Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T13:18:55.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of preimplantation embryos recovered in vivo from dairy cows in relation to their body condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2015

A.V. Makarevich ,
L. Stádník ,
E. Kubovičová ,
Z. Hegedüšová ,
R. Holásek ,
F. Louda ,
J. Beran  and
M. Nejdlová
A.V. Makarevich*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Hlohovecká 2, 951 41 Lužianky near Nitra, Slovak Republic. National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute of Animal Production Nitra, 951 41 Lužianky near Nitra, Slovak Republic.
L. Stádník
Affiliation:
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Husbandry, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague 6 – Suchdol, Czech Republic.
E. Kubovičová
Affiliation:
National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute of Animal Production Nitra, 951 41 Lužianky near Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Z. Hegedüšová
Affiliation:
Institute for Cattle Breeding Ltd. Rapotin, Vyzkumniku 267, 788 13 Vikyrovice, Czech Republic.
R. Holásek
Affiliation:
Institute for Cattle Breeding Ltd. Rapotin, Vyzkumniku 267, 788 13 Vikyrovice, Czech Republic.
F. Louda
Affiliation:
Institute for Cattle Breeding Ltd. Rapotin, Vyzkumniku 267, 788 13 Vikyrovice, Czech Republic.
J. Beran
Affiliation:
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Husbandry, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague 6 – Suchdol, Czech Republic.
M. Nejdlová
Affiliation:
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Husbandry, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague 6 – Suchdol, Czech Republic.
*
All correspondence to: Alexander V. Makarevich. Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Hlohovecká 2, 951 41 Lužianky near Nitra, Slovak Republic. Tel: +421 37 6546 334. E-mail:makarevic@cvzv.sk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study examined the impact of cow body condition on the quality of bovine preimplantation embryos. The embryos (n = 107) were flushed from dairy cows and classified according to a five-point scale body condition score (BCS2 n = 17; BCS3 n = 31; BCS4 n = 11) on the 7th day after insemination and then analyzed for development, dead cell index (DCI), cell number and actin cytoskeleton quality. The highest embryo recovery rate (P < 0.05) was recorded in the BCS3 group and the lowest in the BCS4 group. More transferable (morula, blastocyst) embryos were obtained from the BCS4 cows (79%), compared with the BCS2 (64%) or BCS3 (63%) animals. However, cell numbers were higher in the BCS2 and BCS3 groups (P < 0.05) compared with the BCS4 embryos. Conversely, the DCI was lowest in the BCS2 (3.88%; P < 0.05) and highest in the BCS4 (6.56%) embryos. The proportion of embryos with the best actin quality (grade I) was higher in the BCS2 and BCS3 cows compared with the BCS4 group. Almost 25% of all embryos showed fragmented morphology and a higher DCI (5.65%) than normal morulas (1.76%). More fragmented embryos were revealed in the BCS2 (28.6%) and BCS4 (31.25%) groups, and less (19.15%) in the BCS3 group. The cell numbers in such embryos were lower in the BCS4 (22.57) than in the BCS2 (46.25) or BCS3 (42.4) groups. In conclusion, the body condition of dairy cows affects the quality of preimplantation embryos. A BCS over 3.0 resulted in a higher incidence of poor (fragmented) embryos.

Keywords

Body condition scoreCowEmbryo quality
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 378 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Adamiak, S.J., Mackie, K., Watt, R.G., Webb, R. & Sinclair, K.D. (2005). Impact of nutrition on oocyte quality: cumulative effects of body composition and diet leading to hyperinsulinemia in cattle. Biol. Reprod. 73, 918–26.Google Scholar
Adamiak, S.J., Powell, K., Rooke, J.A., Webb, R. & Sinclair, K.D. (2006). Body composition, dietary carbohydrates and fatty acids determine post-fertilization development of bovine oocytes in vitro . Reproduction 131, 247–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beran, J., Stádník, L., Ducháček, J., Okrouhlá, M., Doležalová, M., Kadlecová, V. & Ptáček, M. (2013). Relationships among the cervical mucus urea and acetone, accuracy of insemination timing, and sperm survival in Holstein cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 142, 28–34.Google Scholar
Bridges, G.A., Kruse, S.G., Funnell, B., Perry, G.A., Gunn, P.J., Arias, R.P. & Lake, S.L. (2012). Changes in body condition on oocyte quality and embryo survival. Proc. Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle, December 3–4, Sioux Falls, SD, pp. 269–83.Google Scholar
Cerri, R.L.A., Juchem, S.O., Chebel, R.C., Rutigliano, H.M., Bruno, R.G.S., Galvao, K.N., Thatcher, W.W. & Santos, J.E.P. (2009). Effect of fat source differing in fatty acid profile on metabolic parameters, fertilization and embryo quality in high-producing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 1520–31.Google Scholar
Diskin, M.G. & Morris, D.G. (2008). Embryonic and early foetal losses in cattle and other ruminants. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 43 (Suppl. 2), 260–7.Google Scholar
Doležalová, M., Stádník, L., Nejdlová, M., Němečková, D., Beran, J. & Ducháček, J. (2013). The relationship between energy balance after calving and reproductive functions in Holstein dairy cows treated by the OVSYNCH system. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61, 601–10.Google Scholar
Edmonson, A. J., Lean, I.J., Weaver, L.D., Farver, T. & Webster, G. (1989). A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 72, 68–78.Google Scholar
Freret, S., Grimard, B., Ponter, A.A., Joly, C., Ponsart, C. & Humblot, P. (2006). Reduction of body-weight gain enhances in vitro embryo production in overfed superovulated dairy heifers. Reproduction, 131, 783–94.Google Scholar
Han, Z., Chung, Y.G., Gao, S. & Latham, K.E. (2005). Maternal factors controlling blastomere fragmentation in early mouse embryos. Biol. Reprod. 72, 612–18.Google Scholar
Hao, Y., Lai, L., Mao, J., Im, G-S., Bonk, A. & Prather, R.S. (2003). Apoptosis and in vitro development of preimplantation porcine embryos derived in vitro or by nuclear transfer. Biol. Reprod. 69, 501–7.Google Scholar
Hardy, K. (1999). Apoptosis in the human embryo. Rev. Reprod. 4, 125–34.Google Scholar
Jurisicova, A., Varmuza, S. & Casper, R.F. (1996). Programmed cell death and human embryo fragmentation. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2, 93–8.Google Scholar
Kadokawa, H., Tameoka, N., Uchiza, M., Kimura, Y. & Yonai, M. (2008). Short communication: a field study on the relationship between body condition and embryo production in superovulated Holstein yearling heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 1087–91.Google Scholar
Kim, N.H., Funahashi, H., Prather, R.S., Schatten, G. & Day, B.N. (1996). Microtubule and microfilament dynamics in porcine oocytes during meiotic maturation. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 43, 248–55.Google Scholar
Kim, N.H., Funahashi, H., Prather, R.S., Schatten, G. & Day, B.N. (1997). The distribution and requirement of microtubule and microfilaments during fertilization and parthenogenesis in pig oocytes. J. Reprod. Fert. 111, 143–9.Google Scholar
Krpálková, L., Cabrera, V. E., Vacek, M., Štípková, M., Stádník, L. & Crump, P. (2014). Effect of prepubertal and postpubertal growth and age at first calving on production and reproduction traits during the first three lactations in Holstein dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 97, 3017–27.Google Scholar
Leroy, J.L.M.R., Opsomer, G., De Vliegher, S., Vanholder, T., Goossens, L., Geldhof, A., Bols, P.E.J., de Kruif, A. & Van Soom, A. (2005). Comparison of embryo quality in high-yielding dairy cows, in dairy heifers and in beef cows. Theriogenology 64, 2022–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, J.L.M.R., Van Soom, A., Opsomer, G., Goovaerts, I.G.F. & Bols, P.E.J. (2008). Reduced fertility in high-yielding dairy cows: are the oocyte and embryo in danger? Part II. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 43, 623–32.Google Scholar
Louda, F. & Stádník, L. (2000). Vliv rozdílné úrovně výživy na hormonální a ovulační aktivitu u přežvýkavců. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 45, 553–6.Google Scholar
Makarevich, A.V., Chrenek, P., Žilka, N., Pivko, J. & Bulla, J. (2005). Preimplantation development and viability of in vitro cultured rabbit embryos derived from in vivo fertilized gene-microinjected eggs: apoptosis and ultrastructure analyses. Zygote 13, 125–37.Google Scholar
Makarevich, A.V., Kubovičová, E., Hegedűšová, Z., Pivko, J. & Louda, F. (2012). Post-thaw culture in presence of insulin-like growth factor I improves the quality of cattle cryopreserved embryos. Zygote 20, 97–102.Google Scholar
Maro, B., Howlett, S.K. & Houliston, E. (1986). Cytoskeletal dynamics in the mouse egg. J. Cell Sci. Suppl. 5, 343–59.Google Scholar
Matwee, C., Betts, D.H. & King, W.A. (2000). Apoptosis in the early bovine embryo. Zygote 8, 57–68.Google Scholar
Nolan, R., O´Callaghan, D., Duby, R.T., Lonergan, P. & Boland, M.P. (1998). The influence of short-term nutrient changes on follicle growth and embryo production following superovulation in beef heifers. Theriogenology 50, 1263–74.Google Scholar
Osoro, K. & Wright, I.A. (1992). The effect of body condition, live weight, breed, age, calf performance, and calving date on reproductive performance of spring-calving beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 70, 1661–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajmon, R., Šichtař, J., Vostrý, L. & Řehák, D. (2012). Ovarian follicle growth dynamics during the postpartum period in Holstein cows and effects of contemporary cyst occurrence. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 57, 562–72.Google Scholar
Rizos, D., Carter, F., Besenfelder, U., Havlicek, V. & Lonergan, P. (2010). Contribution of the female reproductive tract to low fertility in postpartum lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 1022–9.Google Scholar
Roche, J.F. (2006). The effect of nutritional management of the dairy cow on reproductive efficiency. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 96, 282–96.Google Scholar
Řehák, D., Volek, J., Bartoň, L., Vodková, Z., Kubešová, M. & Rajmon, R. (2012). Relationships among milk yield, body weight, and reproduction in Holstein and Czech Fleckvieh cows. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 57, 274–82.Google Scholar
Sartori, R., Bastos, M.R. & Wiltbank, M.C. (2010). Factors affecting fertilisation and early embryo quality in single- and superovulated dairy cattle. Reprod. Fert. Dev. 22, 151–8.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2001): Release 8.02 (TS2MO) of the SAS® System for Microsoft® Windows®. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Siddiqui, M.A.R., Shamsuddin, M., Bhuiyan, M.M.U., Akbar, M.A. & Kamaruddin, K.M. (2002). Effect of feeding and body condition score on multiple ovulation and embryo production in Zebu cows. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 37, 37–41.Google Scholar
Snijders, S.E., Dillon, P., O´Callaghan, D. & Boland, M.P. (2000). Effect of genetic merit, milk yield, body condition and lactation number on in vitro oocyte development in dairy cows. Theriogenology 53, 981–9.Google Scholar
Starbuck, M.J., Dailey, R.A. & Inskeep, E.K. (2004). Factors affecting retention of early pregnancy in dairy cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 84, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stádník, L., Louda, F. & Ježková, A. (2002). The effect of selected factors at insemination on reproduction of Holstein cows. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 47, 169–75.Google Scholar
Stádník, L., Vacek, M. & Němečková, A. (2007). Relationships between Body Condition and Production, Reproduction and Health Traits in Holstein Cows. Výzkum v chovu skotu [Cattle Research] 59, 16–27.Google Scholar
Tharasanit, T., Colenbrander, B. & Stout, T.A.E. (2005). Effect of cryopreservation on the cellular integrity of equine embryos. Reproduction 129, 789–98.Google Scholar
Van Soom, A. & Boerjan, M. (2002). Assessment of mammalian embryo quality. Invasive and non-invasive techniques. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 406 p.Google Scholar
Van Soom, A., Mateusen, B., Maes, D. & de Kruif, A. (2003). Fragmentation and apoptosis in bovine embryos. Theriogenology 59, 352.Google Scholar
Walsh, S.W., Williams, E.J. & Evans, A.C.O. (2011). A review of the causes of poor fertility in high milk producing dairy cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 123, 127–38.Google Scholar
Wang, W.-H., Abeydeera, L.R., Han, Y.-M., Prather, R.S. & Day, B.N. (1999). Morphologic evaluation and actin filament distribution in porcine embryos produced in vitro and in vivo. Biol. Reprod. 60, 1020–8.Google Scholar
Wang, W.-H., Abeydeera, L.R., Prather, R.S. & Day, B.N. (2000). Polymerization of nonfilamentous actin into microfilaments is an important process for porcine oocyte maturation and early embryo development. Biol. Reprod. 62, 1177–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, J., Cheung, T., Chan, S.T., Ho, P. & Yeung, W.S. (2001). The incidence of cytoplasmic fragmentation in mouse embryos in vitro is not affected by inhibition of caspase activity. Fertil. Steril. 75, 986–91.Google Scholar
Yaakub, H., O'Callaghan, D. & Boland, M.P. (1999). Effect of type and quantity of concentrate on superovulation and embryo yield in beef heifers. Theriogenology. 51, 1259–66.Google Scholar
Zavadilová, L. & Štípková, M. (2013). Effect of age at first calving on longevity and fertility traits for Holstein cattle. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 58, 47–57.Google Scholar