Figure 5.

Evaluation of epididymis structure and sperm parameters. (A) The morphology and size of the epididymis, as well as the epididymis/body weight ratio, showed no significant difference between the wild‐type (WT) and Prss55 ^−/− (Homo) mice (n = 3). (B) Observing the haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)‐stained sections showed similar histological structures of the epididymis in WT and Homo mice, with no significant abnormalities. (C) Sperm count from the cauda epididymis of WT and Homo mice showed no significant differences (n = 6). (D) Percentage of motile and progressively motile sperm from Homo mice decreased significantly (n = 6). ***P < .001