Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T09:55:27.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The combination of kinetic and flow cytometric semen parameters as a tool to predict fertility in cryopreserved bull semen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2017

T. M. Gliozzi
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Lodi Unit, National Research Council, via Einstein, 26900 Lodi, Italy
F. Turri
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Lodi Unit, National Research Council, via Einstein, 26900 Lodi, Italy
S. Manes
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Lodi Unit, National Research Council, via Einstein, 26900 Lodi, Italy
C. Cassinelli
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Lodi Unit, National Research Council, via Einstein, 26900 Lodi, Italy
F. Pizzi*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Lodi Unit, National Research Council, via Einstein, 26900 Lodi, Italy
*
Get access

Abstract

Within recent years, there has been growing interest in the prediction of bull fertility through in vitro assessment of semen quality. A model for fertility prediction based on early evaluation of semen quality parameters, to exclude sires with potentially low fertility from breeding programs, would therefore be useful. The aim of the present study was to identify the most suitable parameters that would provide reliable prediction of fertility. Frozen semen from 18 Italian Holstein-Friesian proven bulls was analyzed using computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) (motility and kinetic parameters) and flow cytometry (FCM) (viability, acrosomal integrity, mitochondrial function, lipid peroxidation, plasma membrane stability and DNA integrity). Bulls were divided into two groups (low and high fertility) based on the estimated relative conception rate (ERCR). Significant differences were found between fertility groups for total motility, active cells, straightness, linearity, viability and percentage of DNA fragmented sperm. Correlations were observed between ERCR and some kinetic parameters, and membrane instability and some DNA integrity indicators. In order to define a model with high relation between semen quality parameters and ERCR, backward stepwise multiple regression analysis was applied. Thus, we obtained a prediction model that explained almost half (R2=0.47, P<0.05) of the variation in the conception rate and included nine variables: five kinetic parameters measured by CASA (total motility, active cells, beat cross frequency, curvilinear velocity and amplitude of lateral head displacement) and four parameters related to DNA integrity evaluated by FCM (degree of chromatin structure abnormality Alpha-T, extent of chromatin structure abnormality (Alpha-T standard deviation), percentage of DNA fragmented sperm and percentage of sperm with high green fluorescence representative of immature cells). A significant relationship (R2=0.84, P<0.05) was observed between real and predicted fertility. Once the accuracy of fertility prediction has been confirmed, the model developed in the present study could be used by artificial insemination centers for bull selection or for elimination of poor fertility ejaculates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Aitken, RJ, Wingate, JK, De Iuliis, GN and McLaughlin, EA 2007. Analysis of lipid peroxidation in human spermatozoa using BODIPY C11 . Molecular Human Reproduction 13, 203211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amann, RP and Hammerstedt, RH 2002. Detection of differences in fertility. Journal of Andrology 23, 317325.Google Scholar
Bailey, JL, Bilodeau, JF and Cormier, N 2000. Semen cryopreservation in domestic animals: a damaging and capacitating phenomenon. Journal of Andrology 21, 17.Google Scholar
Ballachey, BE, Hohenboken, WD and Evenson, DP 1987. Heterogeneity of sperm nuclear chromatin structure and its relationship to bull fertility. Biology of Reproduction 36, 915925.Google Scholar
Bollwein, H, Fuchs, I and Koess, C 2008. Interrelationship between plasma membrane integrity, mitochondrial membrane potential and DNA fragmentation in cryopreserved bovine spermatozoa. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 43, 189195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwers, JFHM and Gadella, BM 2003. In situ detection and localization of lipid peroxidation in individual bovine sperm cells. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 35, 13821391.Google Scholar
Clay, JS and McDaniel, BT 2001. Computing mating bull fertility from DHI nonreturn data. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 12381245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Olmo, E, García-Álvarez, O, Maroto-Morales, A, Ramón, M, Jiménez-Rabadán, P, Iniesta-Cuerda, M, Anel-Lopez, L, Martínez-Pastor, F, Soler, AJ, Garde, JJ and Fernández-Santos, MR 2016. Estrous sheep serum enables in vitro capacitation of ram spermatozoa while preventing caspase activation. Theriogenology 85, 351360.Google Scholar
Evenson, DP 2016. The Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA®) and other sperm DNA fragmentation tests for evaluation of sperm nuclear DNA integrity as related to fertility. Animal Reproduction Science 169, 5675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evenson, D and Jost, L 2000. Sperm chromatin structure assay is useful for fertility assessment. Methods in Cell Science 22, 169189.Google Scholar
Farrell, PB, Presicce, GA, Brockett, CC and Foote, RH 1998. Quantification of bull sperm characteristics measured by computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and the relationship to fertility. Theriogenology 49, 871879.Google Scholar
Fernández-Santos, MR, Martínez-Pastor, F, García-Macías, V, Esteso, MC, Soler, AJ, de Paz, P, Anel, L and Garde, JJ 2007. Extender osmolality and sugar supplementation exert a complex effect on the cryopreservation of Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) epididymal spermatozoa. Theriogenology 67, 738753.Google Scholar
García-Macías, V, de Paz, P, Martínez-Pastor, F, Álvarez, M, Gomes-Alves, S, Bernardo, J, Anel, E and Anel, L 2007. DNA fragmentation assessment by flow cytometry and Sperm-Bos-Halomax (bright-field microscopy and fluorescence microscopy) in bull sperm. International Journal of Andrology 30, 8898.Google Scholar
Gillan, L, Kroetsch, T, Maxwell, WMC and Evans, G 2008. Assessment of in vitro sperm characteristics in relation to fertility in dairy bulls. Animal Reproduction Science 103, 201214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Marín, C, Gosálvez, J and Roy, R 2012. Types, causes, detection and repair of DNA fragmentation in animal and human sperm cells. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 13, 1402614052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gürler, H, Calisici, O, Calisici, D and Bollwein, H 2015. Effects of feeding omega-3-fatty acids on fatty acid composition and quality of bovine sperm and on antioxidative capacity of bovine seminal plasma. Animal Reproduction Science 160, 97104.Google Scholar
Guthrie, HD and Welch, GR 2005. Effects of hypothermic liquid storage and cryopreservation on basal and induced plasma membrane phospholipid disorder and acrosome exocytosis in boar spermatozoa. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 17, 467477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guthrie, HD and Welch, GR 2006. Determination of intracellular reactive oxygen species and high mitochondrial membrane potential in Percoll-treated viable boar sperm using fluorescence-activated flow cytometry. Journal of Animal Science 84, 20892100.Google Scholar
Guthrie, HD and Welch, GR 2007. Use of fluorescence-activated flow cytometry to determine membrane lipid peroxidation during hypothermic liquid storage and freeze-thawing of viable boar sperm loaded with 4,4-difluoro-5-(4-phenyl-1,3-butadienyl)-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene-3-undecanoic acid. Journal of Animal Science 85, 14021411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, NM, Gilbert, GR, Loseth, KJ and Crabo, BG 2000. Correlation between clusterin-positive spermatozoa determined by flow cytometry in bull semen and fertility. Journal of Andrology 21, 887894.Google Scholar
Januskauskas, A, Johannisson, A and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 2003. Subtle membrane changes in cryopreserved bull semen in relation with sperm viability, chromatin structure, and field fertility. Theriogenology 60, 743758.Google Scholar
Januskauskas, A, Johannisson, A, Söderquist, L and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 2000. Assessment of sperm characteristics post-thaw and response to calcium ionophore in relation to fertility in Swedish dairy AI bulls. Theriogenology 53, 859875.Google Scholar
Martínez-Pastor, F, Johannisson, A, Gil, J, Kaabi, M, Anel, L, Paz, P and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 2004. Use of chromatin stability assay, mitochondrial stain JC-1, and fluorometric assessment of plasma membrane to evaluate frozen-thawed ram semen. Animal Reproduction Science 84, 121133.Google Scholar
Martínez Pastor, F, Mata-Campuzano, M, Álvarez-Rodríguez, M, Álvarez, M, Anel, L and de Paz, P 2010. Probes and techniques for sperm evaluation by flow cytometry. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 45 (suppl. 2), 6778.Google Scholar
Oliveira, LZ, de Arruda, RP, de Andrade, AFC, Celeghini, ECC, Reeb, PD, Martins, JPN, dos Santos, RM, Beletti, ME, Peres, RFG, Monteiro, FM and Hossepian de Lima, VFM 2013. Assessment of in vitro sperm characteristics and their importance in the prediction of conception rate in a bovine timed-AI program. Animal Reproduction Science 137, 145155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega Ferrusola, C, González Fernández, L, Morrell, JM, Salazar Sandoval, C, Macías García, B, Rodríguez-Martínez, H, Tapia, JA and Peña, FJ 2009. Lipid peroxidation, assessed with BODIPY-C11, increases after cryopreservation of stallion spermatozoa, is stallion-dependent and is related to apoptotic-like changes. Reproduction 138, 5563.Google Scholar
Petrunkina, AM, Waberski, D, Bollwein, H and Sieme, H 2010. Identifying non-sperm particles during flow cytometric physiological assessment: a simple approach. Theriogenology 73, 9951000.Google Scholar
Puglisi, R, Pozzi, A, Foglio, L, Spanò, M, Eleuteri, P, Grollino, MG, Bongioni, G and Galli, A 2012. The usefulness of combining traditional sperm assessments with in vitro heterospermic insemination to identify bulls of low fertility as estimated in vivo. Animal Reproduction Science 132, 1728.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Martínez, H 2003. Laboratory semen assessment and prediction of fertility: still utopia? Reproduction in Domestic Animals 38, 312318.Google Scholar
Roederer, M 2000. Compensation (an informal perspective). Retrieved on 24 May 2000 from http://www.drmr.com/compensation.Google Scholar
Sellem, E, Broekhuijse, MLWJ, Chevrier, L, Camugli, S, Schmitt, E, Schibler, L and Koenen, EPC 2015. Use of combinations of in vitro quality assessments to predict fertility of bovine semen. Theriogenology 84, 14471454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thundathil, J, Gil, J, Januskauskas, A, Larsson, B, Söderquist, L, Mapletoft, R and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 1999. Relationship between the proportion of capacitated spermatozoa present in frozen-thawed bull semen and fertility with artificial insemination. International Journal of Andrology 22, 366373.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, KE, Haugan, T, Kommisrud, E, Tverdal, A, Flatberg, G, Farstad, W, Evenson, DP and De Angelis, PM 2006. Sperm DNA damage is related to field fertility of semen from young Norwegian Red bulls. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 18, 781788.Google Scholar
Zhang, BR, Larsson, B, Lundeheim, N, Håård, MGH and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 1999. Prediction of bull fertility by combined in vitro assessments of frozen-thawed semen from young dairy bulls entering an AI-programme. International Journal of Andrology 22, 253260.Google Scholar
Zhang, BR, Larsson, B, Lundeheim, N and Rodríguez-Martínez, H 1998. Sperm characteristics and zona pellucida binding in relation to field fertility of frozen-thawed semen from dairy AI bulls. International Journal of Andrology 21, 207216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Gliozzi supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Gliozzi supplementary material(File)
File 35.9 KB