4.6 Article

Droplet vitrification versus straw cryopreservation for spermatozoa banking in Persian sturgeon (Acipenser persicus) from metabolite point of view

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 110-115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.02.031

关键词

Cryopreservation; Vitrification; Persian sturgeon; Spermatozoa; H-1 NMR spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Persian sturgeon (Acipenser persicus), a commercially valuable and critically endangered fish species has been suffering considerable declines in populations in the nature due to over-fishing, habitat destruction and marine pollution during past decades. Since there were no achievements in artificial reproduction programs, genetic resource banking such as gametes and embryo cryopreservation can be a good strategy however, reported resulting gamete qualities were considerably low. In the present study, the metabolome content of Persian sturgeon spermatozoa was investigated during common straw cryopreservation and novel droplet vitrification by the use of H-1 NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) spectroscopy. Univariate (ANOVA) and multivariate (PCA) analysis showed significant differences in the metabolic profiles between cryopreserved and fresh spermatozoa samples. Adenine, creatine, creatine phosphate, glucose, guanidoacetate, lactate, N, N-dimethylglycine, and glycine levels showed no significant differences between these two cryopreservation techniques suggesting these metabolites and their corresponding enzymes and chemical pathways are so vulnerable to the temperature changes and even higher cooling rate in droplet vitrification could not conserve them. However, significant differences were found in acetate, creatinine, betaine, beta-alanine and trimethylamine N-oxide suggesting better efficiency of droplet vitrification in protection of some metabolites associated to spermatozoa energetics, redox balance and hypoxia compensation compared to straw cryopreservation. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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