DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Usefulness of Selected Physicochemical Indices, Cell Membrane Integrity and Sperm Chromatin Structure in Assessments of Boar Semen Sensitivity

Wysokinska, A.;Kondracki, S.;Iwanina, M.

  • 투고 : 2015.02.03
  • 심사 : 2015.05.08
  • 발행 : 2015.12.01

초록

The present work describes experiments undertaken to evaluate the usefulness of selected physicochemical indices of semen, cell membrane integrity and sperm chromatin structure for the assessment of boar semen sensitivity to processes connected with pre-insemination procedures. The experiments were carried out on 30 boars: including 15 regarded as providers of sensitive semen and 15 regarded as providers of semen that is little sensitive to laboratory processing. The selection of boars for both groups was based on sperm morphology analyses, assuming secondary morphological change incidence in spermatozoa as the criterion. Two ejaculates were manually collected from each boar at an interval of 3 to 4 months. The following analyses were carried out for each ejaculate: sperm motility assessment, sperm pH measurement, sperm morphology assessment, sperm chromatin structure evaluation and cell membrane integrity assessment. The analyses were performed three times. Semen storage did not cause an increase in the incidence of secondary morphological changes in the group of boars considered to provide sperm of low sensitivity. On the other hand, with continued storage there was a marked increase in the incidence of spermatozoa with secondary morphological changes in the group of boars regarded as producing more sensitive semen. Ejaculates of group I boars evaluated directly after collection had an approximately 6% smaller share of spermatozoa with undamaged cell membranes than the ejaculates of boars in group II ($p{\leq}0.05$). In the process of time the percentage of spermatozoa with undamaged cell membranes decreased. The sperm of group I boars was characterised with a lower sperm motility than the semen of group II boars. After 1 hour of storing diluted semen, the sperm motility of boars producing highly sensitive semen was already 4% lower ($p{\leq}0.05$), and after 24 hours of storage it was 6.33% lower than that of the boars that produced semen with a low sensitivity. Factors that confirm the accuracy of insemination male selection can include a low rate of sperm motility decrease during the storage of diluted semen, low and contained incidence of secondary morphological changes in spermatozoa during semen storage and a high frequency of spermatozoa with undamaged cell membranes.

키워드

Boar;Chromatin Structure;Sperm Membrane Integrity;Sperm Morphology

참고문헌

  1. Agarwal, A., K. Makker, and R. Sharma. 2008. Clinical relevance of oxidative stress in male factor infertility: an update. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 59:2-11.
  2. Althouse, G. C., M. E. Wilson, C. Kuster, and M. Parsley. 1998. Characterization of lower temperature storage limitations of fresh-extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 50:535-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00159-9
  3. Andrabi, S. M. 2007. Mammalian sperm chromatin structure and assessment of DNA fragmentation. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 24:561-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-007-9177-y
  4. Blom, E. 1981. The morphological estimation of the spermatozoa defects of bull II. The proposal of new classification of spermatozoa defects. Med. Weter. 37:239-242.
  5. Bochenek, M., Z. Smorąg, and Z. Pilch. 2001. Sperm chromatin structure assay of bulls qualified for artificial insemination. Theriogenology 56:557-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00588-X
  6. Briz, M. D., S. Bonet, B. Pinart, and R. Camps. 1996. Sperm malformations throughout the boar epididymal duct. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 43:221-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(96)01470-4
  7. Broekhuijse, M. L., H. Feitsma, and B. M. Gadella. 2012. Artificial insemination in pigs: predicting male fertility. Vet. Q. 32:151-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2012.735126
  8. Conejo-Nava, J., R. Fierro, C. G. Gutierrez, and M. Betancourt. 2003. Membrane status and in vitro capacitation of porcine sperm preserved in long-term extender at 16 degrees C. Arch. Androl. 49:287-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01485010390204931
  9. De Ambrogi, M., J. Ballester, F. Saravia, I. Caballero, A. Johannisson, M. Wallgren, M. Andersson, and H. Rodriguez- Martinez. 2006. Effect of storage in short and long-term commercial semen extenders on the motility, plasma membrane and chromatin integrity of boar spermatozoa. Int. J. Androl. 29:543-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00694.x
  10. De Leeuw, F. E., B. Colenbrander, and A. J. Verkleij. 1990. The role membrane damage plays in cold shock and freezing injury. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 1:95-104.
  11. Didion, B. A., K. M. Kasperson, R. L. Wixon, and D. P. Evenson. 2009. Boar fertility and sperm chromatin structure status: A retrospective report. J. Androl. 30:655-660. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.108.006254
  12. Enciso, M., H. Cisale, S. D. Johnston, J. Sarasa, J. L. Fernandez, and J. Gosalvez. 2011. Major morphological sperm abnormalities in the bull are related to sperm DNA damage. Theriogenology 76:23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.12.034
  13. Fischer, M. A., J. Willis, and A. Zini. 2003. Human sperm DNA integrity: correlation with sperm cytoplasmic droplets. Urology 61:207-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02098-8
  14. Foster, M. L., C. C. Love, D. D. Varner, S. P. Brinsko, K. Hinrichs, S. Teague, K. Lacaze, and T. L. Blanchard. 2011. Comparison of methods for assessing integrity of equine sperm membranes. Theriogenology 76:334-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.02.012
  15. Kawecka, M., A. Pietruszka, E. Jacyno, R. Czarnecki, and M. Kamyczek. 2008. Quality of semen of young boars of the breeds Pietrain and Duroc and their reciprocal crosses. Arch. Tierz. 51:42-54.
  16. Khalili, M. A., F. Aghaie-Maybodi, M. Anvari, and A. R. Talebi. 2006. Sperm nuclear DNA in ejaculates of fertile and infertile men: correlation with semen parameters. Urol. J. 3:154-159.
  17. Kim, H. S., M. J. Kang, S. A. Kim, S. K. Oh, H. Kim, S. Y. Ku, S. H. Kim, S. Y. Moon, and Y. M. Choi. 2013. The utility of sperm DNA damage assay using toluidine blue and aniline blue staining in routine semen analysis. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 40:23-28. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2013.40.1.23
  18. Knox, R. V. and B. M. Yantis. 2014. The effect of numbers of frozen-thawed boar sperm and addition of prostaglandin $F2{\alpha}$ at insemination on fertility in pigs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 151:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.10.018
  19. Kondracki, S., M. Iwanina, A. Wysokinska, and M. Huszno. 2012. Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet. Brno 81:195-199. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb201281020195
  20. Kwon, W. S., M. S. Rahman, J. S. Lee, J. Kim, S. J. Yoon, Y. J. Park, Y. A. You, S. Hwang, and M. G. Pang. 2014. A comprehensive proteomic approach to identifying capacitation related proteins in boar spermatozoa. BMC Genomics 15:897. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-897
  21. Lopez Rodriguez, A., T. Rijsselaere, P. Vyt, A. Van Soom, and D. Maes. 2012. Effect of dilution temperature on boar semen quality. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 47:e63-e66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01938.x
  22. Love, C. C. 2012. Measurement of concentration and viability in stallion sperm. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 32:464-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.06.015
  23. Manee-In, S., S. Parmornsupornvichit, S. Kraiprayoon, T. Tharasanit, P. Chanapiwat, and K. Kaeoket. 2014. L-carnitine supplemented extender improves cryopreserved-thawed cat epididymal sperm motility. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27:791-796. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13565
  24. Martin-Hidalgo, D., F. J. Baron, A. Robina, M. J. Brygado, A. H. Llera, L. J. Garcia-Marin, and M. C. Gil. 2013. Inter- and intra-breed comparative study of sperm motility and viability in Iberian and Duroc boar semen during long-term storage in MR-A and XCell extenders. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 139:109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.04.001
  25. Oberlender, G., L. D. Murgas, M. G. Zangeronimo, A. C. Silva, L. J. Pereira, and R. A. Muzzi. 2012. Comparison of two different methods for evaluating boar semen morphology. Arch. Med. Vet. 44:201-205. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2012000200016
  26. Park, Y. J., W. S. Kwon, S. A. Oh, and M. G. Pang. 2012. Fertilityrelated proteomic profiling bull spermatozoa separated by percoll. J. Proteome Res. 11:4162-4168. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr300248s
  27. Shimatsu, Y., M. Uchida, R. Niki, and H. Imai. 2002. Liquid storage of miniature boar semen. Exp. Anim. 51:143-147. https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.51.143
  28. Waberski, D., A. M. Petrunkina, and E. Topfer-Petersen. 2008. Can external quality control improve pig AI efficiency? Theriogenology 70:1346-1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.006
  29. Waterhouse, K. E., P. O. Hofmo, A. Tverdal, and J. R. Miller. 2006. Within and between breed differences in freezing tolerance and plasma membrane fatty acid composition of boar sperm. Reproduction 131:887-894. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.01049
  30. Wysokinska, A. and S. Kondracki. 2014. Assessment of changes in sperm cell membrane integrity occurring during the storage of semen from genetically different males using two diagnostic methods. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94:601-606. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2013-095