| Literature DB >> 36114517 |
Jordi Ribas-Maynou1,2,3, Ariadna Delgado-Bermúdez4,5, Yentel Mateo-Otero4,5, Estel Viñolas4,5, Carlos O Hidalgo6, W Steven Ward7, Marc Yeste4,5,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The analysis of chromatin integrity has become an important determinant of sperm quality. In frozen-thawed bovine sperm, neither the sequence of post-thaw injury events nor the dynamics of different types of sperm DNA breaks are well understood. The aim of the present work was to describe such sperm degradation aftermath focusing on DNA damage dynamics, and to assess if this parameter can predict pregnancy rates in cattle.Entities:
Keywords: Cattle; Chromatin; Comet test; DNA damage; Fertility; Sperm; Sperm quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 36114517 PMCID: PMC9482281 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-022-00754-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Effects of post-thawing incubation time on single- and double-stranded sperm DNA damage
| Items | T = 0 h | T = 2 h | T = 4 h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Neutral Comet | ||||
| dsDNA OTM | ||||
| Neutral Comet OTM, AU | 1.31 ± 0.20 | 1.44 ± 0.27 | 1.48 ± 0.29 | n.s. |
| %dsSDF | ||||
| Low DNA damage, % | 99.96 ± 0.20 | 97.38 ± 1.95* | 97.11 ± 3.25* | < 0.0001 |
| High DNA damage, % | 0.04 ± 0.20 | 2.62 ± 1.95* | 2.89 ± 3.25* | < 0.0001 |
| Alkaline Comet | ||||
| ssDNA+dsDNA OTM | ||||
| Alkaline Comet OTM, AU | 15.57 ± 5.20 | 16.80 ± 5.59 | 28.38 ± 7.82*# | < 0.0001 |
| %ssDNA+dsDNA | ||||
| Low DNA damage, % | 74.12 ± 24.21 | 67.09 ± 27.04 | 24.97 ± 22.12*# | < 0.0001 |
| Moderate DNA damage, % | 25.05 ± 22.93 | 26.42 ± 21.20 | 55.41 ± 18.55*# | < 0.001 |
| High DNA damage, % | 0.83 ± 2.07 | 6.49 ± 10.46* | 19.62 ± 20.47*# | < 0.0001 |
| Moderate + high DNA damage, % | 25.88 ± 24.21 | 32.91 ± 27.04 | 75.03 ± 22.12*# | < 0.0001 |
OTM Olive tail moment, indicating DNA breaks intensity, %dsSDF Percentage of sperm with double-stranded DNA fragmentation, %ssSDF Percentage of sperm with single-stranded DNA fragmentation, n.s. non-statistically significant differences
*Differences compared to 0 h (P < 0.01)
#Differences compared to 2 h (P < 0.01)
Fig. 1Rates of increase or decrease between the two periods for A the extent of DNA damage, and B the percentage of sperm with fragmented DNA, evaluated with alkaline and neutral Comet assays
Effects of post-thawing incubation time on sperm chromatin parameters
| Items | T = 0 h | T = 2 h | T = 4 h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| DNA decondensation (halo test) | ||||
| Sperm with increased DNA decondensation, % | 2.87 ± 1.56 | 3.03 ± 1.06 | 3.53 ± 1.78 | n.s. |
| Sperm protamination (CMA3) | ||||
| Intensity of chromatin deprotamination, AU | 802.04 ± 41.03 | 853.12 ± 36.20* | 916.18 ± 35.83*# | < 0.0001 |
| Sperm with poor protamination, %CMA3+ | 16.76 ± 10.07 | 24.47 ± 7.68* | 29.71 ± 6.61*# | < 0.0001 |
n.s. non-statistically significant differences
*Differences compared to 0 h (P < 0.05)
#Differences compared to 2 h (P < 0.05)
Fig. 2Rates of increase or decrease between the two periods for A sperm chromatin status, and B sperm quality, ROS and functionality parameters
Effects of post-thawing incubation time on sperm morphology, viability, motility and kinematic parameters
| Items | T = 0 h | T = 2 h | T = 4 h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Morphology | ||||
| Normal morphology, % | 88.97 ± 3.22 | |||
| Abnormal morphology, % | 11.05 ± 3.22 | |||
| Head abnormalities | 0.85 ± 0.80 | |||
| Cytoplasmic droplets | 0.64 ± 0.76 | |||
| Tail abnormalities | 6.83 ± 2.93 | |||
| Isolated heads | 2.72 ± 1.61 | |||
| Viability | ||||
| Viable sperm, % | 50.95 ± 9.55 | 41.97 ± 9.03* | 36.96 ± 10.76* | < 0.0001 |
| Motility | ||||
| Progressive Motility, % | 27.96 ± 9.35 | 22.35 ± 9.36* | 12.96 ± 9.02*# | < 0.0001 |
| Non-progressive Motility, % | 19.92 ± 7.63 | 16.23 ± 7.62* | 13.13 ± 9.30* | < 0.05 |
| Total Motility, % | 47.89 ± 14.20 | 38.58 ± 15.55* | 26.09 ± 16.94*# | < 0.001 |
| Kinematic parameters | ||||
| Fast velocity, % | 31.00 ± 11.48 | 24.22 ± 11.32* | 12.62 ± 10.10*# | < 0.001 |
| Medium velocity, % | 8.89 ± 2.74 | 8.48 ± 2.98 | 8.30 ± 4.16 | n.s. |
| Slow velocity, % | 8.76 ± 7.97 | 5.88 ± 4.13* | 5.16 ± 5.57* | < 0.05 |
| VCL, μm/s | 81.97 ± 16.29 | 73.22 ± 13.23* | 51.96 ± 13.99*# | < 0.01 |
| VSL, μm/s | 43.68 ± 13.07 | 37.63 ± 10.61 | 22.39 ± 10.39*# | < 0.001 |
| VAP, μm/s | 50.10 ± 13.09 | 43.68 ± 10.63* | 28.42 ± 10.17*# | < 0.01 |
| LIN, % | 52.37 ± 6.82 | 50.38 ± 7.20 | 41.08 ± 9.37*# | < 0.01 |
| STR, % | 86.26 ± 4.79 | 85.07 ± 5.73 | 75.76 ± 10.60*# | < 0.01 |
| WOB, % | 60.49 ± 5.35 | 58.92 ± 5.29 | 53.61 ± 5.59*# | < 0.01 |
| ALH, μm | 3.11 ± 0.49 | 2.77 ± 0.42* | 2.17 ± 0.52*# | < 0.01 |
| BCF, Hz | 12.28 ± 1.36 | 11.99 ± 1.76 | 8.80 ± 3.65*# | < 0.01 |
n.s. non-statistically significant differences
*Differences compared to 0 h (P < 0.05)
#Differences compared to 2 h (P < 0.05)
Effects of post-thawing incubation time on sperm functionality parameters at different evaluation times
| Items | T = 0 h | T = 2 h | T = 4 h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Intracellular superoxides | ||||
| Sperm with high superoxides, %E+ | 47.94 ± 9.09 | 54.26 ± 8.51* | 55.78 ± 9.33* | < 0.01 |
| Viable sperm with high superoxides, %E+/YO-PRO-1− | 4.04 ± 2.87 | 3.03 ± 1.60 | 0.85 ± 0.62*# | < 0.01 |
| Viable sperm with low superoxides, %E−/YO-PRO-1− | 47.31 ± 8.78 | 43.31 ± 8.18* | 41.60 ± 9.08* | < 0.01 |
| Non-viable sperm with high superoxides, %E+/YO-PRO-1+ | 43.91 ± 8.75 | 51.23 ± 8.83* | 54.93 ± 9.56* | < 0.01 |
| Non-viable sperm with low superoxides, %E−/YO-PRO-1+ | 4.75 ± 3.78 | 2.43 ± 0.57* | 2.62 ± 0.75* | < 0.05 |
| Intracellular ROS | ||||
| Sperm with high ROS, %DCF+ | 6.13 ± 4.83 | 4.51 ± 3.24 | 2.44 ± 2.31*# | < 0.01 |
| Viable sperm with high ROS, %DCF+/PI− | 5.61 ± 4.79 | 3.96 ± 3.24 | 1.91 ± 2.30*# | < 0.01 |
| Viable sperm with low ROS, %DCF−/PI− | 44.84 ± 10.31 | 36.69 ± 9.58* | 33.91 ± 12.98* | < 0.0001 |
| Non-viable sperm with high ROS, %DCF+/PI+ | 0.52 ± 0.09 | 0.55 ± 0.08 | 0.53 ± 0.08 | n.s. |
| Non-viable sperm with low ROS, %DCF−/PI+ | 49.03 ± 10.82 | 58.79 ± 8.90* | 63.65 ± 13.23*# | < 0.0001 |
| Intracellular calcium | ||||
| Sperm with high intracellular calcium, %F3+ | 59.66 ± 18.09 | 79.00 ± 10.28* | 89.26 ± 9.27*# | < 0.01 |
| Viable sperm with high intracellular calcium, %F3+/PI− | 13.46 ± 13.84 | 23.06 ± 11.60 | 27.88 ± 14.50*# | < 0.05 |
| Viable sperm with low intracellular calcium, %F3−/PI− | 37.42 ± 16.94 | 20.07 ± 9.92* | 10.19 ± 9.02*# | < 0.001 |
| Non-viable sperm with high intracellular calcium, %F3+/PI+ | 46.20 ± 9.69 | 55.94 ± 8.49* | 61.38 ± 10.70*# | < 0.001 |
| Non-viable sperm with low intracellular calcium, %F3−/PI+ | 2.92 ± 2.37 | 0.93 ± 0.83* | 0.56 ± 0.39* | < 0.001 |
n.s. non-statistically significant differences
*Differences compared to 0 h (P < 0.05)
#Differences compared to 2 h (P < 0.05)
Statistically significant correlations between the dynamic and static parameters and 90-d NRR
| Items | 95% Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic parameters | |||
| No statistically significant correlations | |||
| Static parameters | |||
| T0 Alkaline Comet, % High SDF | − 0.563 | −0.788 to − 0.204 | 0.003 |
| T0 Progressive Motility, % | 0.511 | 0.133 to 0.759 | 0.009 |
| T0 Fast velocity, % | 0.489 | 0.104 to 0.746 | 0.013 |
| T2 Progressive motility, % | 0.509 | 0.072 to 0.782 | 0.022 |
| T2 Total motility, % | 0.512 | 0.076 to 0.783 | 0.021 |
| T2 Fast velocity, % | 0.469 | 0.018 to 0.760 | 0.037 |
| T4 Sperm with high ROS, %DCF+ | 0.553 | 0.189 to 0.782 | 0.004 |
| T4 Viable sperm with high ROS, DCF+/PI- | 0.564 | 0.204 to 0.788 | 0.003 |
Fig. 3Schematic representation of the rates of increase/decrease for each parameter. Arrows in grey mean no variation in rates (increase or decrease), whereas colored arrows show how those rates were modified over post-thawing incubation time; the more intense the color, the higher the rate. Viability, double-stranded DNA breaks and intracellular superoxides exhibited a higher rate of decrease during the first period, whereas global DNA damage presented a higher rate of increase during the second period