4.7 Article

Compensability of an enhanced incidence of spermatozoa with cytoplasmic droplets in boar semen for use in artificial insemination: a single cell approach

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26020-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Association for Bioeconomy Research (FBF e.V., Bonn, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This single cell study found that semen samples from boars with a higher incidence of sperm with a retained cytoplasmic droplet (CD) had fewer sperm with CD but a higher total sperm count. Morphologically normal sperm from semen samples with and without CD had similar responses to motility stimulators and viability rates. The presence of CD in sperm did not affect sperm viability.
This single cell study aimed to clarify whether an elevated incidence of sperm with a retained cytoplasmic droplet (CD) can be compensated by a higher sperm number in boar semen doses to maintain fertility. Cluster analysis of motile spermatozoa (ten boars) revealed that spermatozoa with a CD are underrepresented in the fast, linearly moving sperm cohort compared to morphologically normal sperm. Nonetheless, the response to the motility stimulator procaine was barely affected in spermatozoa with distal CD (Cramer's V = 0.14), but moderately affected in sperm with proximal CD (V = 0.28). Viability was lower in sperm with distal CD (p < 0.05) but not with proximal CD compared to normal sperm during 168 h storage of extended semen samples (n = 11) and subsequent thermic stress. Morphologically normal sperm from normospermic samples (n = 10) or samples with a high incidence (& GE; 15%) of sperm with CD (n = 9) had similar motility patterns and responses to procaine. The origin of morphologically normal sperm had no effect on sperm viability (p > 0.05; n = 26). In conclusion, a moderately enhanced prevalence of sperm with CD seems to be compensable by an increase in sperm numbers in boar semen doses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available