Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T08:26:53.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of Pinzgau bull spermatozoa following different periods of cryostorage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2017

P. Chrenek ,
E. Spaleková ,
L. Olexikova ,
A. Makarevich  and
E. Kubovicova
P. Chrenek*
Affiliation:
National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovak Republic.
E. Spaleková
Affiliation:
09National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic.
L. Olexikova
Affiliation:
09National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic.
A. Makarevich
Affiliation:
09National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic.
E. Kubovicova
Affiliation:
09National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic.
*
All correspondence to: Peter Chrenek. National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic. E-mail: chrenekp@vuzv.sk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The aim of this work was to examine the influence of cryostorage duration of Pinzgau bull's insemination doses (IDs) on some sperm traits. The IDs were frozen by a slow freezing method and stored in liquid nitrogen for different periods: less than 8 years (group 1), 8–13 years (group 2) and 14–18 years (group 3). Motility (CASA), pathological sperm rate (Giemsa staining), apoptotic (Yo-Pro-1-positive) and necrotic (propidium iodide-positive) cell occurrence and fertilizing ability (penetration/fertilization test) of spermatozoa were evaluated post-thaw. The average post-thaw sperm motility in all examined groups was over 40%. No significant influence of storage length either on the sperm total motility or progressive movement was revealed. In each tested group the average rate of malformed spermatozoa did not exceed 20%. No effect of cryostorage length on the occurrence of apoptotic or necrotic sperm was noted. Similarly, penetrating/fertilizing ability of sperm did not differ among the groups, excepting differences in the rate of pronuclei (PN) formation. In group 1, 72.9% of eggs showed two visible PN following 20 h incubation with sperm, whilst in groups 2 and 3 only 67 and 54.5% of zygotes, respectively, had both PN at this time. These results revealed no influence of storage time on the bull spermatozoa in all parameters excepting the rate of PN formation. As high inter-male variability was observed in the susceptibility of bull sperm to cryostorage, individual differences should be taken into account when semen from individual bulls is to be stored for a long time.

Keywords

BullCryopreservationMotilityPinzgauSpermViability
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 215 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, J.L., Bilodeau, J.F. & Cormier, N. (2000). Semen cryopreservation in domestic animals: a damaging and capacitating phenomenon. J. Androl. 21, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbas, J.P. & Mascarenhas, R.D. (2009). Cryopreservation of domestic animal sperm cells. Cell Tissue Bank 10, 49–62.Google Scholar
Brito, L.F., Silva, A.E., Rodrigues, L.H., Vieira, F.V., Deragon, L.A. & Kastelic, J.P. (2002). Effects of environmental factors, age and genotype on sperm production and semen quality in Bos indicus and Bos taurus AI bulls in Brazil. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 70 (3–4), 181–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavalcanti, M., Steilmann, C., Failing, K., Bergmanm, K.S., Weidner, W. & Steger, K. (2011). Apoptotic gene expression in potentially fertile and subfertile men. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 17, 415–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, G.N., Liu, D.Y. & Baker, H.W. (2006). Recovery of human sperm motility and ability to interact with the human zona pellucida after more than 28 years of storage in liquid nitrogen. Fertil. Steril. 86 (3), 721–2.Google Scholar
Cormier, N. & Bailey, J.L. (2003). A differential mechanism is involved during heparin and cryopreservation induced capacitation of bovine sperm. Biol. Reprod. 69, 177–85.Google Scholar
Donnelly, E.T., Steele, E.K., McClure, N. & Lewis, S.E. (2001). Assessment of DNA integrity and morphology of ejaculated spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men before and after cryopreservation. Hum. Reprod. 16, 1191–9.Google Scholar
Edelstein, A., Yavetz, H., Kleiman, S.E., Hauser, R., Amnon, B., Paz, G. & Yogev, L. (2008). Effect of long-term storage on deoxyribonucleic acid damage and motility of sperm bank donor specimens. Fertil. Steril. 90, 1327–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldschuh, J., Brassel, J., Durso, N. & Levine, A. (2005). Successful sperm storage for 28 years. Fertil. Steril. 84, 1017–e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, L., Strzeżek, J. & Kordan, W. (2014). Post-thaw sperm characteristics following long-term storage of boar semen in liquid nitrogen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 147, 119–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freneau, G.E., Chenoweth, P.J., Ellis, R. & Rupp, G. (2010). Sperm morphology of beef bulls evaluated by two different methods. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 118 (2–4), 176–81.Google Scholar
García-Herreros, M., Barón, F.J., Aparicio, I.M., Santos, A.J., García-Marín, L.J. & Gil, M.C. (2008). Morphometric changes in boar spermatozoa induced by cryopreservation. Int. J. Androl. 31, 490–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamamah, S., Royère, D., Nicolle, J.C., Paquignon, M. & Lansac, J. (1990). Effects of freezing−thawing on the spermatozoon nucleus: a comparative chromatin cytophotometric study in the porcine and human species. Reprod. Nutr. Develop. 30, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammadeh, M.E., Askari, A.S., Georg, T., Rosenbaum, P. & Schmidt, W. (1999). Effect of freeze-thawing procedure on chromatin stability, morphological alteration and membrane integrity of human spermatozoa in fertile and subfertile men. Int. J. Androl. 22, 155–62.Google Scholar
Haugan, T., Gröhn, Y.T., Kommisurd, E., Ropstad, E. & Reksen, O. (2007). Effects of sperm concentration at semen collection and storage period of frozen semen on dairy cow conception. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 97, 1–11.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M., Rodríguez, I. & Dorado, J. (2006). Influence of staining and sampling procedures on goat sperm morphometry using the Sperm Class Analyzer. Theriogenology. 66, 996–1003.Google Scholar
Kadirvel, G., Periasamy, S. & Kumar, S. (2012). Effect of cryopreservation on apoptotic-like events and its relationship with cryocapacitation of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) sperm. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 47, 143–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadlecik, O., Kasarda, R. & Hetényi, L. (2004). Genetic gain, increase in inbreeding rate and generation interval in alternatives of Pinzgau breeding program. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 49 (12), 524–31.Google Scholar
Kouba, A.J., Lloyd, R.E., Houck, M.L., Silla, A.J., Calatayud, N., Trudeau, V.L., Clulow, J., Molonia, F., Langhorne, C., Vance, C., Arregui, L., Germano, J., Lermen, D. & Della Togna, G. (2013). Emerging trends for biobanking amphibian genetic resources: The hope, reality and challenges for the next decade. Biol. Conserv. 164, 10–21.Google Scholar
Kreysing, U., Nagai, T. & Niemann, H. (1997). Male-dependent variability of fertilization and embryo development in two bovine in vitro fertilization systems and the effects of casein phosphopeptides (CPPs). Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 9, 465–74.Google Scholar
Leibo, S.P., Semple, M.E. & Kroetsch, T.G. (1994). In vitro fertilization of oocytes by 37-year-old cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa. Theriogenology 42, 1257–62.Google Scholar
Lessard, C., Parent, S., Leclerc, P., Bailey, J.L. & Sullivan, R. (2000). Cryopreservation alters the levels of the bull sperm surface protein P25b. J. Androl. 21, 700–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomis, P.R. & Graham, J.K. (2008). Commercial semen freezing: individual male variation in cryosurvival and the response of stallion sperm to customized freezing protocols. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 105 (1–2), 119–28.Google Scholar
Medeiros, C.M., Forell, F., Oliveira, A.T. & Rodrigues, J.L. (2002). Current status of sperm cryopreservation: why isn't better. Theriogenology 57, 327–44.Google Scholar
O'Connell, M., McClure, N. & Lewis, S.E. (2002). The effects of cryopreservation on sperm morphology, motility, and mitochondrial function. Hum. Reprod. 17, 704–9.Google Scholar
Ozkavukcu, S., Erdemli, E., Isik, A., Oztuna, D. & Karahuseyinoglu, S. (2008). Effects of cryopreservation on sperm parameters and ultrastructural morphology of human spermatozoa. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 25, 403–11.Google Scholar
Royere, D., Hamamah, S., Nicolle, J.C. & Lansac, J. (1991). Chromatin alterations induced by freeze-thawing influence the fertilizing ability of human sperm. Int. J. Androl. 14, 328–32.Google Scholar
Sailer, B.L., Jost, L.K. & Evenson, D.P. (1996). Bull sperm head morphometry related to abnormal chromatin structure and fertility. Cytometry 24, 167–73.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saint Jalme, M., Lecoq, R., Seigneurin, F., Blesbois, E. & Plouzeau, E. (2003). Cryopreservation of semen from endangered pheasants: the first step towards a cryobank for endangered avian species. Theriogenology 59 (3–4), 875–88.Google Scholar
Salamon, S. & Maxwell, W.M.C. (2000). Storage of ram semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 62, 77–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Söderquist, L., Janson, L., Larsson, K. & Einarsson, S. (1991). Sperm morphology and fertility in A.I. bulls. Zentralbl. Veterinarmed. A. 38, 534–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, A.H., Saacke, R.G., Pearson, R.E. & Gwazdauskas, F.C. (2005). The incidence of apoptosis after IVF with morphologically abnormal bovine spermatozoa. Theriogenology 64, 1404–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wass, J.A. (2009). SigmaPlot 11: Now with total sigmaStat integration. Sci. Comput. 26, 21–3.Google Scholar
Yogev, L., Kleiman, S.E., Shabtai, E., Botchan, A., Paz, G., Ron Hauser, R., Lehavi, O., Yavetz, H. & Ronni Gamzu, R. (2010). Long-term cryostorage of sperm in a human sperm bank does not damage progressive motility concentration. Hum. Reprod. 25, 1097–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar