–92. 10.21451/1984-3143-2017-AR966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maroto-Morales A, Ramón M, García-Alvarez O, Soler AJ, FernándezSantos MR, Roldan ERS, et al. Morphometrically-distinct sperm subpopulations defined by a multistep statistical procedure in ram ejaculates: intraand interindividual variation. Theriogenology. 2012; 77: 1529–1539. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.11.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pixton KL, Deeks ED, Flesch FM, Moseley FL, Bjorndahl L, Ashton PR, et al. 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. Oxford. England: Hum Reprod. 2004; 19 (6): 1438–1447. 10.1093/humrep/deh224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Peddinti D, Nanduri B, Kaya A, Feugang JM, Burgess SC, Memili E. Comprehensive proteomic analysis of bovine spermatozoa of varying fertility rates and identification of biomarkers associated with fertility. BMC Syst Biol. 2008; 2:19–32. 10.1186/1752-0509-2-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ashrafzadeh A, Nathan S, Karsani SA. Comparative analysis of Mafriwal (Bos taurus × Bosindicus) and Kedah Kelantan (Bos indicus) sperm proteome identifies sperm proteins potentially responsible for higher fertility in a tropical climate. Int J Mol Sci. 2013; 14:158–160. 10.3390/ijms140815860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kawase O, Cao SN, Xuan XN. Sperm membrane proteome in wild Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) and Sika deer (Cervus nippon). Theriogenology. 2015; 83(1):95–102. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Plante G, Lusignan MF, Lafleur M, Manjunath P. Interaction of milk proteins and binder of sperm (BSP) proteins from boar, stallion and ram semen. Reprod Biol Endocrin. 2015; 13:92–104. 10.1186/s12958-015-0093-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.He YX, Wang K, Zhao XX, Zhang Y, Ma YJ, Hu JJ. Differential proteome association study of freeze-thaw damage in ram sperm. Cryobiology, 2016; 72(1):60–68. 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pini T, Leahy T, Soleilhavoup C, Tsikis G, Labas V, Combes-Soia L, et al. Proteomic investigation of ram spermatozoa and the proteins conferred by seminal plasma. J Proteome Res. 2016; 15(10):3700–3711. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vowinckel J, Zelezniak A, Bruderer R, Mulleder M, Reiter L, Ralser M. Cost-effective generation of precise label-free quantitative proteomes in high-throughput by microLC and data-independent acquisition. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:4346 10.1038/s41598-018-22610-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Musa YR, Boller S, Puchalska M, Grosschedl R, Mittler GA. Comprehensive proteomic investigation of Ebf1 Heterozygosity in pro-B lymphocytes utilizing data independent acquisition. J Proteome Res. 2018; 17(1):76–85. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bjelosevic S, Pascovici D, Ping H, Karlaftis V, Zaw T, Song X, et al. Quantitative age-specific variability of plasma proteins in healthy Neonates, children and adults. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2017; 16(5):924–935. 10.1074/mcp.M116.066720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li J, Levitan B, Gomez-Jimenez S, Kültz D. Development of a gill assay library for ecological proteomics of three spine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Mol Cell Proteomics. 2018; 17:2146–2163. 10.1074/mcp.RA118.000973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zhu W, Zhang Y, Ren CH, Cheng X, Chen JH, Ge ZY, et al. Identification of proteomic markers for ram spermatozoa motility using a tandem mass tag (TMT) approach. J Proteomics. 2020; 210:103438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mortimer D, Mortimer ST. Computer-Aided Sperm Analysis (CASA) of sperm motility and hyperactivation. Methods Mol Biol. 2013; 927:77–87. 10.1007/978-1-62703-038-0_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bradford MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976; 72(1–2):248–254. 10.1006/abio.1976.9999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bruderer R, Bernhardt OM, Gandhi T, Miladinović SM, Cheng LY, Messner S, et al. Extending the limits of quantitative proteome profiling with data-independent acquisition and application to acetaminophen-treated three-dimensional liver microtissues. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015; 14(5): 1400–1410. 10.1074/mcp.M114.044305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pini T, Rickard JP, Leahy T, Crossett B, Druart X, De Graaf SP. Cryopreservation and egg yolk medium alter the proteome of ram spermatozoa. J Proteomics. 2018; 181:73–82. 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Allen MJ, Rudd RE, McElfresh MW, Balhorn R. Time-dependent measure of a nanoscale force-pulse driven by the axonemal dynein motors in individual live sperm cells. Nanomedicine-UK. 2010; 6(4):510–515. 10.1016/j.nano.2009.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Black S, Kushner I, Samols D. C-reactive Protein. J Biol Chem, 2004, 279(47):48487–48490. 10.1074/jbcR400025200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yang D, Chertov O, Bykovskaia SN, Chen Q, Buffo MJ, Shogan J, et al. Beta-defensins: linking innate and adaptive immunity through dendritic and T cell CCR6. Science. 1999; 286(5439):525–528. 10.1126/science.286.5439.525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thimon V, Koukoui O, Calvo E, Sullivan R. Region-specific gene expression profiling along the human epididymis. Mol Hum Reprod. 2007; 13(10):691–704. 10.1093/molehr/gam051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dorin JR, Barratt CL. Importance of beta-defensins in sperm function. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014; 20(9):821–827. 10.1093/molehr/gau050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhao Y, Diao H, Ni Z, Hu S, Yu H, Zhang Y. The epididymis-specific antimicrobial peptide beta-defensin 15 is required for sperm motility and male fertility in the rat (Rattus norvegicus). Cell Mol Life Sci. 2011; 68(4):697–708. 10.1007/s00018-010-0478-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Thangaraj K, Joshi MB, Reddy AG, Rasalkar AA, Singh L. Sperm mitochondrial mutations as a cause of low sperm motility. J Androl. 2003; 24(3):388–392. 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2003.tb02687.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vasiliou V, Pappa A, Estey T. Role of human aldehyde dehydrogenases in endobiotic and xenobiotic metabolism. Drug Metab Rev. 2004; 36(2):279–299. 10.1081/dmr-120034001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen Y, Mehta G, Vasiliou V. Antioxidant defenses in the ocular surface. Ocul Surf. 2009; 7(4):17–185. 10.1016/S1542-0124(12)70185-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Singh S, Brocker C, Koppaka V, Chen Y, Jackson BC, Matsumoto A, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenases in cellular responses to oxidative/electrophilic stress. Free Radical Bio Med. 2013; 56:89–101. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gerke V, Moss SE. Annexins: From structure to function. Physiol Rev. 2002; 82(2):331–371. 10.1152/physrev.00030.2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chlystun M, Campanella M, Law AL, Duchen MR, Fatimathas L, Levine TP, et al. Regulation of mitochondrial morphogenesis by AnnexinA6. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e53774 10.1371/journal.pone.0053774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Munuce MJ, Marini PE, Teijeiro JM. Expression profile and distribution of Annexin A1, A2 and A5 in human semen. Andrologia. 2019; 51(2): e13224 10.1111/and.13224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lu CH, Lee RK, Hwu YM, Chu SL, Chen YJ, Chang WC, et al. Serpine2, a serine protease inhibitor extensively expressed in adult male mouse reproductive tissues, may serve as a murine sperm decapacitation factor. Biol Reprod. 2011; 84(3):514–525. 10.1095/biolreprod.110.085100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Li SH, Hu YM, Lu CH, Lin MH, Yeh LY, Lee RKK. Serine protease inhibitor SERPINE2 reversibly modulates murine sperm capacitation. Int J Mol Sci. 2018; 19(5):1520 10.3390/ijms19051520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nixon B, MacIntyre DA, Mitchell LA, Gibbs GM, O'Bryan M, Aitken RJ. The identification of mouse sperm-surface-associated proteins and characterization of their ability to act as decapacitation factors. Biol Reprod. 2006; 74(2):275–287. 10.1095/biolreprod.105.044644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tseng HC, Lee RK, Wu YM, Lu CH, Lin MH, Li SH. Mechanisms underlying the inhibition of murine sperm capacitation by the seminal protein. J Cell Biochem. 2013; 114 (4):888–898. 10.1002/jcb.24428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Starkov A, Wallace KB. Yin and yang of mitochondrial ROS. Imperial College Press; London: 2004. 10.1142/9781860948046_0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Freudenthal BD, Beard WA, Perera L, Shock DD, Kim T, Schlick T, et al. Uncovering the polymerase-induced cytotoxicity of an oxidized nucleotide. Nature. 2015; 517 (7536):635–639. 10.1038/nature13886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hashiguchi K, Hayashi M, Sekiguchi M. The roles of human MTH1, MTH2 and MTH3 proteins in maintaining genome stability under oxidative stress. Mutat Res. 2018; 808:10–19. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2018.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Aitken RJ, Whiting S, De Iuliis GN, McClymont S, Mitchell LA, Baker MA. Electrophilic aldehydes generated by sperm metabolism activate mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation and apoptosis by targeting succinate dehydrogenase. J Biol Chem. 2012; 287(39):33048–33060. 10.1074/jbc.M112.366690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zamira G, Lambourne SR, Curry BJ, Hall SE, Aitken RJ. Aldehyde dehydrogenase plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of stallion sperm motility Biol. Reprod. 2016; 94(6):133 10.1095/biolreprod.116.140509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kuhajda FP. Fatty-acid synthase and human cancer: new perspectives on its role in tumor biology. Nutrition. 2000; 16(3):202–8. 10.1016/s0899-9007(99)00266-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lv Z, Xing K, Li G, Liu D, Guo Y. Dietary genistein alleviates lipid metabolism disorder and inflammatory response in laying hens with fatty liver syndrome. Front Physiol. 2018; 9:1493 10.3389/fphys.2018.01493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Li P, Chen X, Chang X, Tang T, Qi K. A preliminary study on the differential expression of long noncoding RNAs and messenger RNAs in obese and control mice. J Cell Biochem. 2019; 1–18. 10.1002/jcb.29348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kim N, Nakamura H, Masaki H, Kumasawa K, Hirano K, Kimura T. Effect of lipid metabolism on male fertility. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017; 485(3):686–692. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.02.103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lampidonis AD, Rogdakis E, Voutsinas GE, Stravopodis DJ. The resurgence of hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL) in mammalian lipolysis. Gene. 2011; 477(1–2):0–11. 10.1016/j.gene.2011.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Calderón B, Huerta L, Casado ME, González-Casbas JM, Botella-Carretero JI, Martín-Hidalgo A. Morbid obesity-related changes in the expression of lipid receptors, transporters, and HSL in human sperm. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36(4):777–786. 10.1007/s10815-019-01406-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nimmo MR, Cross NL. Structural features of sterols required to inhibit human sperm capacitation. Biol Reprod. 2003; 68(4):1308–17. 10.1095/biolreprod.102.008607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wang F, Chen Z, Ren XF, Tian Y, Wang FC, Liu C, et al. Hormone-sensitive lipase deficiency alters gene expression and cholesterol content of mouse testis. Reproduction. 2017;153(2):175–185. 10.1530/REP-16-0484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Peter J Hansen

20 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-15817

Proteomic characterization and comparison of spermatozoa proteomes between ram (Ovis. aries) and buck (Capra. hircus) using a data-independent acquisition-mass spectrometry (DIA-MS)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Most concerning to me personally when reading was the reviews was the comment about pseudoreplication. Note it will be important to submit high quality figures in all cases. Plos One provides a guide on how to do this. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432016300537?via%3Dihub

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00369

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874391915000068?via%3Dihub

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00530

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510717302014?via%3Dihub

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is correctly linked to an affiliation.

Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The main aim of the present manuscript is to characterize sperm proteome in sheep (Hu-sheep breed. Ovis aries) and goat (Anhui white goat. Capra hircus) and identify differences among these proteomes that could help to detect proteins that could be used as potential markers of sperm fertility and functionality and also of sperm cryoresistance. The paper is, in my opinion, very interesting since the topic addressed is of great interest currently for the improvement of reproductive technologies outputs in small ruminants. For performing this study, the authors used 9 rams and 9 bucks for obtaining the ejaculates (one per male) determining three biological replicates (each one composed by three different ejaculate samples) in each species. Spermatozoa from all the ejaculates were obtained by centrifugation and processed for protein analysis by using a data-independent acquisition-mass spectometry approach. A total of 13, 195 peptides corresponding to 2,288 proteins (buck: 2,197 and ram: 91) which 2,109 were identified. Regarding the proteins present in different abundance, a total of 238 were detected, 166 up-regulated and 72-down regulated when sperm proteome of ram and buck were compared. The authors conclude that most of the proteins identified in bucks and rams are related to metabolic pathways. In addition, the authors suggest that the differences found between rams and buck’s sperm proteome should be taken into account for optimizing the results of cryopresevation protocols in these species. Although the results are interesting and could result of high applicability there some aspects that should be clarified by the authors before the manuscript was ready for its publication. The current version of the manuscript is, in my opinion, not relevant enough to be published and therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after major revision.

Please see the specific comments below:

-Title: It seems that the title is incomplete. I would suggest to modify as follows: “Proteomic characterization and comparision of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach”. Please, revise it and modify if convenient.

- Abstract: Page 2; line 25: “…in sperm protein proteomes between…”. Please, revise this sentence and modify if convenient.

- Introduction: Page 3; lines 57-58: Please modify this sentence to “ Furthermore, the sperm proteome that have been published…”. In addition, here and all along the manuscript I would suggest to use the word “species” instead of breed since goats and sheeps are two different livestock species. In my opinion the term species would be more appropiate.

- Introduction: Page 4; lines 72-74: The objective should be rewritten, in its present form it is not very clear.

- Material and Methods: Page 4; lines 78-82: Although a figure is included, the expalnation of the experimental design is very poor. An explained description of this experimental design should be included in the text.

- Material and Methods: General comment regarding protein analysis: In my opinion this section is also very poorly explained. The provided information is not informative enough and in addition it is not well organized. I would suggest to deeply modify this part of the manuscript in order to improve the its quality. In addition, ans statistical analysis section should be included.

- Results: Information about differences or repeatability among the three biological replicates should be included.

Results about GO annotation and pathways enrichment should be put together.

- Discussion: The discussion section is in my opinion too superficial and, although in some point the authors make very good reasoning, in general is of low relevance. This section should be revised and rewritten to make it more scientifically relevant. As I have nooted before, the work is interesting and with all the obtained information the authors could perform a very interesting and useful discussion.

- Conclusion: the conclusion is too long and in its present form is, again in my opinion, not adequate. I would recommend to rewritten it in order to make it more concise. In addition, a better justification of the authors for the usefulness of these proteins as potential additives for improving buck sperm cryopreservation ability are necessary

-Figures: Please, provide figures in a higher quality format.

Reviewer #2: In this paper the Authors provide descriptive data concerning the comparison of sperm proteins of ram and buck semen. More than 2 000 proteins were identified and 238 were found to differ in abundance between buck and ram. This finding is interesting and extends our knowledge about sperm proteins in ruminants.

Major critique

1. In my opinion this study is incomplete regarding seminal proteins. Only data for sperm but not seminal plasma proteome are provided. Seminal plasma proteins are found to interact with the surface of spermatozoa, so data both for seminal plasma and spermatozoa are vital for better understanding of sperm physiology.

2. There is a serious probability that pseudoreplicates instead of replicates were used in this study. Pseudoreplication occurs when observational data are pooled prior to statistical analysis and subsamples are incorrectly treated as true replicates for statistical analysis. The authors stated (L102) that semen samples were pooled.

3. Relationship of obtained results to cryopreservation is not provided. Cryopreservation is mentioned as the main justification for this study (L42-51). Cryopreservation experiments were not performed in this study and the importance of the data for cryopreservation is not discussed at all.

4. There is no validation of obtained results with other methods, for example Western blotting.

Specific comments

Introduction:

Line 20, 44 I would change “specie” to “species”

L21 Instead of “sperm protein proteomics” I would use “sperm proteins” or “sperm proteomes” throughout the MS.

L52 other “omics” techniques, especially transcriptomics, are used for studies of spermatozoa as well.

L98 age of animals? Basic description of animals should be provided.

L101 short description of CASA systems should be provided. Semen volume and sperm concentration should be provided.

L104 did you use inhibitor cocktail to prevent proteolysis?

L107 Which buffer did you use to wash the sperm?

L107 time for storage of sperm pellets at -80°C should be provided.

L118 and 131 please explain why you reduced and alkylate proteins two times before and after trypsin digestion

L125 remove “according to Bradford (repetition).

L134 Please explain what you mean by “the combined sample “used for high reverse-phase separation.

L139 10 min

- How did the authors ensure confidence in protein ID with only one unique peptide (Supplementary Tab. S1)?

- What was the exact fold change use for analysis? (Suplementary TableS5 showed Fold Change lower that 2).

L171 please provide the peptide mass tolerance and MS/MS tolerance during database searching

It would be interesting to see data of Table S4 independently for ram and buck.

Please improve the quality of Fig. 2.

Some categories of Fig. 3 seem not to be relevant to sperm physiology, for example “insect hormone synthesis”, “carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms”,” methane metabolism”, and so on.

Discussion

The Authors did not discuss the obtained results.

It would be meaningful to compare published proteomes with the proteome of ram and buck presented in this study

The authors performed the GO classification and pathway enrichment of DEPs, but they did not discuss these results (Fig. 2A, 2B, Fig.3, table S6, table S7) the obtained results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 13;15(2):e0228656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228656.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Dec 2019

List of Corrections Made with the Comments of the editors and Reviewers

Editor comments:

- Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

AU: Revised as you suggested.

- We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432016300537?via%3Dihub

AU: We are sorry for our duplication, duplicated text (L36-38) has been addressed.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00369

AU: We are sorry for our duplication, duplicated text (L60-67) has been addressed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874391915000068?via%3Dihub

AU: We are sorry for our duplication, duplicated text (L56-60), (L289-291) has been addressed.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00530

AU: We are sorry for our duplication, duplicated text (L52-57) has been addressed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510717302014?via%3Dihub

AU: We are sorry for our duplication, duplicated text (L342-345) has been addressed.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

AU: Revised as you suggested, all duplicated text have been addressed.

- We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

AU: Revised as you suggested, more details about semen characters were added in the manuscript.

And the raw mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD014095.

- Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is correctly linked to an affiliation.

Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

AU: Yes, we are sure that each author is correctly linked to the affiliation.

Reviewer #1 comments:

General comment:

The main aim of the present manuscript is to characterize sperm proteome in sheep (Hu-sheep breed. Ovis aries) and goat (Anhui white goat. Capra hircus) and identify differences among these proteomes that could help to detect proteins that could be used as potential markers of sperm fertility and functionality and also of sperm cry resistance. The paper is, in my opinion, very interesting since the topic addressed is of great interest currently for the improvement of reproductive technologies outputs in small ruminants. For performing this study, the authors used 9 rams and 9 bucks for obtaining the ejaculates (one per male) determining three biological replicates (each one composed by three different ejaculate samples) in each species. Spermatozoa from all the ejaculates were obtained by centrifugation and processed for protein analysis by using a data-independent acquisition-mass spectrometry approach. A total of 13, 195 peptides corresponding to 2,288 proteins (buck: 2,197 and ram: 91) which 2,109 were identified. Regarding the proteins present in different abundance, a total of 238 were detected, 166 up-regulated and 72-down regulated when sperm proteome of ram and buck were compared. The authors conclude that most of the proteins identified in bucks and rams are related to metabolic pathways. In addition, the authors suggest that the differences found between rams and buck’s sperm proteome should be taken into account for optimizing the results of cryopreservation protocols in these species. Although the results are interesting and could result of high applicability there some aspects that should be clarified by the authors before the manuscript was ready for its publication. The current version of the manuscript is, in my opinion, not relevant enough to be published and therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after major revision.

AU: Thank you very much for your positive and valuable comments on our work, we have revised our manuscript according to your valuable suggestions.

Special comments:

-Title: It seems that the title is incomplete. I would suggest to modify as follows: “Proteomic characterization and comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach”. Please, revise it and modify if convenient.

AU: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, and revised as you suggested.

- Abstract: Page 2; line 25: “…in sperm protein proteomes between…”. Please, revise this sentence and modify if convenient.

AU: Revised as you suggested. The sentence has been rewritten.

- Introduction: Page 3; lines 57-58: Please modify this sentence to “Furthermore, the sperm proteome that have been published…”. In addition, here and all along the manuscript I would suggest to use the word “species” instead of breed since goats and sheeps are two different livestock species. In my opinion the term species would be more appropiate.

AU: Thanks a lot for your suggestion, the sentence has been rewritten, and the word “species” was used instead of breed in the whole manuscript.

- Introduction: Page 4; lines 72-74: The objective should be rewritten, in its present form it is not very clear.

AU: Revised as you suggested. The sentence has been rewritten.

- Material and Methods: Page 4; lines 78-82: Although a figure is included, the explanation of the experimental design is very poor. An explained description of this experimental design should be included in the text.

AU: Revised as you suggested, the explanation of the experimental design has been added.

- Material and Methods: General comment regarding protein analysis: In my opinion this section is also very poorly explained. The provided information is not informative enough and in addition it is not well organized. I would suggest to deeply modify this part of the manuscript in order to improve the its quality. In addition, and statistical analysis section should be included.

AU: Revised as you suggested, the M&M section (especially for protein analysis) has been rewritten and reorganized, and more details has been added including statistical analysis section.

- Results: Information about differences or repeatability among the three biological replicates should be included.

AU: Revised as you suggested, PCA analysis were added to elucidate the differences or repeatability among the three biological replicates (Fig 3).

-Results about GO annotation and pathways enrichment should be put together.

AU: Revised as you suggested, GO annotation and pathways enrichment for different expressed proteins were put together (Fig 6).

- Discussion: The discussion section is in my opinion too superficial and, although in some point the authors make very good reasoning, in general is of low relevance. This section should be revised and rewritten to make it more scientifically relevant. As I have nooted before, the work is interesting and with all the obtained information the authors could perform a very interesting and useful discussion.

AU: Revised as you and reviewers suggested. Discussion has been extended (yellow-highlighted in part of Discussions).

- Conclusion: the conclusion is too long and in its present form is, again in my opinion, not adequate. I would recommend to rewritten it in order to make it more concise. In addition, a better justification of the authors for the usefulness of these proteins as potential additives for improving buck sperm cryopreservation ability are necessary.

AU: Revised as you and reviewers suggested. Conclusion has been rewritten.

-Figures: Please, provide figures in a higher quality format.

AU: Revised as you suggested.

Reviewer #2 comments:

General comment:

In this paper the Authors provide descriptive data concerning the comparison of sperm proteins of ram and buck semen. More than 2 000 proteins were identified and 238 were found to differ in abundance between buck and ram. This finding is interesting and extends our knowledge about sperm proteins in ruminants.

AU: Thank you very much for your positive and valuable comments on our work, we have studied your comments carefully and have made correction and revisions which was yellow-highlighted in the revised version.

Major critique

-In my opinion this study is incomplete regarding seminal proteins. Only data for sperm but not seminal plasma proteome are provided. Seminal plasma proteins are found to interact with the surface of spermatozoa, so data both for seminal plasma and spermatozoa are vital for better understanding of sperm physiology.

AU: Yes, as you said seminal plasma proteins are essential for sperm function. We have also characterized and made comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) seminal plasma proteome, and the manuscript is preparing. In this manuscript, we focus on spermatozoa proteome.

-There is a serious probability that pseudo replicates instead of replicates were used in this study. Pseudo replication occurs when observational data are pooled prior to statistical analysis and subsamples are incorrectly treated as true replicates for statistical analysis. The authors stated (L102) that semen samples were pooled.

AU: Yes, as you said, pseudo replication occurs when observational data are pooled prior to statistical analysis. In this experiment, pseudo replication would not exit. In this study, we used 9 rams and 9 bucks for obtaining the semen samples (2 ejaculates/animal) determining three biological replicates (each one composed by three different animal samples, n = 3) in each species. Semen samples within each male were pooled to obtain a representative semen sample.

-Relationship of obtained results to cryopreservation is not provided. Cryopreservation is mentioned as the main justification for this study (L42-51). Cryopreservation experiments were not performed in this study and the importance of the data for cryopreservation is not discussed at all.

AU: Comprehensive proteomic profiling between ram and buck spermatozoa was performed in the study, with the end goal of improving AI success in ram and buck. Cryopreservation was an important part of AI, and cryopreservation mentioned in the introduction was used to justify ram and buck should not be lumped together in AI technologies. The objective of this study was to systematically characterize and make a comparison of ram and buck spermatozoa proteome, thus, cryopreservation experiments were not performed in this study.

-There is no validation of obtained results with other methods, for example Western blotting.

AU: Revised as you suggested. Expression of some DEPs were validated by Western blot (Results are shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5A).

Special comments:

-Introduction:

Line 20, 44 I would change “specie” to “species”

AU: Revised as you suggested.

-L21 Instead of “sperm protein proteomics” I would use “sperm proteins” or “sperm proteomes” throughout the MS.

AU: Revised as you suggested.

-L52 other “omics” techniques, especially transcriptomics, are used for studies of spermatozoa as well.

AU: We are sorry for such arbitrary conclusion; the sentence has been rewritten.

-L98 age of animals? Basic description of animals should be provided.

AU: Revised as you suggested, ages of animals were provided.

-L101 short description of CASA systems should be provided. Semen volume and sperm concentration should be provided.

AU: Revised as you suggested, description of CASA systems and semen volume and sperm concentration has been provided.

-L104 did you use inhibitor cocktail to prevent proteolysis?

AU: For semen samples, protease inhibitor cocktail was not used. In our study, protease inhibitor cocktail was used to prevent proteolysis during protein extraction.

-L107 Which buffer did you use to wash the sperm?

AU: Sperm was washed in PBS and the detail was added in the manuscript.

-L107 time for storage of sperm pellets at -80°C should be provided.

AU: Due to the working time, sperm pellets were stored -80 °C one night (about 10 hours).

-L118 and 131 please explain why you reduced and alkylate proteins two times before and after trypsin digestion

AU: We are sorry for our mistake in writing, proteins were only reduced and alkylated one time, description about “reduced and alkylate proteins” in L131 has been deleted.

-L125 remove “according to Bradford (repetition).

AU: Revised as you suggested.

-L134 Please explain what you mean by “the combined sample “used for high reverse-phase separation.

AU: Sorry for our ambiguous description, all samples were mixed equally (20 μg/sample), and 100 μg subsample was used for DDA analysis. The sentence has been rewritten.

-L139 10 min

AU: Revised as you suggested.

- How did the authors ensure confidence in protein ID with only one unique peptide (Supplementary Tab. S1)?

AU: First, to generate the final spectral library, raw data of DDA were processed and analyzed by MaxQuant (version 1.5.3.30), and the identifications were filtered for no more than 1% FDR on peptide and protein level. Then, DIA data were analyzed by Spectronaut Pulsar 11.0 (Biognosys AG), based on the target-decoy model applicable to SWATH-MS to obtain quantitative results, and the FDR was estimated with the mProphet scoring algorithm, and set to no more than 1% at peptide precursor level.

- What was the exact fold change use for analysis? (Suplementary TableS5 showed Fold Change lower that 2).

AU: Fold changes ≥ 2.0 were used for analysis, values showed in Supplementary TableS5 were log2FC, not the exact fold change value.

-L171 please provide the peptide mass tolerance and MS/MS tolerance during database searching

AU: MS/MS tolerance: 20 ppm, and detail was added.

-It would be interesting to see data of Table S4 independently for ram and buck.

AU: Revised as you suggested, they were separated. KEGG pathway analysis of the identified proteins in sheep and goat spermatozoa are shown in S4Table and S5Table, respectively.

-Please improve the quality of Fig. 2.

AU: Revised as you suggested.

-Some categories of Fig. 3 seem not to be relevant to sperm physiology, for example “insect hormone synthesis”, “carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms”,” methane metabolism”, and so on.

AU: Yes, you are right, some categories of Fig.6 were not relevant to sperm physiology, this phenomenon has also been found in other experiments. As we known, KEGG pathways were enriched based on the known function of differentially expressed proteins. To date, sperm protein functions in ram and buck were not welled studied, which leading to the above result.

Discussion

-The Authors did not discuss the obtained results.

It would be meaningful to compare published proteomes with the proteome of ram and buck presented in this study

-The authors performed the GO classification and pathway enrichment of DEPs, but they did not discuss these results (Fig. 2A, 2B, Fig.3, table S6, table S7) the obtained results.

AU: Revised as you and reviewers suggested. Discussion has been extended (yellow-highlighted in part of Discussions).

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Decision Letter 1

Peter J Hansen

31 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-15817R1

Proteomic characterization and comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please make sure to handle all remaining issues identified by the reviewer. They are important points. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed almost all the modifications suggested. However, in the present version of the manuscript there are some aspects that still need to be improved.

The explanation of the experimental design is still very poor and although the figure 1 can help, in my opinion is not enough.

In the current version of the manuscript I have not found the figure legends for the figures provided.

Only legends for figure 1 and 2 are provided in the main text of the manuscript. This is nor the appropriate place and, in addition, the explanations are not adequate being poor and not informative enough.

The quality of some figures is still not good, as for example figure 1 and 2. Please, revise it again and try to improve if possible.

Finally, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: The Authors have complied with most of my remarks which led to the improvement of the overall quality and sound of the paper. Therefore, I can now recommend the MS for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 13;15(2):e0228656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228656.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jan 2020

List of Corrections Made with the Comments of Reviewers

Reviewer #1 comments:

-The authors have addressed almost all the modifications suggested. However, in the present version of the manuscript there are some aspects that still need to be improved.

AU: Thanks for your valuable comments on our work, and we have studied comments carefully and have made correction and revisions which was yellow-highlighted in the revised version.

-The explanation of the experimental design is still very poor and although the figure 1 can help, in my opinion is not enough.

AU: The explanation of the experimental design has been revised. The explanation of the experimental design was revised as follows: the experimental design and workflow are shown in Fig 1. Semen samples were collected from Hu-sheep rams (n = 9) and Anhui white goat bucks (n = 9). Individual spermatozoa of each species were equally pooled into three biological samples.

-In the current version of the manuscript I have not found the figure legends for the figures provided.

-Only legends for figure 1 and 2 are provided in the main text of the manuscript. This is nor the appropriate place and, in addition, the explanations are not adequate being poor and not informative enough.

AU: All figure legends has been revised and shown in the revised version of the manuscript. According to the guide-for-authors, each figure caption should appear directly after the paragraph in which they are first cited. So, all the figure legends were put in in the main text of the manuscript.

-The quality of some figures is still not good, as for example figure 1 and 2. Please, revise it again and try to improve if possible.

AU: Revised as you suggested. Resolution of figure 1 and 2 have been improved, and all figures have been uploaded to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool to ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. However, it is strange that the uploaded figures are very clear, but the ones presented in the draft are not good.

-Finally, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after minor revision.

AU: Revised as you suggested.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #2 comments:

The Authors have complied with most of my remarks which led to the improvement of the overall quality and sound of the paper. Therefore, I can now recommend the MS for publication.

AU: Thank you very much for your positive and valuable comments on our work.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers&#39.docx

Decision Letter 2

Peter J Hansen

22 Jan 2020

Proteomic characterization and comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach

PONE-D-19-15817R2

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Peter J Hansen

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-15817R2

Proteomic characterization and comparison of ram (Ovis aries) and buck (Capra hircus) spermatozoa proteome using a data independent acquisition mass spectometry (DIA-MS) approach

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Peter J. Hansen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Proteins identified via data dependent acquisition.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Proteins identified via data independent acquisition.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Proteins quantified via data independent acquisition.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the identified proteins in ram spermatozoa.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the identified proteins in buck spermatozoa.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table. Differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Table. GO classification of the differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

    (XLSX)

    S8 Table. KEGG pathway analysis of the differentially expressed proteins in ram vs. buck spermatozoa.

    (XLSX)

    S9 Table. The central functional modules based on the protein-protein interaction networks.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers&#39.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All mass spectrometry proteomics data are available from the PRIDE database (accession number PXD014095). With reviewer account details: Username: reviewer92861@ebi.ac.uk Password: hB4YOBzO


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES