Shortly afterwards, he decided to pay attention to her ejaculate, it’s definitely not an accident, and discovered tiny, tailed creatures he called “animals”.
As scientists continued to look down at their microscopes over the centuries, there is no doubt about what they saw and recorded their eyes in cinema: Sperm swim by moving their tails from side to side.
Why should we not trust our eyes? So this is what science has believed since then.
A “sperm deception”;
It turns out our eyes were wrong.
“If you want to see the real beat of the tail, you have to move with the sperm and rotate with the sperm. So you almost have to make a really tiny (camera) and stick it on the sperm’s head. , “Said Gadelha.
The co-authors of Gadelha, Gabriel Corkidi and Alberto Darszon, of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, developed a way to do this. Using state-of-the-art tools, including a high-speed camera that can record more than 55,000 frames per second, the researchers were able to see that side-to-side movement was actually an optical illusion.
In reality, the tail of a sperm stings on one side only.
That one-sided stroke should cause sperm to swim in a perpetual circle, Gadelha said. But no, sperm were smarter than that.
“Human sperm imagined if they roll while swimming, similar to the playful otters that crossed the water, their one-sided slope would average and they would swim forward,” said Gadelha, who is an expert in mathematics. fertility.
“Sperm rotation is something that’s very important. It’s something that allows the sperm to regain symmetry and be able to go straight,” he said.
The results were a real surprise, Gadelha said, so the team spent nearly two years repeating the experiment and checking the math. The results obtained: just like the Earth It didn’t turn out to be flat, the sperm don’t really bathe like snakes or eels.
Why, is this important?
“It could be that moving motion hides some subtle aspects about the health of this sperm or how well it can travel quickly,” Gadelha said.
“All of these are very hypothetical questions. What we hope is that the most scientific and fertility experts are interested and ask, ‘Okay, how does this infertility influence you?’ “
As for the feeling of reversing more than 300 years of scientific assumptions, Gadelha is modest.
“Oh gosh, I always have a deep feeling that I’m always wrong,” he said.
“Who knows what we’ll find next? It’s a measure given by an instrument that has its limitations. We’re right now, but we could be wrong again as science advances. Hopefully it’s something very exciting to learn in the coming years. “