4.3 Article

Successful recovery of motile and viable boar sperm after vitrification with different methods (pearls and mini straws) using sucrose as a cryoprotectant

Journal

CRYOBIOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2023.104583

Keywords

Cryopreservation; Slow freezing; Vitrification; Motility; Boar; Spermatozoa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vitrification of boar sperm by direct contact with liquid nitrogen is increasingly popular. Comparing the pearl and mini-straw methods of vitrification, the pearl method was found to better preserve the viability and motility of the sperm samples.
Vitrification of sperm by direct contact with liquid nitrogen is increasing in popularity as an alternative to conventional (slow) freezing. Although slow freezing is very challenging in boar sperm cryopreservation, this is currently the standard method used. We compared vitrification in pearls and in mini straws using the in vitro fertilization media Porcine Gamete Media with 0.3 M sucrose with the standard (slow) method used to preserve boar sperm. Both vitrification methods reduced the viability of the sperm sample more than slow freezing (42.2 +/- 4.3% total motility and 71.4 +/- 2.3% alive), however, both protocols allowed for the successful recovery of the sperm samples. By comparing two different methods of vitrification and two different methods of post-thaw preparation we were able to determine the optimal vitrification-thaw protocol for boar sperm. When comparing pearls and mini-straws, the smaller liquid volume associated with pearls had a positive effect on the survivability of the samples, reducing sperm DNA damage (1.2 +/- 0.2% vs. 5.1 +/- 0.1.7%) and preserving motility (26.15 +/- 2.8% vs 9.39 +/- 0.9%) after thawing. In conclusion, the pearl method was the most suitable of the vitrification techniques for use with boar sperm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available