4.6 Article

Influence of the type of semen and morphology of individual sperm cells on the results of ICSI in domestic cats

Journal

THERIOGENOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue -, Pages 140-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.10.031

Keywords

Cats; Urethral semen; Epididymal spermatozoa; Sperm abnormalities; ICSI

Funding

  1. National Center of Research and Development [PBS3/B8/16/2015 ID 247575]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of the type of spermatozoa and of different sperm abnormalities on fertilization and embryo development after ICSI in cats. In Exp I, ICSI was performed using urethral or epididymal spermatozoa collected from 7 tomcats. In Exp. II, epididymal spermatozoa from 16 cats were used for ICSI and an epididymal spermatozoon exhibiting no abnormalities or one with an abnormality was microinjected into an oocyte. Exp. I was performed in 14 replicates and Exp. II was performed in 20 replicates. In both experiments the number of cleaved oocytes, the number of embryos at the morula stage and the number of embryos at the blastocyst stage were evaluated at 24 h, and at 6 and 7 days after ICSI, respectively, and compared between experimental groups. No statistically significant differences (P> 0.05) were observed, either for Exp. I or for Exp. II. The average cleavage rate was 60.2%, morula rate 62.3% and blastocyst rate 19.2% in Exp. I and 51.6%, 66.8% and 25.8% in Exp. II, respectively. The study confirmed that both urethral and epididymal spermatozoa can be used for in vitro fertilization in cats and proved the usefulness of the ICSI method in the case of teratozoospermic males. The study showed that even in severe cases, when almost no normal spermatozoa can be found in the semen, it is possible to obtain embryos using abnormal sperm cells with the same chance of success as for normal spermatozoa. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available