4.2 Article

Sperm quality in frozen beef and dairy bull semen

期刊

ACTA VETERINARIA SCANDINAVICA
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13028-018-0396-2

关键词

Chromatin integrity; Membrane integrity; Mitochondrial membrane potential; Motility; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. Swedish Farmers' Association (Stiftelsen Lantbruksforskning, Stockholm, Sweden)
  2. USAMV IASI, Romania, POSDRU PROJECT [CPP107-DMI1/5/S/77222]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is speculation that beef bull semen quality is inferior to that of dairy bulls although few scientific studies are available in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate sperm quality in beef bull semen and to determine which parameters could be indicative of fertility after insemination. Sperm quality, assessed by computer assisted sperm motility analysis and flow cytometric evaluation of membrane integrity, levels of reactive oxygen species, mitochondrial membrane potential, acrosome status and DNA fragmentation index, was evaluated in beef and dairy bull semen. Results: For beef bulls, normal morphology (r = 0.62, P<0.05) and WOBBLE (r = 0.57, P<0.05) were significantly correlated with 56-day non-return rate, whereas sperm quality was not significantly correlated with the fertility index score for dairy bulls. Membrane integrity (46 +/- 8.0% versus 40 +/- 11%, P<0.05), normal morphology (87 +/- 6% versus 76 +/- 8%; P<0.05), and high respiratory activity (52 +/- 13 versus 12 +/- 4%; P <0.001) were higher for dairy bulls than for beef bulls. The DNA fragmentation index was lower for dairy bull spermatozoa than beef (3.8 +/- 1.1% versus 6.1 +/- 2.9%; P<0.01), whereas some sperm kinematics were higher. Multivariate analysis indicated that type of bull (beef versus dairy) had an impact on sperm quality. Conclusions: Different assays of sperm quality may be needed for appropriate analysis of beef and dairy bull semen. These finding could be important for cattle breeding stations when evaluating semen quality.

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