4.5 Article

Within and between breed differences in freezing tolerance and plasma membrane fatty acid composition of boar sperm

期刊

REPRODUCTION
卷 131, 期 5, 页码 887-894

出版社

BIO SCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/rep.1.01049

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The response of sperm to cryopreservation and the fertility of frozen-thawed semen varies between species. Besides species differences in sperm physiology, structure and biochemistry, factors such as sperm transport and female reproductive tract anatomy will affect fertility of frozen-thawed semen. Therefore, studying differences in sperm cryotolerance between breeds and individuals instead of between species may reveal sources of variability in sperm cryotolerance. In the present study, the effect of cooling, re-warming and freezing and thawing on plasma membrane and acrosome integrity of sperm within and between Norwegian Landrace and Duroc breeds was studied. Furthermore, the relation between post-thaw survival rate and fatty acid composition of the sperm plasma membranes was investigated. Flow cytometry assessments of plasma membrane and acrosome integrity revealed no significant differences between breeds; however there were significant male-to-male variations within breeds in post-thaw percentages of live sperm (plasma membrane intact). The most abundant fatty acids in the plasma membranes from both breeds were palmitic acid (16:0), stearic acid (18:0), oleic acid (18:1, n-9), docosapentaenoic acid (22:5, n-6) and docosahexaenoic acid (22:6, n-3). The ratio of Sigma 22:5, n-6 and 22:6, n-3/Sigma all other membrane fatty acids was significantly related to survival rate (plasma membrane integrity) of sperm for both Norwegian Landrace (correlation coefficient (r(s)) = 0.64, P < 0.05) and Duroc (r(s) = 0.67, P < 0.05) boars. In conclusion, male-to-male differences in sperm survival rate after freezing and thawing may be partly related to the amount of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in the sperm plasma membranes.

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

4.5
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