Literature DB >> 22406423

Comparative cryopreservation of avian spermatozoa: effects of freezing and thawing rates on turkey and sandhill crane sperm cryosurvival.

Juan M Blanco1, Julie A Long, George Gee, David E Wildt, Ann M Donoghue.   

Abstract

A comparative approach was used to evaluate semen cooling rates, thawing rates and freezing volume on the cryosurvival of avian sperm. Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) sperm were cryopreserved with dimethylacetamide (DMA) concentrations ranging from 6% to 26%. Experiments evaluated the efficacy of (1) rapid, moderate and slow cooling rates, (2) rapid and slow thawing rates, and (3) final volume of semen frozen (0.2 mL compared to 0.5 mL). For crane sperm only, additional experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of sucrose on cryosurvival. The functionality of frozen/thawed crane sperm was evaluated by fertility trials. For all studies, sperm viability was assessed using the nigrosin-eosin stain. Higher percentages of crane and turkey sperm maintained intact membranes when frozen with moderate or slow cooling rates compared to rapid cooling rates (P<0.05), regardless of DMA concentration. Turkey sperm viability was not affected by thawing rate at any DMA concentration (P>0.05). Crane sperm viability was only affected by thawing rate for the 24% DMA treatment, where moderate thawing was better than slow thawing (P<0.05). Sperm viability was not affected by the semen volume used for freezing for either species (P>0.05). The percentage of membrane-intact crane sperm at lower DMA concentrations was improved by addition of 0.1M sucrose (P<0.05) but not 0.29 M NaCl. The mean fertility rate from frozen/thawed crane semen was 57.5%, and 71.4% of the fertile eggs hatched. The viability of crane sperm was always greater than turkey sperm, regardless of cooling rate, thawing rate or volume of semen frozen. These data verify avian-specific differences in sperm cryosurvival, further emphasize the need for species specific studies to optimize cryopreservation protocols.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22406423     DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Reprod Sci        ISSN: 0378-4320            Impact factor:   2.145


  6 in total

Review 1.  Purinergic signalling in the reproductive system in health and disease.

Authors:  Geoffrey Burnstock
Journal:  Purinergic Signal       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.765

2.  Simple and effective methods of freezing capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus L.) semen.

Authors:  Artur Kowalczyk; Ewa Łukaszewicz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Sucrose increases the quality and fertilizing ability of cryopreserved chicken sperms in contrast to raffinose.

Authors:  Pachara Thananurak; Napapach Chuaychu-Noo; Aurore Thélie; Yupin Phasuk; Thevin Vongpralub; Elisabeth Blesbois
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Optimization of Sperm Cryopreservation Protocol for Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus).

Authors:  Beatriz Cardoso; Irene Sánchez-Ajofrín; Cristina Castaño; Olga García-Álvarez; Milagros Cristina Esteso; Alejandro Maroto-Morales; María Iniesta-Cuerda; José Julián Garde; Julián Santiago-Moreno; Ana Josefa Soler
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Finding an Effective Freezing Protocol for Turkey Semen: Benefits of Ficoll as Non-Permeant Cryoprotectant and 1:4 as Dilution Rate.

Authors:  Michele Di Iorio; Giusy Rusco; Roberta Iampietro; Maria Antonietta Colonna; Luisa Zaniboni; Silvia Cerolini; Nicolaia Iaffaldano
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Sperm Cryopreservation in American Flamingo (Phoenicopterus Ruber): Influence of Cryoprotectants and Seminal Plasma Removal.

Authors:  María Gemma Millán de la Blanca; Eva Martínez-Nevado; Cristina Castaño; Juncal García; Berenice Bernal; Adolfo Toledano-Díaz; Milagros Cristina Esteso; Paula Bóveda; Lucía Martínez-Fresneda; Antonio López-Sebastián; Julián Santiago-Moreno
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.