4.4 Article

Thermoresistance sperm tests are not predictive of potential fertility for cryopreserved bull semen

期刊

ANIMAL REPRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 113, 期 1-4, 页码 279-282

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.06.009

关键词

Cattle; Frozen semen; Thermoresistance

资金

  1. FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different studies demonstrate positive correlations between seminal variables determined in the laboratory and subsequent fertility after artificial insemination. It is clear, however, that there is still a deficiency in predicting in vivo fertility results of semen samples. The present study intended to verify the efficiency of rapid and slow thermoresistance tests in predicting fertility of frozen semen of bulls. Sperm from 64 ejaculates of 39 Nelore bulls (Bos indicus), aged 2-10 years, were cryopreserved in 0.5mL straws. Thawed straws containing 30 x 10(6) sperm were analyzed for seminal variables in the laboratory and used to inseminate 4920 cows to evaluate fertility in the field. The ejaculates were frozen in a Tris-based extender and samples were evaluated for total motility after rapid (46 degrees C/30 min) and slow (38 degrees C/5 h) thermoresistance tests by conventional and computerized (CASA) methods. Sperm samples were grouped according to their ability to retain motility after thermoresistance testing: group 0 (0% motility), group 1 (1-20% total motility), group 2 (21-40% total motility) and group 3 (>40% total motility). Correlation and association between these groups and fertility diagnosed by rectal palpation at 90 days were verified. Chisquare test demonstrated no association between motility groups and fertility (P>0.25) and both rapid and slow thermoresistance tests had a lesser correlation to fertility (r=0.11 and 0.14, respectively). These results demonstrated that these tests are not reliable in predicting in vivo behavior of bull frozen semen and are not effective to estimate fertility. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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