Reproductive warfare: Do infertile ‘kamikaze sperm’ thwart rival males?

sperm
Image credit: Sebastian Kaulitzki/Shutterstock

In the 1990s, biologist Robin Baker put forth the idea that a significant proportion of human sperm are not actually capable of fertilization and instead only serve to block or attack sperm from rival males potentially present inside the female. These “kamikaze” sperm probably also exist in other primates as well as many other promiscuous animal species, he hypothesized.

[Further research] shut the door on the “kamikaze sperm” hypothesis in humans. It remains open in other species, however.

There is one group of animals in which genuine sperm warfare might actually occur: Lepidoptera. Butterflies and moths make up this order of insects, and males of almost all known species contain two different types of sperm called eusperm and parasperm. Eusperm are at least 50 percent longer and contain a nucleus, while parasperm lack a nucleus, and thus contain no genetic information. The former is capable of fertilizing an egg, while the latter is not. So what is the function of parasperm?

[Researchers John] Swallow and [Gerald] Wilkinson found no consistent evidence from the published literature to clearly support a single hypothesis for the function of parasperm, but the “blocking” mechanism seemed to be the most likely.

Unfortunately, research on the topic has been fairly scant for the past twenty years, so we haven’t learned much more on the matter of sperm combat.

Read full, original post: Do Sperm Battle Other Sperm?

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
downsyndrome_compilation_MID_1
CRISPR breakthrough that can remove the chromosome responsible for Down syndrome raises ethical questions
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.