4.2 Article

Fresh, equilibrated and post-thaw sperm quality of Brycon orbignyanus (Valenciennes, 1850) and Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1837) treated with either salmon GnRHa and domperidone or pituitary extract

期刊

NEOTROPICAL ICHTHYOLOGY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 157-164

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA ICTIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/1982-0224-20140066

关键词

CASA; Characiformes; cryopreservation; Ovaprim (TM); sperm motility

类别

资金

  1. Brazilian fostering agency CNPq [PQ 302434/2011-9, 554950/2009-0, 142816/2009-4, 471393/2011-8]
  2. Brazilian fostering agency ANEEL PD Furnas [017965]
  3. Brazilian fostering agency FAPEMIG [PPM 00038-13, BPD 00167-12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of reduced doses of Ovaprim (TM) (GnRHa + domperidone) on sperm release of Brycon orbignyanus and Prochilodus lineatus were evaluated. Furthermore, sperm quality was compared among fresh, equilibrated and postthaw samples. Males received a single and reduced dose of Ovaprim (TM) (0.125 or 0.25 ml/kg); control males received pituitary extract (cPE; 3 mg/kg). Fresh sperm was evaluated for volume, concentration, seminal plasma osmolality and seminal plasma pH. Then sperm was diluted in a freezing medium, equilibrated for 15-20 min and frozen in nitrogen vapor vessel (dry-shipper). Sperm motility was analyzed during 60 s post-activation in fresh, equilibrated and post-thaw samples. Sperm quality of males treated with Ovaprim (TM) (both doses) were not different from that of cPE-treated males, thus these data were pooled. In B. orbignyanus, motility was higher in fresh (99%) than in equilibrated sperm (81%); post-thaw motility dropped to 42%. In P. lineatus, motility was similar in fresh (99%) and equilibrated sperm (92%); post-thaw motility was 73%. Motility decreased as a function of time post-activation, and this decrease was significant after 60 s in fresh and equilibrated sperm, and as soon as 30 s in post-thaw sperm, in both species. Ovaprim (TM) at 1/4 of the recommended dose can successfully replace cPE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据