Characteristics of frozen thawed semen in predicting the fertility of buffalo bulls

D KUMAR; PRADEEP KUMAR; PAWAN SINGH; S P YADAV; SUSHEEL KUMAR SARKAR; A BHARADWAJ; P S YADAV

doi:10.56093/ijans.v84i4.39838

Authors

D KUMAR Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
PRADEEP KUMAR Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
PAWAN SINGH Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
S P YADAV Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
SUSHEEL KUMAR SARKAR Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
A BHARADWAJ Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India
P S YADAV Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar, Haryana 125 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v84i4.39838

Keywords:

Acrosome integrity, Apoptosis, CASA, DNA integrity, Fertility, Plasma membrane integrity, Sperm motility

Abstract

Information regarding the fertility index in relation to sperm attributes, which helps in the selection of future breeding bulls are meager in buffaloes. The present study was conducted to measure the differences in motility characteristics, head biometry, acrosome, plasma membrane and DNA of cryopreserved semen of fertile and sub- fertile buffalo bulls. The fertility of bulls was classified on the basis of conception rates (CR), where bulls having CR 28–35% and >55% were considered as sub-fertile and fertile bulls respectively. Computer assisted semen analyzer was used for motility and viability studies. Total motility, average path velocity (VAP), straight linear velocity (VSL) and curvilinear velocity (VCL) of sperm for fertile bulls were significantly higher than sub-fertile bulls. Significant differences were found in the length and width of sperm head between the 2 groups. The percentage of intactness of sperm acrosome of fertile bulls was significantly higher than sub-fertile bulls. The percentage of apoptotic sperm differed significantly between fertile and sub-fertile bulls. The sperm DNA integrity of fertile and sub-fertile bulls was not significantly different. In conclusion, the total motility, VAP, VCL, VSL, length and width of sperm head, acrosome integrity and percentage of apoptotic sperm, are useful for evaluating bulls’ semen quality to reduce the risk of using semen of poor-fertility bulls in AI programme.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anzar M, He L, Buhr M M, Kroetsch T G and Pauls K P. 2002. Sperm apoptosis in fresh and cryopreserved bull semen detected by flow cytometry and its relationship with fertility. Biology of Reproduction 66: 354–60.

Boersma A, Raßhofer R and Stolla R. 2001. Influence of sample preparation, staining procedure and analysis conditions on bull sperm head morphometry using the morphology analyzer integrated visual optical system. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 36: 222–29.

Farrell P B, Presicce D A, Brockett C C and Foote R H. 1998. Quantiûcation of bull sperm characteristics measured by computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and the relationship to fertility. Theriogenology 49: 871–79.

Gillan L, Evans G and Maxwell W M. 2005. Flow cytometric evaluation of sperm parameters in relation to fertility potential. Theriogenology 63: 445–57.

Gillan L, Kroetsch T, Maxwell W M C and Evans G. 2008. Assessment of in vitro sperm characteristics in relation to fertility in dairy bulls. Animal Reproduction Science 103: 201– 14.

Gravance C G, Casey M E and Casey P J. 2009. Pre-freeze bull sperm head morphometry related to post-thaw fertility. Animal Reproduction Science 114: 81–88.

Hallap T, Jaakma U and Rodriguez-Martinez H. 2006. Changes in semen quality in estonian holstein AI bulls at 3, 5 and 7 years of age. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41: 214–18.

Hammerstedt R H, Graham J K and Nolan J P. 1990. Cryopreservation of mammalian sperm: what we ask them to survive. Journal of Andrology 11: 73–88.

Kadirvel G, Periasamy S and Kumar S. 2012. Effect of cryopreservation on apoptotic-like events and its relationship with cryocapacitation of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) sperm. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 47:143–50.

Larson B and Rodriguez-Martinez H. 2000. Can we use fertilization tests to predict semen fertility? Animal Reproduction Science 60: 327–36.

Martin S J, Reutelingsperger C P M, McGahon A J, Rader J A, Van-Schie R C A A, LaFace D M and Green D R. 1995. Early redistribution of plasma membrane phosphatidylserine is a general feature of apoptosis regardless of the initiating stimulus: inhibition by over expression of Bcl-2 and Abl. Journal of Experimental Medicine 182: 545–56.

Mendoza C, Carreras A, Moos J and Tesarik J. 1992. Distinction between true acrosome reaction and degenerative acrosome loss by a one-step staining method using Pisum sativum agglutinin. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 95: 755–63.

Seli E, Gardner D K, Schoolcraft W B, Moffatt O and Sakkas D. 2004. Extent of nuclear DNA damage in ejaculated spermatozoa impacts on blastocysts development after in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 82: 378–83.

Shen H M, Dai J, Chia S E, Lim A and Ong C N. 2002. Detection of apoptotic alterations in sperm in subfertile patients and their correlations with sperm quality. Human Reproduction 17: 1266–73.

Silva P F and Gadella B M. 2006. Detection of damage in mammalian sperm cells. Theriogenology 65: 958–78.

Singh P, Kumar D, Kumar P, Singh I and Yadav P S. 2013. Cryopreservation and quality assessment of buffalo bull semen collected from farmer’s doorstep. Agricultural Research 2: 148–52.

Takahashi K, Wetzels A M, Goverde H J, Bastaans B A, Janssen H J and Rolland R. 1992. The kinetics of the acrosome reaction of human spermatozoa and its correlation with in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 57: 889–94.

Verstegen J, Jguer-Ouada and Onclin K. 2002. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57: 149–79.

Woolveridge I and Morris I D. 2000. Apoptosis in male reproductive toxicology. Apoptosis in Toxicology. pp. 72–87. (Ed.) Roberts R. Taylor and Francis, New York, London.