4.4 Article

Investigation into Association and Expression of PLCz and COX-2 as Candidate Genes for Boar Sperm Quality and Fertility

Journal

REPRODUCTION IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 213-223

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01831.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. FBF (Forderverein Biotechnologieforschung e. V., Bonn, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phospholipase C zeta (PLCz) and cyclooxygenase isoenzyme type 2 (COX-2) are important in spermatogenesis, but their effect has not yet confirmed in pigs. Therefore, this study was aimed to analyse their association with sperm quality and fertility and to identify the mRNA and protein expression in boars reproductive tissues. DNA samples from 231 Pietrain (PI) and 109 Pietrain x Hampshire (PIHA) pigs with records of sperm quality [sperm concentration (SCON), motility, semen volume, plasma droplet and abnormal spermatozoa rate] and fertility (non-return rate and number of piglet born alive) traits were available. A SNP in non-coding region of PLCz g.158 A > C was associated with SCON (p < 0.05) in PIHA population while the polymorphism of COX-2 g.68 G > A in 3' UTR was not associated with any traits. For mRNA and protein expression study, a total of six boars were divided into two groups with G-I and G-II, where G-I was characterized for relatively better sperm quality. Both genes expressed higher in reproductive tissues compared with non-reproductive tissues. Phospholipase C zeta mRNA expressed higher in testis (p < 0.01), all parts of epididymis and spermatozoa from G-I, while COX-2 expressed higher in testis (p < 0.05), head and body of epididymis (p < 0.01), and spermatozoa from G-II boar. Both proteins were localized in Leydig cells and spermatozoa. These results might shed light on roles of these genes in spermatogenesis as candidate for boar sperm quality and fertility, but still the lack of association across populations should be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available