Journal of Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology (한국동물생명공학회지)

The Korean Society of Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology (한국동물생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of rooster semen quality using CBB dye based staining method

  • Kim, Sung Woo (Animal Genetic Resources Research Center, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Yeong (Animal Genetic Resources Research Center, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Chan-Lan (Animal Genetic Resources Research Center, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Ko, Yeong Gyu (Animal Genetic Resources Research Center, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Bongki (Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University)
  • Received : 2022.03.21
  • Accepted : 2022.03.23
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The acrosome cap allows sperm to penetrate the egg membrane and produce male pronuclei within female chicken eggs, facilitating successful fertilization. Given this, it is important to establish practical methods for evaluating the integrity of the acrosome cap and thus the quality of the rooster's sperm. There are several established methods for evaluating the acrosomes of mammalian sperm, but none of these methods are suitable for evaluating the acrosome status of rooster spermatozoa. Therefore, a simplified method for evaluating the rooster acrosome is needed. Here we evaluated the usefulness of CBB (coomassie brilliant blue) staining of the acrosome at concentrations of 0.04%, 0.08%, and 0.3% CBB solutions. Our data revealed a clear staining pattern for intact acrosome caps at 0.04% and 0.08% CBB but not at 0.3% CBB. This protocol revealed differences in acrosome integrity between fresh and frozen rooster sperm smears suggesting that CBB staining may facilitate easier semen evaluation in roosters. This protocol allows for the accurate differential staining of acrosome cap in rooster spermatozoa.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01558302) from the Rural Development Administration.

References

  1. Ahammad MU, Nishino C, Tatemoto H, Okura N, Okamoto S, Kawamoto Y, Nakada T. 2013. Acrosome reaction of fowl sperm: evidence for shedding of the acrosomal cap in intact form to release acrosomal enzyme. Poult. Sci. 92:798-803. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02523
  2. Chalah T and Brillard JP. 1998. Comparison of assessment of fowl sperm viability by eosin-nigrosin and dual fluorescence (SYBR-14/PI). Theriogenology 50:487-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00155-1
  3. Chalah T, Seigneurin F, Blesbois E, Brillard JP. 1999. In vitro comparison of fowl sperm viability in ejaculates frozen by three different techniques and relationship with subsequent fertility in vivo. Cryobiology 39:185-191. https://doi.org/10.1006/cryo.1999.2201
  4. Chan PJ, Corselli JU, Jacobson JD, Patton WC, King A. 1999. Spermac stain analysis of human sperm acrosomes. Fertil. Steril. 72:124-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00201-0
  5. Correa LM, Thomas A, Meyers SA. 2007. The macaque sperm actin cytoskeleton reorganizes in response to osmotic stress and contributes to morphological defects and decreased motility. Biol. Reprod. 77:942-953. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.107.060533
  6. Feyzi S, Sharafi M, Rahimi S. 2018. Stress preconditioning of rooster semen before cryopreservation improves fertility potential of thawed sperm. Poult. Sci. 97:2582-2590. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey067
  7. Gliozzi TM, Zaniboni L, Cerolini S. 2011. DNA fragmentation in chicken spermatozoa during cryopreservation. Theriogenology 75:1613-1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.01.001
  8. Horrocks AJ, Stewart S, Jackson L, Wishart GJ. 2000. Induction of acrosomal exocytosis in chicken spermatozoa by inner perivitelline-derived N-linked glycans. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 278:84-89. https://doi.org/10.1006/bbrc.2000.3766
  9. Kohn FM, Mack SR, Schill WB, Zaneveld LJ. 1997. Detection of human sperm acrosome reaction: comparison between methods using double staining, Pisum sativum agglutinin, concanavalin A and transmission electron microscopy. Hum. Reprod. 12:714-721. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.4.714
  10. Larson JL and Miller DJ. 1999. Simple histochemical stain for acrosomes on sperm from several species. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 52:445-449. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2795(199904)52:4<445::AID-MRD14>3.0.CO;2-6
  11. Lee MA, Trucco GS, Bechtol KB, Wummer N, Kopf GS, Blasco L, Storey BT. 1987. Capacitation and acrosome reactions in human spermatozoa monitored by a chlortetracycline fluorescence assay. Fertil. Steril. 48:649-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59480-1
  12. Mazur P. 1984. Freezing of living cells: mechanisms and implications. Am. J. Physiol. 247(3 Pt 1):C125-C142. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.1984.247.3.C125
  13. Mehaisen GMK, Partyka A, Ligocka Z, Nizanski W. 2020. Cryoprotective effect of melatonin supplementation on postthawed rooster sperm quality. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 212:106238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2019.106238
  14. Menkveld R, Holleboom CA, Rhemrev JP. 2011. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J. Androl. 13:59-68. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2010.67
  15. Mota PC and Ramalho-Santos J. 2006. Comparison between different markers for sperm quality in the cat: Diff-Quik as a simple optical technique to assess change in the DNA of feline epididymal sperm. Theriogenology 65:1360-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.08.016
  16. Partyka A, Nizanski W, Lukaszewicz E. 2010. Evaluation of fresh and frozen-thawed fowl semen by flow cytometry. Theriogenology 74:1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.04.032
  17. Pena FJ, Garcia BM, Samper JC, Aparicio IM, Tapia JA, Ferrusola CO. 2011. Dissecting the molecular damage to stallion spermatozoa: the way to improve current cryopreservation protocols? Theriogenology 76:1177-1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.06.023
  18. Pommer AC, Rutllant J, Meyers SA. 2002. The role of osmotic resistance on equine spermatozoal function. Theriogenology 58:1373-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01039-7
  19. Rui BR, Angrimani DSR, Losano JDA, Bicudo LC, Nichi M, Pereira RJG. 2017. Validation of simple and cost-effective stains to assess acrosomal status, DNA damage and mitochondrial activity in rooster spermatozoa. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 187:133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.10.017
  20. Santiago-Moreno J, Esteso MC, Villaverde-Morcillo S, Toledano-Deaz A, Castano C, Velazquez R, Lopez-Sebastian A, Goya AL, Martinez JG. 2016. Recent advances in bird sperm morphometric analysis and its role in male gamete characterization and reproduction technologies. Asian J. Androl. 18:882-888. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.188660
  21. Schenk JL. 2018. Review: principles of maximizing bull semen production at genetic centers. Animal 12(s1):s142-s147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118000472
  22. Sieme H, Oldenhof H, Wolkers WF. 2015. Sperm membrane behaviour during cooling and cryopreservation. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 50 Suppl 3:20-26.
  23. Siudzinska A and Lukaszewicz E. 2008. Effect of semen extenders and storage time on sperm morphology of four chicken breeds. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 17:101-108. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2007-00048
  24. Talbot P and Chacon R. 1980. A new procedure for rapidly scoring acrosome reactions of human sperm. Gamete Res. 3:211-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.1120030303
  25. Thelie A, Bailliard A, Seigneurin F, Zerjal T, Tixier-Boichard M, Blesbois E. 2019. Chicken semen cryopreservation and use for the restoration of rare genetic resources. Poult. Sci. 98:447-455. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey360
  26. Villaverde-Morcillo S, Esteso MC, Castano C, Toledano Diaz A, Lopez-Sebastian A, Campo JL, Santiago-Moreno J. 2015. Influence of staining method on the values of avian sperm head morphometric variables. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 50:750-755. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12574
  27. Watson PF. 2000. The causes of reduced fertility with cryopreserved semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 60-61:481-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00099-3
  28. Wishart GJ. 1985. Quantitation of the fertilising ability of fresh compared with frozen and thawed fowl spermatozoa. Br. Poult. Sci. 26:375-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668508416825
  29. Wolf DP, Boldt J, Byrd W, Bechtol KB. 1985. Acrosomal status evaluation in human ejaculated sperm with monoclonal antibodies. Biol. Reprod. 32:1157-1162. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod32.5.1157
  30. Zhang YX, Ping SH, Yang SH. 2012. [Morphological characteristics and cryodamage of Chinese tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri chinensis) sperm]. Dongwuxue Yanjiu 33:29-36.