| Literature DB >> 26949533 |
L S Castro1, T R S Hamilton1, C M Mendes2, M Nichi3, V H Barnabe3, J A Visintin2, M E O A Assumpção1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to improve the efficiency of bovine sperm cryopreservation process, it is important to understand how spermatozoa respond to differences in temperature as well as the ability to recover its own metabolism. The combination between flow cytometry approach and antioxidant enzymes activity allows a more sensible evaluation of sperm cell during cryopreservation. The aim of this study was to evaluate sperm attributes and antioxidant enzymes activity during different stages of cryopreservation process. Semen samples from Holstein bulls (n = 4) were separated in 3 treatments: fresh (37 °C); cooled (5 °C); and thawed. Evaluation occurred at 0 h and 2 h after incubation. Membrane integrity, mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) and DNA damages were evaluated by flow cytometry; activities of antioxidant enzymes such as catalase, superoxide dismutase and gluthatione peroxidase were measured by spectrofotometry.Entities:
Keywords: Bovine; DNA integrity; JC-1; Sperm viability
Year: 2016 PMID: 26949533 PMCID: PMC4779270 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-016-0076-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Fig. 1Graph displaying freezing curve with arrows indicating the point for evaluation of each sample group
Fig. 2Evaluation of sperm profile separated by treatment group. a DNA damage (SCSAm); b High mitochondrial potential (HMP); c medium mitochondrial potential (MMP); d intact membrane and intact acrosome (IMIA); e intact membrane and damaged acrosome (IMDA); f damaged membrane and intact acrosome (DMIA); g damaged membrane and damaged acrosome (DMDA); h damaged membrane (DM); i damaged acrosome (DA). ab Different letters indicate differences between treatments
Fig. 3Evaluation of sperm profile separated by incubation period. a DNA damage (SCSAm); b intact membrane and intact acrosome (IMIA). ab Different letters indicate differences between incubation time
Correlation (r) and significance level (p) between measured variables
| Fresh | Cooled | Thawed | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOD | HMP | MMP | LMP | IMIA | SOD | HMP | MMP | LMP | IMIA | SOD | HMP | MMP | LMP | IMIA | |
| GPX | ns | ns | 0.448** | ns | −0.530** | ns | −0.422** | 0.465** | ns | −0.527** | ns | ns | 0.338* | ns | −0.425** |
| SOD | 0.362* | ns | ns | ns | ns | −0.383* | ns | 0.399* | ns | ns | ns | −0.424** | |||
| HMP | ns | −0.705** | ns | −0.394* | −0.388* | 0.510** | ns | −0.464** | 0.469** | ||||||
| MMP | −0.360* | −0.541** | −0.690** | −0.420** | −0.960** | ns | |||||||||
| LMP | ns | ns | ns | ||||||||||||
GPX glutathione peroxidase, SOD superoxide dismutase, HMP high mitochondrial potential, MMP medium mitochondrial potential, LMP low mitochondrial potential, IMIA intact membrane and intact acrosome
ns not significant
*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01