4.4 Article

Comparative Fertility of Freshly Collected vs Frozen-Thawed Semen with Laparoscopic Oviductal Artificial Insemination in Domestic Cats

期刊

REPRODUCTION IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 284-288

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/rda.12038

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute of Museum and Library Sciences (IMLS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contents Artificial insemination (AI) is potentially invaluable as an adjunct to natural breeding for the conservation management of non-domestic felid populations. The efficacy of AI, however, must be substantially improved for applied use, especially when using frozen semen. Our recent advances in using laparoscopic oviductal AI (LO-AI) with low sperm numbers and freezing of cat semen in a soy lecithinbased cryoprotectant medium suggest that combining these two approaches might improve pregnancy outcomes with frozenthawed spermatozoa. In this study, our objectives were to (i) assess the effect of two gonadotropin dosages (100 vs 150IU eCG) on ovarian response in domestic cats and (ii) compare the relative fertility of frozenthawed and fresh semen in vivo following LO-AI. All 16 females ovulated after gonadotropin treatment and were inseminated with fresh semen from one male and frozenthawed semen from a second male. There were no differences between gonadotropin dosages in CL number, pregnancy percentage or litter size. Half (8/16) of the females conceived, with seven females giving birth to a total of 36 offspring. Paternity analysis showed that more kittens resulted from LO-AI with fresh (28/36, 78%) than frozenthawed (8/36, 22%) semen, possibly due to impaired motility and longevity of thawed sperm. These results demonstrated that viable offspring can be produced by AI using semen frozen in a soy lecithinbased medium. Insemination with greater numbers of frozenthawed spermatozoa, combined with further refinement of cat sperm cryopreservation methods, may be necessary to optimize pregnancy success with LO-AI in domestic and nondomestic cats.

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

4.4
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