JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Study of Estimation of Chromatin Abnormality of Ogye Rooster Sperm and Activity by Diff-Quik Staining Method
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Korean Journal of Poultry Science
  • Volume 42, Issue 2,  2015, pp.109-116
  • Publisher : The Korean Society of Poultry Science
  • DOI : 10.5536/KJPS.2015.42.2.109
 Title & Authors
The Study of Estimation of Chromatin Abnormality of Ogye Rooster Sperm and Activity by Diff-Quik Staining Method
Kim, Sung Woo; Choi, Ahreum; Choe, Changyong; Kim, Dongkyo; Seong, Hwan-Hoo; Kim, Jae-Hwan; Kim, Chongdae;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Ogye rooster sperm chromatin status can be detected using well established sperm assays. In this paper, a simple and fast method to monitor rooster sperm chromatin status could be employed in field for assessment of chicken sperm quality. Using standard bright field microscope, Diff-Quik stains can be reproducibly, easily and routinely monitored with simple staining. The presence of abnormal chromatin staining of rooster sperm was determined by darker stain in head. In the fresh semen, the viabilities of three tested Ogye spermatozoa were 93.53%, 82.42% and 90.63% and normal chromatin rates were 87.96%, 74.25% and 85.10% respectively. However, after freezing, the rates of viability of thawed semen were reduced to 69.58%, 61.98% and 72.20% and normal chromatin rate also reduced to 58.91%, 48.49% and 63.34%. A significant correlation between live sperm and normal sperm nuclei was 0.875 in fresh semen and 0.513 in frozen semen. After incubation of sperm at for 5min, the rates of viability, chromatin normality and sperm head activity were shown as , and in fresh semen. However, the rates of thawed semen were reduced to , and 47.32{\pm}5.02%, respectively. The relationship between chromatin normality and sperm head movements in fresh and thawed semen were 0.564 and 0.540, respectively. With these results, the chicken sperm normality could be assessed by the Diff-Quik staining that could be used for chromatin status of sperm head and activated morphology of live spermatozoa, as a simple and rapid staining method.
 Keywords
chicken sperm;morphology;viability;Diff-Quik staining;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Agarwal A, Allamaneni S 2004 The effect of sperm DNA damage on assisted reproduction outcomes. A review. Minerva Ginecol 56:235-245.

2.
Alvarez JG 2003 DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa: Significance in the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Minerva Ginecol 55:233-239.

3.
Bakst MR, Cecil HC 1997 Techniques for semen evaluation, semen storage, and fertility determination. 3. Sperm viability. I. Nigrosin/eosin stain for determining live/dead and abnormal sperm counts. The Poultry Science Association Inc., Savoy, Illinois. pages 29-34.

4.
Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, Lejeune H, Salle B, Francois GJ 2007 Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril 87:93-100. crossref(new window)

5.
Blesbois E, Brillard JP 2007 Specific features of in vivo and in vitro sperm storage in birds. Animal 1:1477-1481.

6.
Bungum M, Humaidan P, Spano M, Jepson K, Bungum L, Giwercman A 2004 The predictive value of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) parameters for the outcome of intrauterine insemination, IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod 19:1401-1408. crossref(new window)

7.
Burrows WH, Quinn JP 1935 A method of obtaining spermatozoa from the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci 14:251-254. crossref(new window)

8.
Burrows WH, Quinn JP 1937 Artificial insemination of chickens and turkeys. Proc. 7th World's Poultry Congress. pages 82-85.

9.
Choi JS, Shin DB, Ko YG, Do YJ, Byun M, Park SB, Seong HH, Kim H, Kong IK, Kim SW 2013 Effects of kinds of cryoprotectants on the characteristics of frozen fowl semen. Korean J Poult Sci 40:171-1789. crossref(new window)

10.
Donnelly ET, O'Connell M, McClure N, Lewis SE 2000 Differences in nuclear DNA fragmentation and mitochondrial integrity of semen and prepared spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 15:1552-1562. crossref(new window)

11.
Donoghue AM, Wishart GJ 2000. Storage of poultry semen. Animal Reprod Sci 62:213-232. crossref(new window)

12.
Erenpreiss J, Bungum M, Spano M, Elzanaty S, Orbidans J, Giwercman A 2006 Intra-individual variation in sperm chromatin structure assay parameters in men from infertile couples: Clinical implications. Hum Reprod 21:2061-2064. crossref(new window)

13.
Garner DL, Johnson LA 1995. Viability assessment of mammalian sperm using SYBR-14 and propidium iodide. Biol Reprod 53:276-84. crossref(new window)

14.
Hanzawa S, Niinomi T, Miyata T, Tsutsui M, Tajima A 2010 Cryopreservation of chicken semen using N-methylacetamide as cryoprotectant. Jp Poult Sci 47:J27-J32.

15.
Henkel R, Hajimohammad M, Stalf T, Hoogendijk C, Mehnert C, Menkveld R, Gips H, Schill WB, Kruger TF 2004 Influence of deoxyribonucleic acid damage on fertilization and pregnancy. Fertil Steril 81:965-972. crossref(new window)

16.
Holsberger DR, Donoghue AM, Froman DP, Ottinger MA, 1998. Assessment of ejaculate quality and sperm characteristics in turkeys: Sperm mobility phenotype is independent of time. Poult Sci 77:1711-1717. crossref(new window)

17.
Howarth Jr B 1983. Fertilizing ability of cock spermatozoa from the testis, epididimis, and vas deferens following intramagnal insemination. Biol Reprod 28:586-590. crossref(new window)

18.
Hughes CM, Lewis SEM, McKelvey-Martin A, Thompson W 1996 Comparison of baseline and induced DNA damage in human spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men, using the modified comet assay. Mol Hum Reprod 2:613-619. crossref(new window)

19.
Kuster CE, Singer RS, Althouse GC 2004. Determining sample size for the morphological assessment of sperm. Theriogenology 61:691-703. crossref(new window)

20.
Lake PE 1978 The principles and practice of semen collection and preservation in birds. In: Symp Zool Soc. London. p. 43.

21.
Larson-Cook KL, Brannian JD, Hansen KA, Kasperson KM, Aamold ET, Evenson DP 2003 Relationship between the outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques and sperm DNA fragmentation as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay. Fertil Steril 80:895-902. crossref(new window)

22.
Lukaszewicz E, Jerysz A, Partyka A, Siudzinska A 2008 Efficacy of evaluation of rooster sperm morphology using different staining methods. Res Vet Sci 85:583-588 crossref(new window)

23.
Maeda T, Terada T, Tsutsumi Y 1986 Studies of the factors causing abnormal acrosomes and crooked-necks in fowl spermatozoa during freezing and thawing. Br Poult Sci 27:695-702 crossref(new window)

24.
Mota PC, Ramalho-Santos J 2006 Comparison between different markers for sperm quality in the cat: Diff-Quik as a simple optical technique to assess changes in the DNA of feline epididymal sperm. Theriogenology 65:1360-1375. crossref(new window)

25.
Root-Kustritz MV, Olson PN, Johnston SD, Root TK 1998 The effects of stains and investigators on assessment of morphology of canine spermatozoa. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 34:348-352. crossref(new window)

26.
Sharma RK, Said T, Agarwal A 2004 Sperm DNA damage and its clinical relevance in assessing reproductive outcome. Asian J Androl 6:139-148.

27.
Sousa APM, Tavares RS, Velez de la Calle JF 2009 Dual use of Diff-Quik-like stains for the simultaneous evaluation of human sperm morphology and chromatin status. Human Reprod 24:28-36. crossref(new window)

28.
Spano M, Seli E, Bizzaro D, Manicardi GC, Sakkas D 2005 The significance ofsperm nuclear DNA strand breaks on reproductive outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 17:255-260. crossref(new window)

29.
Tomlinson MJ, Moffatt O, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Afnan M, Sakkas D 2001 Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: Implications for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 16:2160-2165. crossref(new window)

30.
Varum S, Bento C, Sousa AP, Gomes-Santos CS, Henriques P, Almeida-Santos T, Teodosio C, Paiva A, Ramalho-Santos J 2007 Characterization of human sperm populations using conventional parameters, surface ubiquitination, and apoptotic markers. Fertil Steril 87:572-583. crossref(new window)